The British government's recognition of the Syrian opposition as a "legitimate representative" of the country's people indicates its backing for Libya mark 2 regime change.
Foreign Secretary William Hague's insistence that Nato and its allies should "tighten the diplomatic and economic stranglehold" on Syria confirms this interpretation.
His denunciation of the Syrian government as "a criminal regime" and his pledge to "intensify our links with the opposition" bears all the fingerprints of the last Nato intervention, even down to Hague's assertion that he favours an arms embargo rather than arming insurgents.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is less ambivalent, insisting that the opposition will "somehow find the means to defend themselves as well as begin offensive measures."
Of course they will, because this "we came, we saw, he died" ghoul will spare no effort to ensure that US allies in the region supply insurgents with sophisticated weapons and military advisers to escalate the current conflict into a full-blown civil war.
Imperialism's failure to have its own way at the UN security council has fathered the Tunis conference. It is a means of undermining a decision of the international community.
Opposition to such flagrant contempt for international law does not translate into approval of the conduct of the Assad regime.
Even opposition forces such as Syria's National Co-ordination Committee for Democratic Change want nothing to do with Tunis because they understand the dangers of outside military intervention, to say nothing of heightened religious sectarianism.
If Washington and its allies now see the wisdom of negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan after 11 years of war and countless unnecessary deaths, why should intra-Syrian talks, as proposed by Moscow and Beijing, be regarded as unthinkable?
The US, which opposed democratic struggles in Tunisia and Egypt, now views demands for change as an opportunity to stoke violence and achieve its goals through military conflict.