Thanks to ‘experts’ like Dennis Ross from the hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy delusional ideas such as quoted below can become actual US foreign policy:
Ironically, the threat to the regime today might come more from those within Syria who feel that to forestall international sanctions, the regime must be removed. The fear of the Muslim Brotherhood is unlikely to deter a military-led coup, particularly because the military (which is essentially secular) might see itself as the protector of Syria against the Brotherhood. As such, the alternative to President Asad’s Alawi faction might not be the Muslim Brotherhood but a military-led Sunni-Alawi dominated regime. It wouldn’t be democratic, but it would seek to reduce Syria’s isolation.
Isn’t it what the US has been hoping for to the point of pushing Syria into more isolation. The killing of Hariri (a Sunni leader let’s remember) is coincidentally a very favorable event for such a coalition to form against the ‘isolaters’ who ‘drove us out of Lebanon’, etc.
I advise everyone to take a Strategy 101 class if this is still not obvious.
Deal was broken or a promise was not kept. If some Syrians along with Lebanese allies have killed Hariri they must have received assurance before acting from someone playing double standards within different groups in Syria.