Sooner or later, the battle in the Syrian city of Yabroud will come to an end. According to military estimates, it is not going to take more than a week once the decision is taken. When it ends, political discourse in Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran will hit a new milestone, and mark the beginning of major regional changes. These changes will include the future of the Lebanese border town of Arsal, the role of the forthcoming Lebanese government, and US acceptance of the reality that President Bashar al-Assad is going to stay in power.
Interesting developments have set the scene for the decisive battle in the Syrian city of Yabroud, which is expected to bring about important changes.
There has been a remarkable silence from the countries that have supported the Syrian opposition, politically and with weapons, regarding the progress that the Syrian army has made in more than one location. Was a green light given somewhere to convince the world that the Syrian army is providing a great international and regional service regarding combating terrorism? It looks as though things are going in that direction.
US Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, made an important military and security statement on the future of the Syrian president before the US congress. Clapper said that the chemical weapons deal left Assad in a strengthened position. This was followed by a similar statement by the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, who admitted that Assad has gained ground but that he is still not winning.
Do these statements indicate a willingness to come to terms with the fact that Assad is going to run for elections after a few months, that he is going to win and the US is going to accept this course of events? It appears as though things are moving in that direction.
There has been a series of critical Saudi decisions. First, a royal decree was issued punishing terrorists and people who uphold takfiri principles. Second, the Saudi ambassador in Ankara announced the facilitation of the return of Saudi fighters from Syria. Third, appointing Prince Khaled al-Faisal education minister and Dr. Haya bint Abdulrahman Al-Samhari director general for training and foreign scholarships at the education ministry, undertaking a project to change the education curricula and allocating billions of dollars to this ministry.
Do these decisions constitute US and Western demands after the expanding waves of terrorism changed the priority of the international community from toppling Assad to combating terrorism? It appears things are moving in this direction as US President Barack Obama prepares to visit Riyadh. As for Lebanon, one can only explain the willingness of the March 14 forces to participate in one government with Hezbollah through this prism.
There has also been an Iranian-Turkish rapprochement unseen in decades. True, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to Tehran did not lead to an agreement on Assad’s future but it settled the issue of Turkey taking direct measures to stop terrorism. Erdogan said in his discussion with the European Union on January 21, 2014 that terrorism is represented by four groups, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra Front, The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and the Kurdish Democratic Party.
This means two things. One Erdogan has to stop fighters heading towards Syria and two, the deal with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) is on the verge of collapse.
What information do we have?
First, a regional official involved in the Syrian question says: “The battle of Yabroud will change the entire war in Syria and will prompt the other side to accept the fact that the Syrian regime is on the verge of winning the war.”
This analysis leads us to the Lebanese border town of Arsal. The Yabroud battle will cut off all the supply roads and lead to encircling the city thus paving the way for its military fall. This compels the March 14 forces in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia to take the new facts on the ground into consideration and accept a new reality.
Perhaps this analysis underscores the ability of the other side to open counter fronts in Daraa along the Syrian-Jordanian border or even inside Lebanon. A high-ranking Lebanese official from the March 8 forces confirms that there is a plan to confront any developments or bombings inside Lebanon and that “this plan has no geographical, security or political limits.”
Is this the reason for delaying the government? It seems that things have actually moved in this direction, especially after Hezbollah discovered a degree of manipulation by some of the new intermediaries. According to the March 8 forces and their domestic and foreign allies, what was accepted a year ago is no longer acceptable today.
At the same time, the Free Syrian Army (FSA) has lately asked the regular Syrian army more than once to support it with artillery fire against ISIS and al-Nusra Front. The regular army refused because the regime lumps all these groups in one basket. The FSA tried to communicate with Hezbollah inside Syria. Perhaps the Lebanese party provided it with help. That is how deals are currently being hatched under the table to bring about the surrender of the armed groups. Hezbollah and the Syrian army are coordinating and exchanging roles on some levels.
Second, a regional diplomat involved in the Syrian question recounts how in a recent security meeting hosted by Jordan about two months ago, a US official told those present - and they were from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Western countries and perhaps an Israeli official: “You should get used to the idea that Assad is staying and he might win the war, and you should think about the period following the presidential elections.”
