The Iraqis did not take very long to offer American President Barack Obama a token of long partnership enhancing his credibility, seeing how he will be launching the campaign to renew his term at the beginning of 2012. Prior to the return of the last American soldier from the Land of the Two Rivers, the president said “we have left behind a stable country” with the completion of the occupation's mission. However, the Iraqi leaders responded with a shower of random accusations, warnings against what will happen on that day and calls to avoid the collapse. And because Washington has become accustomed to the role of the guide of the so-called political process in Iraq during the last nine years – while encouraged by the competition with the Iranian guide – it had to offer a piece of advice, i.e. dialogue. But what dialogue can be instated if Iraqi Vice President Tarek al-Hashemi is a terrorist according to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki? The latter is accused of monopolizing power, relying on the Iranian strings - regardless of his denials - of seeking the exclusion of all those opposed to his alliance and of dreaming about his coronation as the permanent guardian of the constitution, which he perceives as being sacred. Was it a mere coincidence to see Al-Hashemi's file reopened with the withdrawal of the last American soldiers and the emergence of the Iranian hat's shadow from Basra to Baghdad? One hat is now being replaced with another, and Tehran, which always raised fears in the region and America due to its mobilization to fill the vacuum after the U.S. flag is brought down at the military bases in Iraq, is mocking everyone because it is the only one that controls the vacuum and has been doing so for many months before the Americans' withdrawal. And while Obama is not very pleased with the calculations of the Iraqi leaders a few days after he received Al-Maliki – who is accused of leading the new dictatorship – at the White House, the fear over the political collapse of the consensual formula which was dubbed the quota system will definitely not serve his electoral campaign, at a time when the Republicans are accusing him of carrying out a reckless pullout. Al-Maliki is capitalizing on his use of the stick of the judiciary and its autonomy. However, he is definitely increasing the doubts surrounding his ability to manage the executive power as a prime minister for all Iraqis by promising Al-Hashemi a fair trial, just as fair as that of Dictator Saddam Hussein under the presence of occupation forces! Moreover, he is definitely establishing a conviction surrounding his rush to strengthen his monopolization, after the army and the security forces became totally free in the absence of an American partner testifying for the consensual formula. And while it would be fair not to hold Al-Maliki responsible for the quota system which is now the object of accusations and outbidding, it would also be fair to seek the wisdom behind his eagerness to brandish the judicial sword against a figure who is not an ordinary citizen to uphold the criminal character of the case, in light of a prevailing media frenzy and without any regard for the sectarian balance in the country. In Iraq, this balance is like a powder keg, as long as the undermining of the credibility of participation is expanding outside the areas of the Sunnis. So, can anyone guarantee the outcome of the play with fire over gunpowder? But what is mostly important at the level of the win and loss calculations in the context of the governmental formula which emerged and remained on the waiting list for the day that will follow the great pullout, is the fact that what Al-Maliki risked ending yesterday – i.e. a consensus between the political blocs – is more specifically a call for the great duel: Whoever does not accept the constitution is a dissenter, whoever boycotts the government can be replaced. This instantly renders Iyad Allawi (the head of the boycotting Iraqiya bloc) a dissenter, just like Al-Hashemi and Saleh al-Mutlaq who is Al-Maliki's deputy and who complains about the dictatorship of the latter. Also among them is President Jalal Talabani who publicly complained for being the last to know about the storm of the arrest warrant against his deputy! On the other hand, the prime minister cannot sleep on the silk sheets of the Kurds to form a government of political majority while threatening Allawi that the time has come to settle the scores. But what trade-off can be concluded with the Kurds to guarantee this majority – as they are waging the battle of the Kurdish oil contracts with this Central Government in Baghdad, are waving the Kirkuk and secession card whenever they have a dispute with Al-Maliki, and are using the provinces' card as long as the detonation of balance is possible in the absence of any guarantee that they will maintain the presidency of the republic in their hands? This would be a difficult trade-off during the stage of liquidation of scores, one that was rashly launched by Al-Maliki to use the element of surprise, paralyze the opponent and reap the second victory. And while the confrontation is taking a turn toward political liquidation in light of the return of the waves of explosions, the ghost of sectarian infighting is reemerging. In light of this situation, would there be any meaning left for the exchanged lies about the stable country, the independent judiciary and the mutiny of the opponents against a government which is threatening with its own death to protect the consensus cake under Al-Maliki's hat?
