The situation in Syria is getting tougher and tougher as the protestors increasingly have gone from a peaceful protest towards an armed struggle against the regime. Day by day, the situation turns abysmal as protestors are coming into understanding that the regime would not stop killing unless they stop their peaceful protest for economic and political reforms. According to the reports, more than five thousand people are killed and dozens are injured during past eleventh month of civil uprising.

Initially, it was hoped that after collapse of the regime in Egypt and Libya, President Bashar al-Assad also might not try to maintain power as civil pressure mounts. But the assumption clearly proved illusionary. As both President Assad and Moammer Gaddafi of Libya deduced quite opposite of what many people assumed across the globe. They deduced that flexibility and compromise against protestors may not only help them to maintain dominance for a longer term rather would encourage them to change their position from demand for economic and political reforms into regime-change and persecution officials.

Thus both Presidents decided to oppose any form of protests and bring the situation under the control through force and crackdown. Anyhow the mission was accomplished in Libya through foreign military intervention. Was that good or not is out of the context of this article.

But In the case of Syria, President Bashar-al-Assad decided to stand against protesters with iron fist and does not retreat and move an inch back from his oppressive position, while majority of oppositions remained optimistic about achievement of their objectives and goals through civil uprising. As during early months of civil unrest, even the notion of armed struggle against regime was deemed radical and had not supporter among broader layer of civilians. But the civility and deep aversion to violence of protestors could not change the language of the government. The regime wanted to control the situation only through crackdown and oppressive means.

Indeed the regime sealed all diplomatic doors from the very start, named protestors terrorists and foreign financed puppets recruited to disrupt the security situation, which justified any violent action against demonstrators. Recently, Damascus put on play a new dangerous game, which can affect political stability after the collapse of regime too, perhaps. That is nothing except a freak claim that the regime is indeed the protector of minorities. In other words, it is drawing a line among sects in order to protect its existence on the power.

During recent past months, there were several incidents which were ridden with communal stench. It makes no difference if the supporters of the regime be comprised of all sects, is not as dangerous as gaining support from a particular sect, which indeed would turn self-fulfilling chaos.

It should be noticed that iron fist has been counterproductive. The notion of armed struggle has become popular from previously an averse concept. Presently, peaceful protestors see no choic ahead to achieve their objectives except armed struggle.

The international community has avoided tough stance against the country. They have not been ready to hold Libyan-like action here in Syria. Or even they failed to impose tougher sanctions due to several reasons.
One of the major reasons, of course, was the role of Arab League.

Right after overwhelming change to draft of resolution presented by European Union due to opposition of Russia and China in the United Nations Security Council, the international community mostly turned face towards the Arab League, hoping they might be able to get Damascus end violence and bloodsheds.

So, long discussions and quarrels of the member, Syria agreed to allow monitoring team to check out the situation in order to find out whether the government realized the promises and commitments or not. After expiration of a month-long mandate of the monitoring team lately this month, the report presented by head of the team in Cairo to members' representative.

It was hoped they might take a united front against Damascus and mount pressure to an extent that it puts in practice the bilateral agreement made in December between Syria and the rest of League's members.

After the report, chief of the League, Mr. Nabil Elaraby, announced that they agreed to extend the mission for another month, because Syria had practiced partly its promises. At the same time, Saudi Arabia a bigger brother in the League pulled out its monitoring team because Syria, according to it, did not practice its commitments.

Later on, the member countries jointly asked President Bashar al-Assad to step down and hand over the power to his deputy and establish a national coalition government, the thing which was strongly rejected as a direct foreign intervention.

So, in previous article I raised the question what would the Arab League do in the case of redeployment of monitoring team if the President Assad did not step down. There I put the question unanswered due to complexity of the security situation,

On Saturday, the Arab league suspended the mission of monitoring team and Nabil Elaraby has left for Washington to discuss Syria's situation. Seemingly, Arab countries have come to the same understanding as Syrian protestors—diplomatic steps do not work unless tough actions held. However, it should be noticed that tough action does not mean necessarily military action. And also the disappointment of Arab countries does not necessarily end to issuance of tough resolution against Damascus in the United Nations Security Council.

The only thing is that Arab countries can do is aligning with US and EU to pressurize Russia to approve severe resolution. But one thing is clear and should be noticed by the regime. The situation has gone irreversible and would pull foreign interference to the country unless it changes its radical status towards protestors.