Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, is increasingly left with few avenues for retreat as international pressure, domestic dissonance, and economic troubles all seem to have come to a disturbing (at least from the regime’s point of view) concurrent apogee. Mr. Assad and his Baathist cronies’ qualms regarding their tenuous position were best exemplified by the recent high profile meeting and joint declaration of solidarity with Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinajad.

Mr. Ahmadinajad has recently been doing his best to position himself as a messiah-like figure for not only the Arab world but the broader Islamic one as well. His confrontationist and offensive rhetoric was not the product of a troubled mind but of a shrewd calculating one bent on fulfilling a delineated and long planned out design for regional hegemony and international recognition as a major power. Mr. Assad, viewing the growing chorus of democratic dissent at home with deep trepidation, as the international community grows increasingly vocal and forceful regarding Baathist repression, is struggling to maintain an authentically nationalistic Syrian facade over the nepotistic minority rule dictate that he lords over for now. As such, the solidification of the two totalitarian regimes’ alliance was designed as an instrument of hedging what Mr. Assad views as his dominant strategy both domestically and internationally.

On the one hand, Mr. Assad hopes to ride on Mr. Ahmadinajad’s notoriety for “standing up” to Western powers and openly challenging the world as Iran’s nuclear weapons processing comes closer to finality with each passing day. Mr. Ahmadinajad’s deft use of Islamist rhetoric backed by his openly declared desire to engender a “final conflict” against anyone who stands in his way is seen by Mr. Assad and his clan as a convenient crutch to the increasingly bankrupt Baathist ideology and a bureaucracy that has done little to lift Syria out of its economic and developmental malaise since Assad II’s ascendance to power five years ago.

By tapping into Mr. Ahmadinajad’s wild and reckless program, Mr. Assad hopes to paint himself as a fellow stalwart in a great confrontation that ostensibly is inevitable and necessary to reclaim the “honor” of the Arab and Islamic world. Mr. Assad hopes to offset the significant bankruptcy that his credibility has endured as ordinary Syrians, particularly the large, unemployed young professional population, grow tired of empty promises with little to no results shown domestically in the financial and private sector, despite numerous party declarations claiming otherwise.

Mr. Assad’s recent missteps internationally, for which the majority of Syrians have no taste or inclination for, have only acted to greatly fuel the flames of discontent bubbly steadily underneath the surface. Malicious Syrian state security involvement in funding and supporting terror proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel is not winning it any fans abroad and has little internal appeal for a society struggling to catch up to the developing global economy.

Knowing full well that he stands little chance to successfully sell himself as a righteous defender of Syrian nationalist honor, Mr. Assad’s regime likely believes it can deflect criticism for its own criminal ineptitude and disastrous management by framing Syria’s troubles as stemming from a Western and Zionist campaign for regional hegemony for which the Baathists stand ready to do battle side by side with the Islamist forces of Iran and its terror functionaries against the evil “Crusaders.”

Mr. Assad is, of course, no gifted orator. He’s not theatrically inclined like Gamal Abdul Nasser. And, perhaps, most damning, he does not seem gifted in the art of cautious calculation like his father, the late dictator Hafez al-Assad, who would have instantly recognized the folly in isolating oneself and forcing an irreversible one-way policy option for the country of allying with Iran versus the rest of the industrialized world.

Having already been forced to free prominent Syrian democracy dissidents like Riad Seif in a move to dilute further the Syrian opposition and deflect the attention the former high ranking Baathist and vice president of Syria, Abdul-Halim Khaddam, was garnering in the world press, Mr. Assad hopes that the relaunching of this homegrown anti-regime democratic movement called “Damascus Spring” within Syria is more controllable than a Khaddam on the loose.

The regime is caught in a self-perpetuating dilemma for which it sees no way out but further entanglement, whether with the duly suicidal wider regional conflict that Iran’s mullahs seem bent on eliciting or a more potent opposition maturing before Mr. Assad’s eyes.

The recent defection – regardless of how dubious it may prove to be – of Mr. Khaddam caused quite a stir and further shook the foundation of the House of Assad and reinforced perception of internal disintegration. Though Mr. Khaddam claims that he seeks to be the center of a new Syrian parliament in exile, let us be clear: The Khaddams of the world do not represent the aspirations of the Syrian people – not by any stretch of the imagination. We should work hard on building a New Syria where old ideologies do not have as important a role as in the past. A progressive vision of free market reforms and political liberalization is the only road away from ruin.

The folly of Mr. Assad in choosing a war footing for his country ought not be followed by an equally regrettable policy on the part of America and her allies in not reaching out and grabbing the branch that liberal and democratic leaders within Syria, in conjunction with the anti-regime Diaspora, are handing out in the hopes of salvation from what can only accurately be described as impending calamity.

Mr. Ghadry is the president of the Reform Party of Syria, a secular and liberal democratic organization.