By opting to arm opposition forces, Britain and France risk fuelling a speedy and devastating escalation of the conflict
The EU's reluctant decision to allow, in effect, the arming of Syria's rebels, forcefully driven through by Britain and France at the expense of European unity, amounts to a huge diplomatic gamble that the ruling regime can be dragged under duress into meaningful negotiations about a political transition. Right now, this gamble looks like a long shot.
Just how dangerous the move could prove to be was swiftly demonstrated by an announcement by Russia, President Bashar al-Assad's main ally and arms supplier, that it would deliver advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, despite concerns expressed by Israel and others. The deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, said the missiles were a stabilising factor that could dissuade "hotheads" from plunging into the conflict. He also warned that the EU action had directly harmed next month's peace talks in Geneva.
William Hague, the foreign secretary, has argued that the threat that European countries may supply arms to the Free Syrian Army, via the opposition Syrian National Coalition, is a powerful and indispensable lever in a toolbox of measures, including longstanding asset, trade and travel sanctions, designed to bring Assad to heel.
Speaking after Sunday's Brussels meeting, Hague said: "It was important for Europe to send a clear signal to the Assad regime that it has to negotiate seriously, and that all options remain on the table if it refuses to do so. Tonight EU nations have done just that … Thousands of lives are at stake in Syria. Our focus remains on efforts to secure a successful outcome at the forthcoming Geneva conference, and a political transition that ends the conflict allows refugees to return to their homes and prevents further radicalisation in Syria."
Whether Assad will be impressed by the Anglo-French demarche (no other EU state looks likely to get militarily involved in the Syrian quagmire) is open to serious question. Under the EU agreement, no weapons will be supplied before autumn. And Britain and France must accept safeguards, including ensuring any arms are used only to protect civilians, an almost impossible condition to fulfil.
The composition and agenda of the Geneva conference is still up in the air. It is not clear how, or whether, the regime and the opposition will be represented.
Far from being susceptible to threats, Assad has doggedly resisted demands to stand down. He knows his replacement as president is a non-negotiable precondition for the US, Britain and France, as well as the rebels, in any settlement. Russia's support has been strengthened, and he has nowhere to run.
Assad would be more worried, perhaps, if the EU move were followed by similar action by the Obama administration, as congressional Republicans, such as Senator John McCain, would like. Some observers believe Britain acted as a stalking horse for the US in the EU talks, softening up the ground for an American intervention – not the first time London has played this ignoble role.
In any case, the Assad regime has reason to believe reports that surfaced in the US this year that the CIA is actively assisting hostile Gulf states in channelling arms to opposition forces. So as he studies the diplomatic runes over his breakfast coffee, he may well ask himself what has changed.
What has changed is that the two-year civil war is ever closer to fulfilling predictions that it will spill into neighbouring countries, principally Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and Turkey, and spark a regional sectarian conflagration. Weekend missile attacks in southern Lebanon and Israel were further proof of that contention, as was Hezbollah's admission that its forces were fighting alongside Assad's troops.
What has changed, as Oxfam among others has warned, is that by fuelling the conflict by sending yet more weapons to the combatants, Britain and France risk stoking a further rapid and potentially disastrous escalation; risk adding to the appalling toll of 80,000 people dead and millions displaced; and risk shooting down and killing off the already enfeebled diplomatic process they seek to sustain.
More guns, more bodies, more misery. One would have thought they had learned the lesson by now.