Before the explosion at the Syrian National Security Building in which a number of security and military leaders were killed, the Russians confirmed their acceptance of the “Yemeni solution.”
Bashar Assad was to relinquish the presidency and announce the formation of a consensus government.
But Russian approval was based on a formal solution to please the opposition and keep the Assad regime in key government positions.
Arab mediators refused the solution. After the bombing of the National Security building, the revolutionaries reached Damascus and took control of border points.
The word spread the regime and its allies were ready to accept the “Yemen solution.” One thing we did not know was how committed Assad was at this time. Was he prepared to pack up and go or would he be tempted by his success in stopping the march of the revolutionaries.
If he is prepared to relinquish power now will there be room for negotiation? Or has the validity of the “Yemeni solution” expired? Consequently would opposition fighters take control of the presidential palace as happened in Libya?
The issue is split. Some Syrians want negotiation and will honor a transition period. National Council member George Sabra expressed this clearly when he said: “We approve Assad’s exit and handing over his authority to a figure in the regime to lead the country during the transition period, as happened in Yemen.”
The features of the solution became clear with the appearance of the dissident Brig. Gen. Manaf Tlass in Jeddah. Before that, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem, while attending an Arab foreign ministers’ meeting in Doha, said, “If the Syrian president steps down he will be granted safe passage.” Arab countries will demand the Syrian opposition and the free army form a transition government.
Other Syrians would prefer to fight till the end as they feel the opportunity for negotiation is long past.
The opposition is marching toward the palace and it is only a matter of time until the regime falls.
There is a hesitant third party group who argue about who should be entrusted to form the government.
However, the majority favors the call to continue the fight. Logic and experience warns against it.
The fall of the regime is almost certain considering the revolutionists’ significant battle victories in the past weeks, but the situation is still a difficult one as the military use aircraft, tanks and artillery to inflict more bloodshed while protected by the Russian veto.
After that Assad will flee to Iran or Russia and the fight until the end may result in the total collapse of the establishment of the military and the security forces, more than half a million strong. When these forces dissolve, soldiers can resurface as armed gangs.
Is it in the interest of the nation to break up the state and leave a free Syria bogged down in unrest and civil war while supported by Russia, Iran and the Hezbollah?
Those who think the end of Assad means the end of his oppressive government are totally mistaken. Assad was finished when Syrians peacefully demonstrated against his regime last year. We all know he is finished but we fear what he will leave behind. He may succeed in dividing the country after all.
These are real fears and therefore preservation of the state is more important than taking revenge on Assad. He will face his crime no matter how he flees.
If it is possible to preserve the state, as happened in Yemen, by handing over and receiving the power, ensuring the survival of the state establishment will block the way for Iran and others to target the country.
The Syrian people will be able to establish the government they want and build a better future for their sons in a united and stable country.