The United States is still heavily dragging its feet in dealing with the crisis in Syria. Here is its Secretary of State talking in ambiguous terms about an idea which had been put forward at the beginning of the revolution – that of establishing “safe zones” with cover from the Security Council. But Clinton placed the burden of establishing such zones on the rebels themselves, saying what signifies that the matter is contingent on their ability to maintain control of the areas they liberate from the Assad regime, without putting forward any promises to help them in this respect from outside the framework of the United Nations.

Clearly Clinton’s words are not in tune with the tremendous development taking place in the activity of the Syrian opposition, which succeeded at killing some of the regime’s prominent figures, managed to threaten the capital Damascus, and opened up a new front in Aleppo. They are also out of tune with the growing movement of military and diplomatic defections, because one cannot suffice oneself with supplying the rebels with communication devices while Assad’s army receives equipment, expertise, funds and even men from Russia and Iran.

Furthermore, assuming that the opposition could succeed with its current modest armament capabilities at liberating vast regions and maintaining control over them for an extended period of time is out of tune with reality, because government troops are following the method of mobile warfare to prevent the rebels from holding any area for long – in other words, the regime is directing them to the places with the greatest presence of opposition fighters in order to disperse them and prevent them from gaining a stable foothold, which is why the fighting is subsiding in one city to increase in the next, in succession.

Of course, it has become tiresome to repeat the list of reasons that are driving the Americans to take such a hesitant stance, among them the presidential elections, the fear of “extremists” coming to power in Damascus, the possibility of chemical and biological weapons falling into their hands, and the lessons learned from the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq.

This last point is perhaps the main pretext for Washington’s procrastination and its fear of getting implicated in a new war under a deteriorating economic situation, as well as for it preferring the current method of dealing conservatively with Middle East crises – especially as the invasion of Iraq, which came at an exorbitant cost, has only led to strengthening Iran’s influence in that country. What will the result then be in a country that is much more complicated like Syria?

In justifying its hesitancy, Washington bases itself on Russia’s inflexible stance at the Security Council and on its desire not to “cross the Rubicon” with Moscow. Yet the experience of Libya provides an example of the possibility of helping the Syrian people without getting directly implicated. It is true that the movement of North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) forces in Libya came after a Security Council resolution, but such movement certainly did not need a resolution, especially as the Eastern part of the country was threatened with a horrific massacre at the hands of the Gaddafi forces marching towards it, and any intervention from any country that would have come to prevent such a possibility would have been met with understanding on the international scene, even without clear approval.

NATO forces, which are mostly American especially when it comes to the air force and missile defense, succeeded at negating the superiority of Libyan regime forces, through air raids and missile strikes, without sending a single soldier on Libyan soil. Why then can such “remote” intervention not be repeated in the case of Syria?

The US maintaining its current approach to the situation in Syria means that the battles of attack and retreat could continue for a long time, as a result of the inability of any of the two sides to settle the battle in their favor. It also means that the Arabs must now stop waiting for the Americans and take the initiative of making a move from outside customary frameworks in order to save the Syrian people.