The domino effect acquires another dimension with the uprising of the Egyptian people following the uprising of the Tunisian people, and what is being witnessed throughout the Arab region in terms of the chain reaction in more than one state enjoying different conditions and situations in major objective and structural ways. The domino effect that was wanted by the neoconservatives in America through their attack on the Middle East and occupation of Iraq under the lame pretext of establishing democracy in the surrounding states, was an illusion since the beginning and it failed – as it was expected to – a few months after America gained control over the Land of the Two Rivers. This led to the beginning of the collapse of these neoconservatives in America itself, starting with the fall of their main theoretician Richard Pearl at the end of 2003. As for the domino reaction that we are witnessing now, with one tile knocking over the one next to it, it is the real and original game that is far from the dreams and madness of the neoconservatives. This is due to the fact that the tiles are falling one after the other thanks to an active movement born from the womb of each society in which the winds of change are blowing from within and not from abroad, regardless of the role of the latter. What was witnessed in Tunisia and is being witnessed in Egypt confirms the veracity of the Arab and European rejection of the insistence of American President George Bush's administration on instating change by use of force, at a time when the Europeans - at the head of which was French President Jacques Chirac at the time - abstained from humoring his policy that was wrapped in chauvinism, racism and prejudice toward the Arabs. They also considered that the specificities of the communities did not allow a move toward the new and wide Middle East, because such change could not come from abroad. This conclusion is not the only lesson drawn from Tunisia and Egypt among others, in terms of the interactions seen in the Middle East region that is prone to find its own way. And this could take years, not a few months or the push of a button. The internal motor in the two aforementioned examples, despite the differences between the Egyptian and Tunisian communities and the positions of the two countries, is based on the accumulation of resentment – throughout decades – toward the trinity on which the crumbling regimes are based. This trinity features political structures guaranteeing the unilateralism of the rule and the prevention of political plurality, a police and security oppression in which security and military power intertwine with the political structure to become partners in the rule and the spoils, and finally a class of businessmen enjoying obscene wealth and fueling the political regime and the military structures with benefits, bribery and the ability to continue. However, the buildup of indignation over the excessive oppression of this trinity cannot – on its own – explain what is happening. Indeed, this trinity and especially the class of businessmen, requires an army of workers to serve the mercantile economy on which the regime is based. Consequently, it needs educated young people whose numbers have increased during the last two or three decades, thus causing the rise of the unemployed among them due to the poor distribution of the wealth. The latter were the fuel of the uprising, and it was not a coincidence that their efficiency was much higher than that of the parties. Indeed, the educated youth used new methods whose role astonished the world (Twitter, Facebook, mobile phones), as the new media's impact exceeded that of the satellite channels. Moreover, it seemed that their liberal character, their partisan and non-religious openness, modernity, and spontaneity granted them a leading role in what was seen in Egypt and Tunisia in comparison with the roles of the parties, even the old and historical ones. If this is seen in other states, these young people could become a helping element in overcoming the vertical divisions and the sectarian and tribal divisions in other communities where these schisms are used by the regimes to protect the political oppression, security oppression and financial and economic corruption trinity. There is also another important conclusion, i.e. that the agendas of the two uprisings were mainly domestic, or at least were so when they were first launched. In Egypt's case, the raising of the “dignity” slogan on Tahrir Square symbolizes the fact that democracy is the way to restore Egypt's - absent - regional and historical role, whether at the level of the Arab-Israeli conflict or at the level of the numerous crises in the region. The domino effect is an infection and it is only normal for ideological parties to attribute the benefits of what is happening to their own political course. However, there is one question revolving around whether the infection came from the Iranian revolution, the Ukrainian revolution, the March 14 uprising in 2005, the massive Arab and international demonstrations staged against the wars on Lebanon and Gaza, the uprising in Iran in protest against the results of the presidential elections in 2009 (knowing that the latter resembles Egypt in terms of the oppression of the uprising), or from all these cases combined?
