The kidnapping of the Estonians and their subsequent release, which was orchestrated by the French, leaves no room for doubt that Lebanon has become a bastion for kidnappers, as it was during the Civil War and as is the case in developing countries that lack legitimate standing and succumb to the power of militias and armed gangs.

This security lapse by the new Cabinet has shown once again the overlapping of local and regional currents, proving that we will never wake up one day to find our country independent from hidden occupations.

Still, it’s a happy ending for the tourists, and it would not have occurred if not for the European move aimed at containing the situation before it escalated into the killing of the hostages. The release is an indication of cooperation between the Arabs of moderation and the Europeans of human rights and freedom, the result of which may have an effect on the Syrian situation.

Regional observers have noted the Turkish-Iranian harmony, the nature of which became clear during a visit that Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu paid to Iranian officials. It’s true that both sides agreed that the right of the Arab people to freedom of expression must be respected, and they shared worries of Sunni-Shiite strife. Available information has also shined light on cooperation between Ankara and Teheran on their response to the Syrian uprisings, which may include a deal between the two powers, negotiated through Qatar, which would result in regional Arab agreement settling the situations in Lebanon, Palestine and Syria.

The Syrian situation is teetering between two possibilities, both of which will lead to the same result.

The Syrian regime is in a predicament as it tries to emerge from its internal crisis and the consultative meeting held recently under the patronage of Syrian Vice President Farouq al-Sharaa, which ended with a closing statement on a number of democratic reforms and a transition to a pluralistic political system, are unrealistic based on the rolling boil of the Syrian situation. The biggest problem is the absence of a clear and concrete framework for the Syrian opposition that would enable it to determine its future on the Syrian street and to impose its conditions in talks that its leadership and the regime could accept. Diplomatic sources are looking at this situation from a perspective that goes beyond than monitoring the movement of the opposition to include foreign intervention and the interests that such interventions would conceal at the expense of the people’s demands and rights.

Since the fate of Lebanese leaders is closely tied to developments in Syria, it’s likely they are awaiting a major development in Syria for there to be an agreement for the current Cabinet to resign and for Saad Hariri to return as prime minister under the conditions set by the United States, Iran, Turkey and Qatar. Until this moment is reached, the current government will continue to rule while the opposition escalates its campaign against it.

Western officials believe that Prime Minister Najib Mikati received initial Western support and that Arab states have turned a blind eye to the new government because Mikati embraces the ideologies of capitalism and political moderation and because of his special relationships with foreign states. What contributed most to his being allowed a chance though, despite his suspicious Cabinet, is the failure of previous Cabinets to prove their worth despite having the support of the majority. However, if Mikati were to end his commitment to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and U.N. Resolution 1701, calculations will begin to remove him from power.