The purpose of this paper is to analyse the Syrian crisis and its regional repercussions in three circles. The first circle refers to Syria’s neighbourhood i.e. Turkey, Iraq and Lebanon. The second circle concerns the Arab-Israeli conflict comprising Israel, the Palestinians and Jordan. The third one is the great regional circle, which refers to the antagonism for regional hegemony and includes Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Qatar and of course the USA.

“It is quite common to hear high officials in Washington and elsewhere speak of c hanging the map of the Middle E as t, as if ancient societies and myriad peoples can be shaken up like so many peanuts in a jar”, says Edward Said in Orientalism. T he lates t threats for the region are –no surprise- direc ted agains t Iran and with US elec tions fas t approac hing the various candidates are busy in talking themselves into a possible US -backed Is raeli s trike. In case this psyc hological warfare leads to war, a Global Armageddon Sc enario could be in the offing.

One of this year’s most remarkable events (and probably the most remarkable) is the Arab Spring, which began in the Maghreb and, in a perfect domino effect, has so far “infected” Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Bahrain in different ways. But what has not been sufficiently analysed is what Israel thinks of these recent events in the Arab world.

The drama is old; its acts change regularly while its protagonists stay the same embodied by Egypt and Iran. It is a play about regional power which has not reached its final yet as it is perpetuated by envious divas, capricious artists and dangerous stunts. Its audience epitomized by the U.S. and Israel, interferes constantly in its events and hence nurtures its maintenance. The play?s newest act deals with the recent war on Gaza and a Hizbullah cell lately discovered by Egyptian authorities, which has been accused of attempting to overthrow Mubarak?s regime.

The ongoing war in Gaza is a typical case of a war that is not meant to offer any significant change to the general equilibrium of the conflict. It is a strategic ?World War I?, an inconclusive trench war which was born out of the impasse of a truce and is destined for the stalemate of another one. It is an escalation towards a situation of limited options. Moreover, it is asymmetrical not only in terms of means and actors but also and most importantly in terms of aims: the Israeli side strives for military goals while Hamas? objectives are political.

It is almost certain that within the coming months, maybe even the coming weeks, the question of Iran will be determined one way or another. The present course of a dialogue between the five great powers and Germany and Iran has not led as of now to any significant results. There were recently two rounds – one in Istanbul the other – in Bagdad. Another round of talks will be held in the near future in Moscow. 1

In his first appearance before the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee , the Israel's newly appointed Chief of Staff Benny Gantz, declared that in future military confrontations with either Hezbollah or Hamas, the rules of war that have existed until now will dramatically change. The Chief of Staff stressed that the IDF will have to use overwhelming intensive firepower against these enemies in the first stages of the confrontation.

Like all his previous visits to the United States, Netanyahu's recent visit to Washington looked like a wrestling match - partly visible, partly invisible - between him and Obama.The roots of the rivalry between the two leaders are embedded primarily in their different concepts regarding the sources of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the ways needed to resolve it.

Aaron David Miller, former US Middle East advisor and negotiator, wrote a historical analysis of American diplomacy in the Arab-Israeli peace process. Miller sets out to record the history of negotiations based on his personal involvement. His book contains a variety of anecdotes and portraits of the leading personas. Each of the four parts is dedicated to the fate of the American promise of achieving peace in the "much too promised land".