In light of this reality, the objective thinking of the interests of the decision-making countries that are affecting the Syrian arena becomes the only way to reach to the designated perception for the approaching solution.
The conflict taking place in Syria differs from the changes that happened in the Arab countries. The popular movements that took place in the Arab world were heading towards the authority to overthrow the government and to liberate freedom from the grip of dictatorship. Whereas in Syria- despite the fact that the logos raised by the insurgents are similar to those raised by the Arab rebelling peoples- the scenes of external support to it aim at hitting a key element of the axis of resistance and opposition to change the regional equation in favor of the axis of the west. In fact, this prompted a global intervention that divided the countries into two parties: one supporting the Syrian regime and another party supporting the insurgents, whose behaviors are away from anything related to revolting for freedom and democracy.
When objectively analyzing the attitudes and actions of the U.S. administration- which represents the supreme commander of the alliance extending from the countries of General Sam to the borders of North Syria, passing through Europe and through a number of African and Asian countries, beside some Arab supplements- we find how this administration, serving its interests merely, have developed three red lines related to the Syrian crisis:
Red line 1: Chaos should not occur after dropping the Syrian regime.
Red line 2: The Syrian regime should not be toppled before preparing an alternative regime that could quickly assume power after that in order to avoid chaos.
Red line 3: Al-Qaeda Organization in general should have no presence in any radical movements in the alternative regime.
Hence, the field confrontations on the Syrian territories taking place between the regular army and the armed groups that do receive external support by large quantities of arms, funding, elements, and experiences, show that the regular army, and despite the fact that the opponents obtain a large number of Takfiri groups that are strongly and hysterically attacking, has the expertise and combat capabilities before which any force fails. They are unable to end the regular army’s military presence, and/or to reach to the regime that is sheltering it.
Public opinion polls, as well as those related to masses embracing each of the regular army and the armed groups, showed that big parts of the Syrian people are still standing by their government and President. This comes in addition to the growing number of people opposing the opposition, which has shed the blood of the Syrians after they supported it in its beginnings.
All this means that in case the armed groups broke the impossible and toppled the Syrian regime, they would certainly not be able to end the popular and military merits of this regime, and thus chaos would be awaiting. We should not forget here the capabilities of Syria and the papers of power that it is still retaining; those papers that make breaking the impossible be an impossible task in itself.
A question remains: Why does the U.S. administration rejects chaos?
In addition to protecting the security of Israel from any chaos that might be found in the Palestinian - Syrian borders, the field and political survey conducted by al-akhdar al-Ibrahimi, who reached a conclusion and informed the capitals of international decision-making of it, emphasizes that chaos in Syria will not remain within the Syrian border, but would extend to all the neighboring countries. This in fact is what made the U.S. administration stress on considering the chaos a red line in the process of its attack on Syria, so that to protect its interests in the region.
Based on the same principle i.e. to protect the region from chaos, the U.S. administration has identified the second red line, but has found a great dilemma facing it, because the armed groups have many contradictions and they diverge in their goals and vision for the future of Syria.
Al-Qaeda Organization and the militant groups, which constitute the first enemy to the U.S. Administration in the world, represent the stronger party between the armed groups, and it is difficult to exclude them from the formations of the alternative regime, as sought to by the U.S. administration. This would only happen by eliminating them completely, and then a chaotic battle would break out between the militants and the remaining armed groups.
In light of this tangible reality that led the U.S. administration to put its red lines, the perception of the approaching solution, sooner or later, does not exceed a political settlement that is similar to the Russian - Iranian perception that was presented at the Geneva conference. This could be achieved through a dialogue that gathers all the warring parties to form a transitional government in the presence of President Assad, which would go for internationally monitored elections capable of producing a new regime.
Until the arrival of the political solution that is inevitable, bet remains on the awareness of the Syrian people, those who are supports or opponents, to head quickly towards dialogue, so that to protect their blood form additional draining on the global political arena.