In surveying the situation in Syria from afar, one cannot help be struck by a sense of poetic justice. The tactics that the Syrian regime employed to destabilize its neighbors and secure greater influence in the Arab world is coming back to haunt Syria.
Syria encouraged various factions in Lebanon and promoted the deterioration that produced the Lebanese Civil War. Syria promptly took advantage of the Civil War to enter Lebanon, justifying its presence by the need to preserve stability in that country.
It never really left even after its presumed withdrawal in 2005 in response to the backlash brought about by the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. Using Hizbullah as its cat's paw, Syria gradually clawed its influence back. The ouster of Saad Hariri and the installation of a Hizbullah-dominated government appeared to represent a reassertion of control. Walid Jumblatt, the leader of the Druze community – the perpetual Middle East weathervane, made his peace with the Assad regime and brought down the government of Saad Hariri.
Now the weathervane is turning in the other direction. Jumblatt has attacked the Lebanese government for supporting the Assad regime despite the position of the Arab League. “We were surprised with Lebanon's official position of holding reservations regarding the Arab [League] statement that aims at halting the injustice, torture and genocide committed against the Syrian people,” Jumblatt said in his weekly statement to Al-Anbaa newspaper.
“So why this evasion of political, humanitarian and moral responsibilities in supporting the Syrian people?”
We are increasingly hearing talk about a civil war a rising in Syria. This can strengthen calls for international humanitarian intervention, and what the Arab League is suggesting is a combined Arab UN peacekeeping force in order to maintain stability. This idea is getting traction with Great Britain, conditioning the dispatch of a force on a ceasefire announced by the Assad regime while Russia would like to see all sides - the Syrian regime and the opposition - agreeing to a ceasefire. The next step is for this proposal to get through without similar conditions.
While under international law, outside countries are not permitted to intervene in a civil war, in practice this rule has been constantly flouted with the most recent case being that of Libya. What made intervention easier in Libya was the reality that the opposition from the very outset controlled parts of Libya. This is the reason why the Assad regime is brutally attacking its own citizens in places like Homs to avoid the creation of a "liberated" zone.
When the United States was fighting in Iraq, the Syrian regime was only too happy to allow Al Qaeda fighters to land in Damascus and then infiltrate into Iraq via Syria. It also used the porous Syrian-Lebanese border to send aid to Hizbullah. Now Al Qaeda has endorsed the opposition to Assad, and men and guns are moving in the opposite direction from Iraq to Syria. In Sunni strongholds in Lebanon such as Tripoli, there have been calls to help the Syrian opposition. The Arab League decision in Cairo on Sunday employed the possibility of arming the Syrian opposition. It is that were to happen the balance of forces on the ground would change to the regime's detriment.
The regime therefore finds itself in a paradox. To prevent outside intervention the regime must put an end to the insurgency using the most brutal means possible. The escalation in repressive tactics fuels calls for precisely such an intervention.