The Pentagon did not send the guided missile destroyer USS Higgins to the Middle East to settle the conflict between the Lebanese sides fighting over the hard labor of the national unity government. Also, it did not send the destroyer to impose the approaches of the group that calls for "absolute partnership" over its opponent that is accused of "absolute sectarian instigation" merely because Prime Minister-designate Saad al-Hariri handed over to the Lebanese President Michel Sleiman a list of names of people he thinks are eligible to undertake the cabinet portfolios, on the basis of not canceling the results of the parliamentary elections. One of the constants is that the domestic clamor dominates the tempests of the "superpowers" in the region. Everyone is warning against sliding again into the schemes of external sides and against making Lebanon pay part of the heavy price, while everyone is involved in the chaos of "settling destinies" in a "unity" government. Others find it easy to surrender to the language of fueling the confrontation to the peak of estrangement. Higgins will not bring the mobile missiles into Lebanon's crises. But it is not a positive sign for any camp that the destroyer in Haifa and the American ships in the Mediterranean are mobilized, while Iran informs the super powers in the Security Council about the amended suggestions of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in order to initiate a "just" dialogue. The other aspects of the Iranian nuclear dossier are known. While these aspects are deemed tedious by the West and are depleting Israel's patience, they have not provoked the curiosity or apprehension of the Lebanese sides to the level that makes the potential storm imminent, as long as Lebanon is the favorable candidate par excellence to be an arena for testing power and redrawing the boundaries of the roles in the region. Between the heavy shadow of the nuclear dossier, and the scary shadow of the Pentagon and Israel's installation of a missile base in the Middle East to wage a missile war, the complaint about the non-representation of Zahle appears among the complaints regarding the flaws of the portfolios in the government of Prime Minister-designate Saad al-Hariri. Aside from the funny aspect, which does not downplay the clamor of the political confrontation in Lebanon, the regional facts and the crises engulfing the country once again do not waive the right of the March 8 and 14 groups to defend their approaches, or the value of the call for calm. But it is indeed an opportunity to contemplate the "wisdom" of some of the Lebanese in preparing for another fierce round of struggle over a "just partnership", the minimum price of which is to spread despair and fears, inject tensions in the street, mobilize sects, raise the barricades of the Constitution, play the symphony of treason, and “conspire” with the Americans. The rest of the terminologies of the political dictionary in Lebanon duplicate nothing but tedious words, and the "epic" of the chronic coming events has become a national obligation for every Lebanese citizen. Among the new rules of the democratic game is when the winner in the elections is condemned and accused of manipulating his victory to put down the other side. The victory of the first side becomes a weapon in the hands of the second. Then, instead of rounding the corners, the political life is dominated to produce a democracy of "partnership" and this goes beyond the repercussions of the blocking third, through attempting to besiege Prime Minister-designate with the conditions of appointment. In fact, the new chapter in the period that followed the Doha Agreement will not be refuted by the weapon of accusing the opponent of mobilizing sectarian sentiments, in order to push it to even surrender constitutional customs. As such, the winner is supposed to "offer" its victory to the other group, so as to acquit it from spilling the blood of consensus!... The March 14 group is also supposed to be horrified of a leaked "secret plan" by the opposition to foil the attempts of Al-Hariri and its intentions to "wash" his hands off the 15-10-5 formula. Thus, it is a preemptive attempt to face Al-Hariri with the fait accompli conditions. As for the opposition's talk about the need to study Al-Taef Agreement in "closed chambers", it is only another indication of its desire to go beyond the "guaranteeing" blocking third, and insist once again on amending the Constitution and Al-Taef Agreement, in order for the "eternal" consensual democracy to prevail. With this democracy, all justifications for elections and parliamentary representation collapse, and the role of the parliament is dwarfed to that of a notary in a state for the federalism of parties and quotas! Regardless of the fact that the domestic situation is linked to a certain regional decision that fuels the political confrontation in Lebanon – which is most probably the case – the opposition still has a chance to refer to the balanced role of President Michel Sleiman if it wants to rescue the country from the "chaos" of the external storm, and pave the way for the phase of calm reform. In Lebanon, no matter how high the clamor of the demands becomes, it will not conceal the noise of the negative realities in the region and will not contribute to protecting the country from chronic events.
