The opponents of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki like to compare him to the character of Don Quixote, i.e. one who is passionate about adventures and solely capable of adopting irrational decisions. Nine years after the American invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Baath Party, the Iraqis are wondering about the Arab spring whose winds were kept away from the Land of the Two Rivers through deals between the politicians, to prevent these winds from dismantling Al-Maliki's “democratic empire.” And it is purely democratic, as it is believed by the American godfather of the occupation and liberation from Baathist dictatorship. A few months ago, the Land of the Two Rivers was filled with the cries of the protesters against poverty, unemployment, the absence of services, the prevalence of brokerages and commissions and the hegemony of the thieving mobs. The ones benefiting from the quotas thus discovered that the only way to prevent the flood – which could topple the mosaic, lists and symbols of the authority in case it were to take place – would be by extinguishing the anger. Consequently, the angry crowds dispersed and Don Quixote went back to his old self, a weak knight facing the crises with the sword of the Iranian neighbor. Why the spring? Nouri al-Maliki is not listening to the raging oil symphony between Baghdad and the Kurdistan province, via exchanged accusations according to which the Iraqi oil was delivered to Iran and Israel and billions of dollars evaporated, based on good intentions and forgiveness for past actions. Another one will be seen, and if parliament is asked about the monitoring and accountability role, there will be no answer, as the council mirrors the mosaic of the torn authority, except on maintaining the status quo. Al-Maliki's Don Quixotian wisdom requires the containment of the crises following their fabrication, or provocation to taint the reputation of the other. Once this is achieved, the authority of transparency tends to the pending national dialogue crisis on the threshold of the premiership: more bombardment against the Iraqi List (headed by Iyad Allawi) before the government of quotas moves on to another crisis. The detractors of Al-Maliki's method, who recognized that he passed the test of hosting the Baghdad Arab summit (for the spring), believe he once again mastered the reproduction of the crisis affecting Arab relations with the new Iraq, only a few hours after the end of the summit. Indeed, Iraq returned to the Arab lap, then engaged in a dispute with it a few days later, after Al-Maliki was disgruntled by Saudi Arabia's stand alongside the Syrian people and Qatar's invitation to Vice President Tarek al-Hashemi to visit Doha. This reached the point where he almost dispatched an airplane with a subpoena to bring him to the Green Zone as a “terrorist.” Don Quixote's wisdom in the Land of the Two Rivers does not recognize diplomatic customs and the fact that the foreign policy of whichever state is its own affair, regardless of the wishes of the head of the “axis of rejectionism” in Tehran, which is allocating the roles to its allies and issuing certificates of good conduct to the states and leaders whenever the area witnesses a “devilish imperialistic attack.” In this case, there are two devils in one. The first is America with which Al-Maliki is engaged in a strategic partnership agreement, and the second is America with which Tehran is engaged in a public hostility agreement it does not wish to relinquish. This is true after the decades of talk about a war which never erupted and never ended between them, revealed a mutual denial of their concealed alliance. Hence, is it now wise to be a friend to Iran and the “devil” at the same time? Is it not a virtue to protect the interests of Iraq and its ruling elite, even if this requires the condemnation and belittlement of the revolution of a population?! Ever since the end of the Arab summit, questions have been emerging in Baghdad about funds which evaporated after they had been allocated to the preparations for an event that would allow Iraq's return home for the first time in 22 years. The millions evaporated, but that is not an urgent problem. As to the return, it is an entirely different issue, as many Iraqis believe that Al-Maliki's positions were prompted by his favoring of the Iranian lap which pushed the prime minister to change his position toward the regime in Damascus. Don Quixote is still on his horse, so why the spring? And why do the Iraqis need it? Is Saddam still in power? Is the country not a paradise of transparency and equality among the citizens at the level of their rights and justice that does not differentiate between the Sunnis and the Shiites, those who constitute a majority and those who constitute a minority? Is it not a paradise of appeased security despite the emirs of Al-Qaeda and the booby-trapped cars, and of archetypical relations between the parliamentary blocs despite the complaints of some against arbitrary arrests, the politicization of the judiciary, the terrorization of the opponents (Al-Hashemi, Saleh al-Mutlaq) and the hijacking of the national dialogue project? As to the pending issues in the Iraqi state today, they will remain so because the ceiling of “political agreements” has grown much higher than the constitution. Moreover, these agreements are synonymous with the quotas system, no matter how hard the authority tries to beatify reality. As to the oil and gas law which has not yet passed beneath parliament's dome, it could witness a war of billions and pipelines between Baghdad and the Kurds, on who should pay the companies, who should cash the oil revenues and who should smuggle it. As to the question “where is the money of the Iraqis?”, it probably does not concern Don Quixote who is drowning in the concerns of the region and the major balances which he can clearly see, even if on the back of a frail horse.
