Annan's mission fluctuates between the welcoming regime and the opposition's reservations

UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan seems to hold the reins of deep awareness of the Syrian crisis and solution to its intractability, despite Syrian activistsdescribing him as "coming from Mars". Annan believes that militarising and arming the uprising would make the Syrian issue more complex. Hence, he called on both sides to put arms aside. Not only did he recognise the presence of two armed parties, he acknowledged the need to discuss a "political settlement" considering it the only solution for solving the Syrian crisis – which is of most importance. I wonder whether Annan's remarks stem from personal observations or he whether he was just expressing the viewpoints of those who assigned him for this task…I also do not know the exact nature of the regional and international alliance which appointed this man envoy to one of the most complex crises of the Arab Spring. Annan, in his statements, seems to be aware of the complexities of the military option, whether it is a choice of the regime or a means for the opposition. Any way, it is too early to judge the nature of "the political settlement" which is promised by the UN-Arab League envoy. Does he mean the settlement will be modeled on the "Yemeni way" which was commended by Arab and international parties? Or does he seek to reach a "compromise" where dialogue is considered salvation for all. It is too early to judge the man's thoughts, simply because we do not know anything about them. Annan's mission will clash with obstacles in the regime and opposition alike. The regime, which welcomed Annan's appointment and his opening remarks, will eventually find itself in the moment of truth and merit, when it will be asked to go through a series of steps -among "the "priorities of the settlement"- which it has procrastinated with so far.  This includes withdrawing the army and returning it to its barracks, releasing all political prisoners and holding those accused of crimes against humanity accountable… and, perhaps at a later stage, thinking of difficult decisions like stepping down, the formation of a transitional presidential council or mandating Assad's powers to his deputy. What is comfortable about Annan's mission is the desire to get out of the bottleneck and a bet that the rejection of Annan's mission will come from the opposition. So, why so we rush to the notion of the move being rejected by the regime? In my opinion, the way the opposition has dealt with Anan's mission made the regime's mission very easy. However, perhaps it came as proof for his first bet, when the regime positively responded to the man's mission and his statements. On the other hand, the Syrian opposition looks unbalanced and lacked prudence in dealing with the mission of the UN-Arab League envoy. They started with giving inaccurate descriptions to the man, his mission and those who had sent him, and ended up with putting conditions which complicate the whole situation. The frequent talk about Assad stepping down and sending him to the International Criminal Court in Den Haag as a condition for any dialogue, and limiting Anan's mission in discussing the power handover and the procedures of the transition period may be acceptable from a succesful party, which the Syrian opposition is yet to be. If the opposition thinks it has already won and it can impose its conditions, there is no need for Mr. Annan,  or the UN, or the Arab League to open dialogue. This is an unrealistic attitude, as these conditions can be suitable for finishing the dialogue, not opening it, or it can be starting points for the transition period. However you cannot start dealing with a mission of this type by making the opposing side completely surrender before you start negotiating with them...negotiate about what? I fear that some parts of the opposition abroad are sharing mutual-extortion, and that prevents reasonable voices among them from offering realistic solutions which can contribute to the efforts of ending the long suffering of the Syrian nation. I fear some in the opposition are not self-guided, and they are becoming just a tool in an international, regional, and Arab conflict on the Syrian issue. Anyway, I believe a positive attitude from the opposition towards Anan's mission could have put Assad's regime in big trouble. Now, the trouble is switched to the opposition's side, the opposition should have demanded more appropriate conditions, like stopping the expected military campaign against Idlib, and letting humanatirian aid enter Homs. It could prepare a list of proposals which could expose the fake positive reception which Assad's regime has shown to Anan. Throughout this year, we were  saying that the Syrian regime is the biggest enemy of itself, now, I'm afraid the same applies for the opposition.