We are stuck between two storms. We have barely survived an all-out Sunni-Shiite war in Iraq and Lebanon and we are not getting ready for major changes in the entire region. The proposed topics are not restricted to the future of the Iranian nuclear file, the governance formula in Iraq, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and Hezbollah's weapons. Each of the abovementioned topics involves gloomy possibilities as to the stability in the Arab world. It is no secret that stability is equivalent in our country to the fatal situation of stagnancy and apathy. But in return, with the world tending to adopt concrete measures against Iran and the growing problems in the American-Israeli relations in a way that Benjamin Netanyahu could manipulate to direct surprising strikes at many targets, the political forces should settle their positions and choose the camps with which they will side. The options are neither open nor various. There are only two sides receiving the members. None of them tempts us by seeking progress, modernity, independence, and development which benefit the Arab people with their majority and minority. The movement of lineups, such as the visits of the leaders of the Iraqi parliamentary blocs to Tehran and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's reception of the Lebanese Deputy Walid Jumblatt, hints that the coming storm will only consolidate the sharp sectarian and confessional division in the country, if we desired to keep away from the slogans of the “fierce attack” and the “imperial project” and the “Zionist project.” These words could bear realistic and actual meanings, but they eventually reveal the problems of the counter projects. Resistance and opposition, the two slogans raised by the defenders of the Arab world, do not address the internal relations, neither among the Arab and Islamic countries, nor among the people of these countries and their governments. The idea of a dialogue with Iran which was raised during the recent Arab Summit comes in this context, as an attempt to address the domestic problems by escaping to the outside. The most pressing questions regard what is preventing a dialogue between Egypt and Algeria to resolve a conflict in which all the chauvinistic inclinations of both sides were revealed, before heading to Iran and holding a dialogue with it from a weak and incapable position. For more than 60 years, i.e. since the Palestinian Nakba, restricting the problem to a brutal foreign enemy and overlooking the deterioration of societies and the backwardness of regimes only made the foreign sides fiercer while it caused the domestic situation more fragmentation and collapse. The intelligence of the neo-opposition and resistance forces (as the old resistance forces innovated the idea of the “democracy of the rifles”) inspired them to adopt new patterns in thinking and practicing politics and governance, ones that gradually lean to a flagrant sectarian and fascist rhetoric and behavior. Those opposing the abovementioned rhetoric and behavior should affirm absolute submission to the necessities of the resistance and completely succumb to the requirements of a battle which they have nothing to do about its beginning and results. Otherwise, they would be expelled outside the circle of the family, the tribe, and the surviving group, and inevitably become one of the agents, traitors, and spies whose only concern is to sell off their countries in the auctions of global arrogance and its public and overt biddings. The fear over inter-Arab wars, whether sectarian, confessional, or factional ones, is addressed by flawless leaders or ones who are persistently working toward flawlessness. It is no secret to say that the major changes, the first signs of which will appear in the region before the end of the current year, come at a time the Arabs are not ready to welcome or deal with them. This involves loyalty to a lengthy course and track.
