The confrontation in Syria is growing more acute and bloody by the day. At present the current Syrian regime does not seem to be defeated. The struggle is not over and its outcome will much depend on the army, just like in several other Arab countries. The Syrian army so far has remained loyal to the president, ruthlessly suppressing the uprising on his behalf.

       Army and revolution

       The confrontation in Syria is growing more acute and bloody by the day. At present the current Syrian regime does not seem to be defeated. The struggle is not over and its outcome will much depend on the army, just like in several other Arab countries. The Syrian army so far has remained loyal to the president, ruthlessly suppressing the uprising on his behalf. The unrest will continue until the military takes a firm stand. A close look at the army shows that it is not homogenous; it is divided along religious lines. A substantial number of Syrian officers are Sunnis, but Alawis make up the bulk of the officer corps in basic army units.

       The crisis has not yet reached its critical phase, and the regime will not fall tomorrow. The army has not yet had its say, but as events unfold, more and more soldiers will join the rebels. This process has already begun. The more ruthless the crackdown on protestors becomes, the more this will destabilize the army, causing the regime to totter.

       Regime versus opposition

       The ongoing political reforms in Syria should neither be underestimated nor overestimated. These include opening up the political system to other parties. Syria has in fact had a multi-party system since the incumbent president’s father came to power, but the recently decreed bill would purportedly expand the boundaries of Syria’s multi-party system. The new law is actually very similar to the document that established the seven-party Progressive National Front under the guidance of President Hafez Assad.

       The bill says that parties may not be established on religious basis, which precludes the legalization of the Muslim Brotherhood movement as an opposition party. Moreover, the new law does not permit the formation of any political party on tribal basis, which effectively bans Kurdish, Assyrian and other ethnic movements from the political scene. Finally, under the Syrian constitution the Baath party still remains as the ruling force in Syria.

       In short, the new law has serious constraints. It does not do enough to open up the political system in Syria and hence it will not satisfy the opposition.

       As to the Syrian opposition itself – it is not unified. It cannot agree on representatives for the organizations it is establishing and it is being seriously influenced by external forces, for example Turkey, where the opposition has held its meetings. Turkey did its best to prevent Kurdish parties from taking part in these meetings, which is understandable in view of its problems with Turkish Kurds. However, at the same time, Turkey tried to ensure that a bigger role at these meetings is given to the Muslim Brotherhood. This is why the Syrian opposition is planning to hold the next meeting outside Turkey. Thus, it rumored that the next meeting aimed at enhancing mutual understanding may take place in Tunisia.

       The situation is further complicated by the fact that the Syrian opposition is diverse. This makes it difficult to coordinate the fight against the regime. For example, it is unclear whether the Kurdish political parties are a serious political force and whether the tribal leaders call the tune in the Kurdish communities and parties.

       The various slogans used by protesters in Syria, including in Deir ez-Zor, Homs, Hama and Idlib, point to the different paths Syria could take. They chanted: “We want a holiday without the president,” clearly referring to Eid ul-Fitr, the holiday that marks the end of Ramadan. Others said, “Bashar, get ready, you should be tried like Mubarak.” Other slogans advanced the idea that the people are united regardless of their different faiths, which is extremely important at this moment.

       The Syrian government claims that if it falls, the country will be plunged into chaos. Unfortunately, there have already been some religious clashes in Syria, but the opposition managed to prevent these isolated cases from growing into a schism between the country’s largest communities.

       In other words, the opposition is not a small group of Islamic radicals that wants to destabilize the country, as the regime has claimed. The violence that Bashar Assad’s government has unleashed on the protestors has destroyed its legitimacy in the eyes of the people. The situation in the country has not yet reached its final stage, but both sides have made their demands clear. Reconciliation is now impossible.

       Russia’s changing position

       Russia’s stance on any international issue is often spontaneous and depends heavily on top Russian leaders’ personal feelings toward their counterparts in other countries. The Russian decision-makers are also intensely lobbied by internal groups on every international issue. Their stance on Syria, for example, is influenced by the military lobby, which allegedly wants to continue to sell Russian weapons to Damascus. However, attempts to supply Russian arms to Syria often end in failure due to Israeli and U.S. protests. The Russian military is also concerned about the naval supply and maintenance base in Syria.

       In general, Russia’s attitude toward developments in Arab countries depends not so much on its relations with that particular country as on its relations with the global political centers – the United States and Europe. This explains why its initially harsh stance – “We will not allow it” and “We will not vote it” – gradually gives way to milder statements. President Medvedev said in an interview on the third anniversary of the start of the war in South Ossetia that violence in Syria must stop or else Russia will have to review its position. “The situation is changing, and so are our objectives,” he said. Russia is already backpedalling, which is often the case.

       Apart from the Russian leaders’ personal preferences and domestic lobbies, the most important factor is Russia’s understanding that its interests as a regional power that has lost its influence in the Arab world depend on its relations with leading global power centers – the United States and Europe.

       The West’s choice: Stability versus a greater role for the opposition

       The West has not been seeking to change the internal situation in Syria, whose regime has suited the United States and Europe for many reasons. In particular, Syria has respected the ceasefire agreement with Israel in the Golan Heights and the West was also satisfied with its stance on other Middle East problems. On the other hand, the West has been troubled by Syria’s interference in Lebanon, its suspected involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and its close relations with Iran. But the regime was predictable.

       The West has not so much supported the opposition as, just like Russia, it wants the restoration of the internal stability. It is now establishing contacts with the opposition to protect its interests in the region regardless of who is in power in Syria. This is why statements are being made in the West to the effect that Bashar Assad’s regime has lost legitimacy.

       However, the West is unlikely to push the developments in Syria toward a final resolution.

       Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.