Washington took half a step back at the level of the European-American mobilization to support Najib Mikati's government, after Lebanon reached the edge of the Syrian volcano. And while France sees no exaggeration or dramatization in its warnings against efforts to dismantle Lebanon, everyone was shocked by the explosion that shook the country and featured the assassination of Information Branch Chief General Wissam al-Hassan. As to the American Department of State, it appeared confused a few hours after it announced its insistence on the stay of Mikati's government to avoid vacuum. The best way to understand this half a step backward would be the American Department of State's realization of its fall in the abyss of contradiction, as it is supporting a government in which Hezbollah – which it has always considered to be the ally of the Syrian regime and Tehran – constitutes the main pillar and sponsor. This half a step backward was made within a few hours, and was in favor of the March 14 team that received a strong blow with the assassination of martyr Wissam al-Hassan, and realized that the time of the resumption of the assassinations had come, while Lebanon is threatened with the emissions of the Syrian volcano. This team is calling for the resignation of the government it is holding “responsible for the facilitation of the Syrian regime's plan to violate Lebanon" starting from the Ashrafieh explosion, and Washington will not oppose this demand in case a constitutional alternative that would prevent vacuum is secured. It thus converges with President Michel Suleiman's insistence on holding a dialogue session, in order to instate a governmental alternative in agreement with the concerned parties before announcing the death of Mikati's government, knowing that the latter was encouraged by the European-American consensus over the prevention of vacuum in order to keep Lebanon from sliding toward what is dubbed civil war in Syria. And while leader of the Struggle Front Deputy Walid Jumblatt is aligning with President Suleiman and rejecting “the adventures," the Future Movement is insisting on the government's resignation before dialogue and Hezbollah is holding on to the “government of the right moment." Hence, the March 14 team has no other option but to adopt a revised version of the boycotting imposing by the March 8 camp on former Prime Minister Fouad Sanioura. Yet, there is a major difference. The Future Movement and its allies have no other option but to peacefully boycott the government and stage symbolic sit-ins, which alone will not alter Mikati's insistence on staying at the Serail to prevent vacuum. The predicament resides in Lebanon's exposure on the security level, as confirmed by the assassination of General Wissam Hassan. And the question is: Which will come first, dialogue or the “neutral" government? And the predicament will continue, especially since the March 14 forces have enough reasons to refute the purpose of a dialogue, which they consider is being used by the other side as a cover to pass the time and place them before the dilemma of coexistence with the fait accompli. True, Mikati can coexist with the tents of the opposition in front of his house and with peaceful protests in front of the government Serail. But what is also true is that the obstruction of the electoral law in parliament due to the non-attendance by the Future bloc of the parliamentary committees' meetings, will not suit the calculations of the March 8 forces and their aspirations to ratify a law that suits them. More importantly, ahead of months that might be extended to the beat of the events in Syria and the concerns over the spread of the infection, is the question related to whether or not the American recanting of the support granted to Mikati's government echoes former Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri's discontent with the “advice offered by some." And even more importantly is the March 14 team's moderation and its non-relinquishing of the peaceful approach, which might be faced with the fifth column that fired sniper shots at the army in Beirut following the explosion in Ashrafieh and the shock of Lebanon's exposure on the security level. And what some have been saying in regard to the refusal to subjugate a team and the targeting of a sect – which is lightly dealt with by the opposition that is raising its voice and carrying out peaceful boycotting – is being exploited by the column of strife as a pretext, in order to lead Lebanon a few steps further towards the Syrian volcano. The Lebanese do not need an alarm bell following all that has happened since March 2011, considering that the tragedy of Lebanese citizen Ihab al-Aazi whose fingers were severed with a sword under the cover of the days of wrath, is enough to summon all the horrendousness of strife and the Taliban of Kandahar to Beirut. So, is there still room for any questions regarding the side seeking Lebanon's dismantlement or its annexation with the regional strife, through the re-launching of the killing machine and the blind retaliation instincts? Is there still room for any wager on the March 8 team's rationality? Which moment is right to catch a breath that might be the last? The flames of strife do not differentiate between governments or sects?