Third, a prominent Russian official confirmed recently to Tehran and Damascus that Assad personally, and not just the regime, is now a red line and nothing will prevent his presidential candidacy and his victory in the upcoming elections. The Iranians were surprised that the Russians - who at the beginning of the crisis were discussing several scenarios - are now just as adamant as the Iranians that Assad should stay in power.
Fourth, the Americans tried to reach some kind of resolution on the Syrian issue with the Iranians. Kerry visited Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif at the hotel where he was staying for the Munich Summit. The secretary of state raised the issue of Syria with Zarif but the Iranian foreign minister said that he “did not have the authority to discuss Syria and the focus of the meeting was on the nuclear negotiations.”
Tehran wants to discuss the nuclear issue exclusively so that other issues won’t be used to exercise pressure on it. That is why it obstructed its own participation in Geneva II. It is incorrect that the Islamic Republic wanted to go but its invitation was rescinded. Iran did not want to attend so it won’t be accused of causing Geneva II’s failure and because it knows that the current rounds of negotiations are nothing but semantics for an agreement that has not fully matured yet. Perhaps United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon did not notice that Iran said it would attend the conference without preconditions before he withdrew its invitation. Reviewing Iranian statements after Geneva I, reveals that the Iranians accepted its terms then, why would they oppose them now? Perhaps to find an excuse to not attend.
Fifth, after Qatar’s involvement in the Syrian issue ended and the Syrian crisis was turned over to Saudi Arabia, the involvement of two central figures in Syria also ended. They are Prince Bandar bin Sultan and the former US Ambassador in Syria Robert Ford. Moscow and Tehran’s information confirm that both men’s roles are over.
Sixth, the issue of Lebanon’s oil reserves is at its climax. There are only two options. Either a deal is reached with Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and Russia so that countries can invest in this vast treasure with peace of mind. Or they can try to destroy Hezbollah and its allies. It appears that the first option has become more likely.
Will developments actually move in accordance with this analysis and the wishes of the Russia-Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis?
It is important to remember that the US congress decided - a short while back - to rearm the moderate Syrian opposition. It is also important to remember that Lebanon has become a hotbed for sleeper takfiri cells. So far there has been no indication that the other side has actually given up the idea of a last attempt to topple the Syrian regime, reverse the military balance, or embarrass Hezbollah through bombings and assassinations.
The war therefore will continue. But if there is progress in terms of an Iranian-Western rapprochement, if the Syrian army continues to make progress, and the fighting among armed groups and the disintegration of the opposition continue then developments might be in favor of Assad, Iran and their allies from Syria, Iraq and Lebanon all the way to Yemen. In this respect, Clapper might be right.
If we keep in mind that there are no morals in international politics, only interests, then we can anticipate all kinds of transformations.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
The Turkish delegation stand as Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (R) speaks to the media during a meeting with Iranian officials at Tehran’s Saadabad palace on January 29, 2014. (AFP Photo / Behrouz Mehri)
Hezbollah said Wednesday that the Lebanese army has made great achievements through the arrest of one of the leading planners and perpetrators of 
Militant field leaders like Abu Mounir, Kamal Allam and Shadi Al-Maniei, and ideological organisational leaders such as Abu Faisal, founder of the Sharia Courts in northern Sinai, are not the only players. In fact, much of the action takes place off-stage. Some of the actors ate known, others not. Arab and other countries are involved, some through their intelligence agencies, others by means of groups and organisations that they fund. There are jihadist ideologues who pronounce fatwas from behind bars, such as Abu Mohamed Al-Maqdisi in Jordan, and Wahhabi takfiri sheikhs who issue similar edicts, such as Abi Al-Munzir Al-Shanqiti, author of a lengthy tract calling on jihadists in Sinai to take up arms against the Egyptian army.
His eminence divided his speech into three parts, the first was about the Israeli enemy and the ongoing threat it poses on Lebanon, second was about Hezbollah's confrontations at the current phase, and third was about the resistance's challenges on several aspects.
On this point, Sayyed Nasrallah wondered: "Before going to Syria, didn't Lebanon witness a war imposed by those in the north and in some refugee camps, and didn't they target Christian regions and Army locations with booby-trapped cars? All these occurred before the incidents in Syria began."