Egypt's military joins the Sinai and Easter festivities, but in Syria the army is shooting at its own people. Doaa El-Bey and Rasha Saad present countries in contras Pundits focussed on Bashar Al-Assad's mistakes in dealing with his people's uprising. In 'Hamlet in Damascus' Amir Taheri wrote in the London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat about three mistakes committed by the Syrian ruler Al-Assad in his latest TV appearance. The first, according to Taheri, is that Al-Assad called in his new cabinet in full and gave them a rambling lecture. The ministers, Taheri continues, appeared confused, not sure what they were expected to do in front of the cameras. Presumably to please the president, they started feverishly taking notes of his meandering remarks. "Not surprisingly, to some in the TV audience, that was a live demonstration of how dictatorship works: one man dictates, others write it down," Taheri wrote. Then, Al-Assad made his second mistake. On lifting the state of emergency, he said there were some, presumably within the regime, who believed that was a bad idea that might harm national security. "A dictator should never evoke ideas different from his own, except in derision. A dictator who admits that there could be contradictory debate within his establishment reveals cracks in his authority," Taheri argues. Al-Assad's third mistake was to designate his opponents as agents of foreign powers, Taheri wrote. He explained that this is an old tradition in Arab despotic and demagogic politics. Those who have nothing to say always claim that their critics are involved in plots hatched by foreign foes. In the case of Al-Assad, Taheri points out, the problem was that three minutes earlier he had designated those killed by his security men as "martyrs" and expressed regret at their deaths. "Al-Assad's biggest mistake was to appear to be offering concessions from a position of weakness. A dictator who does that is doomed," Taheri maintained. Also in Asharq Al-Awsat, Tariq Al-Homayed wrote that the Syrian regime tried with all its force, including repression and murder, to prevent demonstrators from controlling any square in a Syrian city, in the same vein as the Egyptian revolutionaries did during the 25 January Revolution, where they occupied Tahrir Square and turned it into the epicentre of their revolt. However, Al-Homayed wrote, with the government repression, the Syrian city of Daraa has turned itself into Tahrir Square, where demonstrations in all Syrian cities have come out in the name of Daraa, in defence of the town, and in support of its martyrs and sacrifices. In 'Daraa: Syria's Tahrir Square', Al-Homayed wrote that the Syrian regime made a mistake by focussing on a security solution, and laid a military, political, and media siege upon Daraa, unintentionally transforming Daraa into a symbol, and rendering it Syria's Tahrir Square. In the London-based daily Al-Hayat, Walid Choucair wrote that the demonstrations that are taking place in Syria and the regime's deadly method of dealing with them, are leading to hugely important calculations, both in the short and long term. In 'Syria, between Ankara and Tehran', Choucair wrote that the Syrian situation constitutes an extremely important arena for the two influential powers in the region, namely Iran and Turkey. The unfolding of events in Syria is cause for innumerable calculations for Ankara and Tehran. Choucair explains that it is no secret that the leadership in Turkey, based on a desire for stability in Syria and the preservation of the current order led by President Bashar Al-Assad, prompted, encouraged and even pressed in the direction of seeing the regime respond to the demands for reform, even though this is causing resentment in Damascus. Choucair adds that Iran is also anxious about the possibility that the developments will lead to a new political formula in Syria which will have an impact on its role and influence in the Levant due to the likely impact on the role of Hizbullah in Lebanon. According to Choucair, although one might assume that Iran is advising Syria to deal with the protests the way it dealt with those of the Iranian opposition, Tehran is also keen to see Syria continue as an arena that is in the interest of its regional policies. This is not unrelated to its support of the Syrian leadership adopting a policy of reform, even if belated, which is followed by a hard- line policy after each step, or a carrot-and-stick approach. "The Syrian leadership's decision, between the advice of Ankara and that of Tehran, is the decisive point here. Will Damascus try once again to have it both ways, or will it listen to one set of advice and not the other?" Choucair asked. Also in Al-Hayat, Hossam Itani wrote that the complications on the Syrian scene and the connection between its numerous elements and that of the conflicts in the region, along with the violent oppression exercised by the authority, are slowing down the pace of the opposition. Itani explained that this was due to the authority's heavy investment in foreign policy, from the close relationship with Iran to political and economic cooperation with Turkey and the engagement in Lebanese and Palestinian politics. In the London-based daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi Abdel-Bari Atwan focussed on the fate of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. Atwan wrote that it was deeply regrettable that military intervention preceded diplomatic efforts in the Libyan crisis, which will lead to the continuation of the current bloodbath in the city of Misrata in particular. He lamented that there is no Arab mediation, but deafening silence, including that of the Arab League, which provided the legal cover for foreign intervention in Libya. Atwan said he agreed with many in saying that Colonel Gaddafi was the reason for Western intervention which claimed to have the sole purpose of protecting the children of Benghazi from an impending massacre. But "imposing the no-fly zone has been achieved and it's time for a peaceful settlement to stop the current bloodshed," he wrote. "Gaddafi must go; we have no doubt about this, but with him, too, should go not only his sons but those who hijacked the Libyan revolution from peaceful civilians and turned it into an armed rebellion and paved the way for this intervention by NATO. For this they, too, should be held accountable by the people of Libya," Atwan wrote.
