The dilemma Syria’s regime faces is to choose between the Arab League initiative creating favorable conditions for dialogue with its opponents and internationalization of the crisis – with the risk of military intervention similar to that in Libya.

President Bashar Assad anticipated such a critical choice by warning recently in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph that a Western attack on his country would cause an “earthquake” that would “burn” the entire region and create another Afghanistan or tens of Afghanistans. Assad also dismissed the Syrian opposition as unrepresentative and undeserving of his attention.

The Arab League is threatening to suspend Syria’s membership in the organization, after recently discussing a report presented by an Arab ministerial team headed by Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani concerning the two meetings the team held with Syrian officials in Damascus and Doha. The Qatari minister warned that the entire region would be at risk if the Syrian regime allowed the violence to continue. He did not discard the possibility of an international military intervention and advised Syrian officials to take solid steps and stop delaying and deceiving.

Observers in Beirut, after assessing the mission of the Arab ministerial team, believe it will be impossible for Assad to sincerely accept any Arab League “road map” that calls for withdrawal of his forces from Syrian cities, an end to violence, release of prisoners and engagement of the opposition in dialogue that eventually leads to real reform. Assad knows that the protesters will occupy streets and public offices the moment his troops are withdrawn, and that constitutional reform would result in his downfall within a year or so.

Assad still has strong cards to play. His regime remains cohesive, and his security and military apparatuses are solid and capable. He feels he has the freedom of action to grind down the protesters. Yet there is growing concern that regime violence and the increasing counter-violence of the opposition and military deserters could lead to a civil or sectarian war, at least in some parts of Syria. Such a development would intensify the debate regarding foreign military intervention in Syria with the approval of the United Nations Security Council.

Any such military intervention must reflect serious consideration of the key issues involved, and not be limited to the risks to the Syrian population. They must also encompass a Syrian decision to widen the war to neighboring countries – most probably Lebanon and Israel. This would be very risky for both Syria and Lebanon. The Syrian regime, if it feels imperiled, could lash out internally and externally. Under such circumstances, the potential risks would not be limited to heavy casualties from foreign intervention, but could also comprise escalation into conflict in neighboring states. A civil war in Syria would place the Lebanese social and political balance in real jeopardy.

The worst case scenario for Lebanon is centered on the possibility of Assad fulfilling his threat (made in the presence of a Turkish official) to launch hundreds of missiles toward the Golan Heights and Tel Aviv if Damascus is attacked. Assad could ask Hezbollah to attack Israel, adopting what might be called a “Samson option.”

The Lebanese are deeply divided over what is happening in Syria. While the March 14 forces support the Syrian uprising, the March 8 forces led by Hezbollah maintain strong support for the Assad regime. There is a general fear that sooner or later the ongoing conflict in Syria will have strong repercussions on Lebanese security and stability. The important question for most Lebanese is whether Hezbollah would comply with Syria’s request to attack Israel, knowing that this would lead to a war resulting in the destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure as well as most urban centers in South Lebanon.

Meanwhile, deep divisions among Lebanese about Syrian developments also remain a source of danger. The debate between the opposing Lebanese camps about repeated Syrian violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty and national boundaries, along with recent kidnappings of several Syrian dissidents inside Lebanon, is causing an increase of tension between the two camps.

Lebanese leaders should do their utmost to persuade the opposing factions to come forward, resume the national dialogue that was interrupted more than a year ago, and try to work out a plan to minimize the effects of a wider conflict in Syria.

Nizar Abdel-Kader is a political analyst and columnist at Al-Diyar newspaper in Beirut. He is the author of three books: “Iran and the Nuclear Bomb,” “A Nation Without a Fence,” and “The Israeli Strategy to Destroy Lebanon.” This commentary initially appeared at bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsletter.