The same thing concerns me in this case as did in the case of Libya. Political leaders in the west are condemning violence and calling for peace. They're not necessarily helping out, but they are taking sides. Apparently the only way forward for Syria is for the regime to topple. This is quite possibly true, though - as has already been pointed out - Libya and Egypt are hardly shining examples of 'moving forward'. Similarly, peace can (apparently) be achieved by stopping the supply of arms to Assad's forces. No mention of simultaneously ceasing supply to his opponents.

As for Assad himself, well, he needs only look at the fates of Gaddafi and Mubarak to see that he might as well go down with guns blazing. One was 'accidentally' killed while trying to flee, and the other eventually caved and did the right thing (stand down), and is now facing possible execution. Not much incentive to play fair.

Otokonoko wrote:

>>As for Assad himself, well, he needs only look at the fates of Gaddafi and Mubarak to see that he might as well go down with guns blazing.>>

Yep.

Assad has no choice but to hang on to the bitter end. With the help of his allies in Iran and Iraq that bitter end may be longer in coming than most people in the "West" think. In the mean time, of course, Syria will be destroyed, Lebanon may experience a growth in sectarian violence and may even tip over into another civil war. The mistrust between the Sunni gulf states led by Saudi Arabia and a sort of Shia – Alawite axis in Iran, Iraq and Syria will grow deeper.

Turkey too may find itself pulled into the conflict.

And if I'm wrong and Assad is toppled, there is likely to be a slaughter of Syrian Christians and Alawites that could draw Iran and Iraq directly into the conflict. Meanwhile a weakened Hizbollah may find itself under attack in Lebanon.

This has all the makings of a giant calamity.

As I said in my previous post, for Israel peace is first prize; but if peace is unattainable seeing your enemies tear each other apart will have to do.

You're right Steven, and what will Hamas do, support Iran and Assad, or support their fellow-Sunni ? If Assad looks too shaky, and Iran and Iraq intervene to protect him (with Iraq's Kurds on the Sunni side of the civil war), will civil war spread through Lebanon to Palestine as well ? And perhaps to Iraq again ?

As you also say, if the Sunni prevail and start launching massacres of Shia, Alawite and Christians, sending refugees off in all directions, will many of the Christians (and Lebanese Christians in due course) seek refuge in Israel, Jordan and Palestine ?

Further down the track, will Iraq split into a Shia-majority area and a Sunni (Arab and Kurd) area - or even into three ? Or maybe just one, as the Saudis absorb western Iraq and Iran absorbs eastern and southern Iraq, leaving the Kurds on their own, and to the tender mercies of Turkey ?

Iran seems to be fighting a proxy battle already in Bahrain, while the Saudis fight theirs in Syria (and Iraq). If Iran faces defeat in Syria, will it try to launch diversionary attacks on Israel and perhaps Saudi Arabia ? Will Turkey break its alliance with Iran to support the Sunni in Syria, and also launch diversionary attacks on Iraq ?

Seems like 1300 AD all over again :(

Arjay,

Zimbabwe is bankrupt, it has close to zero reserves, and is getting by on diamonds, its platinum and gold production has fallen to an all time low, and Zim cannot even support its own independent currency.

Syria is using heavy weapons against its own civilians, as did Libya.

Iran would be stupid to get involved in the conflict, as it only recently managed to violently put down its own civilians, and would not like to light that fire again.

Loudmouth,

They're all excellent questions but I do not have any excellent answers.

I think the Turks will have the sense to remain on the periphery. Erdogan is a bit of a hothead but he and his party have to face the Turkish electorate from time to time. I doubt said electorate would reward them for involving Turkey in a Middle-Eastern war.

Hizbollah may be the big loser here.

Hamas can probably count on some support from Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood has gained influence. However I suspect the Egyptians will be more concerned about the increasingly parlous state of their own economy than in becoming embroiled in another Middle-Eastern conflict.

Iraq could split. In fact arguably it already has split with a Kurdistan in the north.

I think Sunni-Shia and Shia-Shia sectarian violence could re-ignite in the rest of Iraq. Iraq could become yet another battleground in the Saudi – Iranian proxy war.

The Jordanians will try and stay out of it. I do not know whether they will succeed.

The Israelis will enjoy the show and provide discreet help to any side that looks like fading. It is in their interest to keep any intra-Muslim conflict going for as long as possible.

A bit of history. During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s the Israelis provided the Iranians with spare parts for their air force. That was not because the Israelis favoured the Iranians. They just wanted to prolong the war for as long as possible and, beside, the Iranians were paying top dollar.

The Iranians will continue to inflame Shia in Bahrain and in the Eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia.

And Pakistan will continue to support various dissident groups in Iran. That's another aspect of this. Iran is also engage in a proxy war with Pakistan.

And then again, against the odds, everyone might pull back from the brink.

Who knows?

Shadow Minister,the ordinary people of Zimbabwe may be broke,but those ripping the tonnes of gold out are not.

No more wars.Stay out of Syria and let them sort their own problems out.Isn't the West broke enough without more wars that will drive us deeper into poverty?