The peak reached by the humanitarian tragedy in Syria, one which is still not enough to change the positions of some major actors despite the expanding massacres that are claiming the lives of hundreds of people, is leading the country's fate towards what is worse than the Palestinian catastrophe. Many speculations emerged regarding the Balkanization of the Middle East and division that would crown Israel as an empire surrounded by entities with religious or sectarian facets, engaged in eternal infighting while each is claiming to defend the Shariaa, the truth and justice. True, the Syrian people are the ones offering the heftiest price for the Arab spring. But the paradox is that this price is being paid to change the regime, at a time when the spring states that have completed their revolutions and toppled dictatorships at much lesser prices are now facing another type of massacres, aiming at assassinating their opinion and freedom with the sword of monopolization. Moreover, they are facing the rejection by some of the elections' legitimacy, which is putting the first nail in the coffin of the post-revolutionary democratic structure. In Egypt, some of those refusing to choose between the Muslim Brotherhood candidate to the presidency Mohammad Morsi and the “candidate of the remnants," Ahmed Shafik, are almost calling for a “Charge of the Knights" the Iraqi style. In other words, this is reminiscent of when the choices were limited to two: The stay of Nouri al-Maliki – the one who launched the charge – as prime minister, or the proclamation of South Iraq as an independent province, which would practically open the door before the country's division. Hence, the choice was between the fate of a country and that of a person's authority, which summarized the democratic experience in the Land of the Two Rivers where dictatorship was toppled via foreign invasion. Indeed, the Iraqis got rid of Saddam, but fell between the jaws of his oppositionists and their hunger for power. Syria is threatened with dismantlement, and Iraq is threatened with division. The Egyptians headed in utter freedom to the ballot boxes for the first time in their lives. And regardless of the reservations over the Muslim Brotherhood's experience in parliament, the questioning of the truthfulness of its promises and the search for the fingers controlling Ahmed Shafik's electoral campaign, the cost for the rejection of the popular choice will firstly be paid by the Egyptians. In the meantime, what is being committed by political powers in Cairo brings back to mind the mistake made by the West, back when it showed duplicity at the level of accepting those elected by the Palestinians, isolated Hamas and made Gaza pay the price for its election of the movement. In reality, the Arabs of the spring are dealing with the outcome of the first elections in the post-revolution phase as though it were an eternal choice that cannot be altered by the voters. This is while they disregard the fact that the authority test alone can tame peacocks which are promising their people a Plato Republic as employment erodes their economies and communities and heralds revolutions against the revolution. At the level of the Egyptian model, the majority of those who demonstrated on Tahrir Square against the results of the first round of the presidential elections, are forgetting that the parties' clashes and their destruction of the polling legitimacy will grant the military council an opportunity to extend its rule for an unlimited period of time. They are also forgetting that democracy, for the people who experienced it, was never an outfit they could take off if its size does not fit some leaders and their interests. And in the Tunisian model following the Jasmine Revolution, the problem is no longer with Ben Ali's peacocks and entourage. In the Tunisia of the post-revolution and Renaissance, there are complaints about the massacre of freedoms and courts, with the isolation of dozens of judges, attacks on television channels and the calls made by the journalists' syndicate upon the government to protect it against the militias and the gangs! The main problem with the Ennahda government is that by remaining silent vis-à-vis the violations and attacks committed by the hardliners against people's freedoms, it is allowing them to increase their grip and pushing for the planting of the seeds of revolution against the new dictatorship. From Baghdad – in the pre-spring stage – to Cairo, Tunisia and Tripoli where militias are retaliating against a tribunal and where some of its armed men are settling retaliatory scores having nothing to do with the revolution, the peacocks are growing, the instincts are running wild and reason is retreating in the calculations of those who were among the victims of the tyrannical regimes. To us all, from the Ocean to the Gulf, a free service was offered by Hashemi Rafsanjani to protect the Arab popular revolutions as he senses “great threats" lurking, as he said: “We are ready to put Iran's experiences at the disposal of the states of the region, without any aspirations. Adopt the ideas of Imam Al-Khomeini." Is the Iranian campaign to crush the opposition and allow the hatching of hundreds of peacocks on the authority's wings not among these experiences?
