The double veto cast by Russia and China in the United Nations Security Council has forced the West to reappraise its approach towards Syria. But Britain, France and America have other ways of turning up the heat on President Assad.
Their options are: Taking further diplomatic and economic measures. The Western powers and their Arab allies may well turn to the UN General Assembly, urging it to condemn Assad and support the Arab League peace plan, which requires him to hand power to his vice-president. The European Union's foreign ministers will meet on February 27.
They will consider tightening sanctions, although the most significant step - imposing an oil embargo - has already been taken. Likelihood: High.
Helping the Free Syrian Army. The presence of a guerrilla force consisting largely of defectors from the regular army presents opportunities and pitfalls. With the West having reached the limits of the non-military measures, the temptation will be to aid his opponents. Britain has official links with the Syrian National Council, an umbrella movement of opposition parties.
The next step might be to develop ties with the FSA leadership. But what kind of help could be given to the rebels?
The West could offer non-lethal assistance, probably involving logistics, intelligence, communications and reconnaissance.
All this would make the FSA more capable and increase the threat it poses to Assad. Likelihood: High.
The FSA could also be supplied with weapons and ammunition.
This would build up the rebels' strength quickly, but it would breach an EU arms embargo. There is also the risk that the rebels would use their weapons to carry out atrocities. Likelihood: Low.
There is also the option of turning a blind eye to Arab countries supplying the FSA. If the West handed out non-lethal aid, this would provide cover for Syria's neighbours to supply weapons.
Qatar, which helped Libya's insurgents with Britain's quiet approval, might be a key player. Likelihood: Medium.
Taking direct military steps. This could include a no-fly zone or buffer areas where civilians would be safe, but any such action would need Security Council authority.
A no-fly zone would be an ''act of frustration to solve a non-existent problem'', as Syria's air force has played no role in the crisis, the head of security studies at the Royal United Services Institute, Jonathan Eyal, said.
As for buffer zones, there would be ''no point in proclaiming them unless you are willing to defend them,'' said Eyal - and that would mean military confrontation. Likelihood: Low.
The major risk is more bloodshed. Helping the regime's opponents would embolden them but cause more fighting.
If Assad concludes that the FSA is about to receive support, he will try to crush the rebels. That might explain the bloodshed in Homs.
Another option would be to urge a negotiated settlement.
''We're at a decision point,'' a former British ambassador to Syria, Sir Andrew Green, said. ''Our policy should be directed towards mitigating conflict, not exacerbating it.''
.gif)
