It is possible but – on the basis of what is known so far – not particularly probable that the explosions in Damascus on Friday were the work of al-Qaeda or elements of the Syrian opposition. What cannot be disputed, though, is that the "attacks" provide support for the regime's official line about the nature of the uprising.

As Martin Chulov puts it in an article for the Guardian:

"Any sorrow for the victims must surely be mitigated by the fact that the incidents fit straight into the official narrative: anti-regime activists weren't peaceful protesters wanting reform after all, and talk of peaceful change was always a veneer for the stalking horse of al-Qaeda. Regime officials have made this their mantra since violence started to escalate in late summer."

It is also beyond dispute that the timing is remarkably apposite: just as Arab League monitors have begun arriving in Syria.

Does this mean that the regime staged the "attacks" itself? There are certainly grounds for suspicion, though as yet there is no firm evidence to support that conclusion.

Either way, the truth may never be definitively established. All that matters for the regime, though, is that it should not be conclusively proved guilty, even if it cannot be fully exonerated.

Writing for this blog on Tuesday, I quoted a prediction from the Syrian dissident, Ammar Abdulhamid, saying that the regime's need at the moment is to muddy the waters for the Arab League's observer mission. That is what Friday's explosions have done, very effectively, and we can expect more of that before their mission is over.

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 22 December 2011