SYRIA - THE BATTLE BETWEEN THE PAST AND THE FUTURE Who holds the key of the battle for Syria?

In answering that question, it would seem that a solid contender to do so is the past, in other words the layered history of the Cold War, or, respectively, of the rather unsuccessful attempts of the last two decades to overcome its schemes, tensions and traditional stakes. If one wants to understand why the United States of America have decided, in the end, to shift to an aggressive stance plainly enough for the world to see, by going past the point a direct military involvement in Syria, then they absolutely need to revisit the museum of the "Cold War", more specifically the parts dedicated to the confrontation between the "East and the West" in the Middle East. That would be where would be revealed, in all of their complexity, the roles played by Syria, one of the most important pawns of the Soviet influence, and by Russia, respectively, in the region. Syria's significant position stems both from its direct involvement in the armed confrontations and later from the conflict with Israel concerning the Golan Heights, as well as from the direct control exerted by Damascus over the main lines of maneuver in the unconventional war fueled through the Hezbollah. From that point of view, the "al-Assad" regimes have carried without any hesitation the banner of the direct armed struggle against Israel, as part of the efforts to restructure the power positions in the region, created together with the creation and the international recognition of the state of Israel, namely together with its firm placement under the security umbrella of the US. Of course, Syria also plays an essential part on the war on the "unseen front", as it was a turntable for numerous acts of espionage and unconventional influencing of the politics in the area, and, at the same time, a safe haven for the staging of those actions, specifically for the safe retreat after the attacks. After the operations and the political-military movements which were called, by consensus, "The Arab Spring" and especially after the fall of the Mubarak regime in Egypt, Syria's role became even more important in the equation of the power plays by proxy, in the Middle East. All the more so as Hezbollah holds control, following elections!!, in the Gaza Strip, and the survival of this regime is considered "top priority", for Syria as well as Iran.

From the point of view of the United States and of the security conditions considered necessary to Israel, dismantling the triangle (which has a significant nuclear component!) Russia-Syria-Iran represents a strategic goal, and the price of a direct - but remote - military strike, in the battle for controlling the power in Damascus can not be considered too great. For the United States, the problem of the military intervention, through strategic bombardments, is one of credibility. The planned effects need to generate real changes in the field, or else the entire operation will fall to the level of a shallow "PR exercise". On the other hand, Russia, Syria and Iran, in an effort to discourage the direct military intervention of the US, have raised the risk of the "reprisals" and of the "consequences" that will be directed against Israel and the US, in the event of an armed attack against Syria. A move which now reveals its price. In the long run, it isn't in Russia's or Iran's interest to start a decisive confrontation with the US. The definitive isolation of Iran is a price which Moscow can't afford.

But what about the future? What role does it play in the unfolding of the international events which will begin after the direct strike of the US and of some of its allies (most likely Great Britain and France)? A plain solution to the problem appears if "the future" decides to use the same structures that the Cold War used as a foundation. If that happens, the whole thing will be reduced to nothing more than a splitting of the influence over Damascus between Russia and Iran, on one hand, and the United States, on the other. From this point of view, the military strikes are just a splitting (uneven, of course) of the pot in a card game between the opponents at a poker table! Another "possible future" of the situation after the American bombardments against Syria is that of "Escalation". One way or another, the terrorist organizations controlled from various areas of the Arab world, first and foremost in Iran, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, will succeed in " keeping their promise" and conduct major terrorist attacks on the territory of Western countries. The scenario can go both towards "out-of-control escalation", culminating in operations such as the ones in Iraq or Afghanistan, or towards "a controlled escalation", with the confrontation stopping before the exhausting of the diplomatic solutions which could be used for a status quo. Of course, one possibility is that of "Chaos", in other words Syria's collapse into a " civil war" with significant foreign involvement, which already no one could predict how it will end. And finally, we have the optimistic scenario of the "positive political effects", where the military coups could play the part of a "catalyst" towards a solution obtained by negotiations, which could also obtain Russia's support, and the "blessing" of the Security Council, respectively.

The wise answer to the question "Who will win the battle in Syria: the Past or the Future?", is that the past and the future are just mere illusions maintained by the Manichaeistic line of thought that politics is unable to separate itself from, especially Big Politics. And before speaking of who wins, we know for sure who loses: the population of a state that is about to be destroyed by the political ambitions of some transient leaders and by the power-wresting games of the Great.