The West's pragmatism equals the protection of its interests, even if this requires hypocrisy in approaching the Arabs' situation during the Arab spring era, and its tragedies and violent repercussions on the victims of tyranny. However, Iran is also not far behind in the interests race and is practicing a diplomacy featuring a hunt for opportunities and Arab causes, thus allowing the prevalence of unchanged opportunism since the proclamation of the Islamic Republic over the ruins of the regime of the Shah of oppression. And while Iranian President-elect Hasan Rohani is inaugurating his term by opening his arms to the Syrian regime and supporting it to face the "conspiracies" hand in hand, Tehran is insisting on seeing the oppositionists of President Bashar al-Assad's regime drop their weapons to pave the way before the solution. Hence, it is requesting their surrender before dialogue! Nothing is changing in pragmatic Iran - neither its fundamentalist rejectionism nor the sponsorship of its alliance - just like nothing has changed at the level of the Western fundamentalist Machiavellianism that encouraged Al-Assad's oppositionists to engage in the battle to topple him until the end, then left them under the space of explosive barrels. And the fall of 5,000 Syrians each month remains less costly for the West than the victories of An-Nusra Front, its control over the conflict inside and on Syria or the announcement of a mini-state affiliated with Al-Qaeda. In the meantime, the United Nations should continue issuing calls for help on behalf of a population that is still threatened with extermination. And if the West's "fundamentalist" interests were to face some sort of a blow, it would be a temporary one, even when featuring a scandal. The last episode at this level affected British Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday, a few hours after the issuance of urgent orders to secure masks for the revolutionaries in Syria for protecting them against the regime's poisonous gases. Indeed, the shameful shock resided in a report by the British parliament, revealing that during the past years, London sold states – including Syria –substances that could be used to manufacture chemical weapons. Between the regime's gases and explosive barrels, the ghost of the plans of An-Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda and their sisters, and Iran's full dedication to the defense of a legitimacy in Damascus under the pretext of "conspiracies," the world – along with the Arabs – is watching the Arabs' holocaust. What fundamentalism could be more horrendous than the extermination of a population in defense of a "secular regime"?! Can the marriage between the Islamic Republic in Iran and the secularism of the Syrian Baath result in anything but failed and handicapped states, if not mini-states whose heroes are pirates trading with religion, killings and blasphemous fatwas? Hence, the alliance of fundamentalism and disbelief in the sanctity of life, blood and the rights of all the people is complete, but it does not constitute the entire scene of the spring. Indeed, in other corners of the map of the Arab revolutions, a new tyranny is emerging with the spears of those who rebelled against dictatorship. Hence, militiamen closed the Libyan Interior Ministry as though it were a shop belonging to those in control during the post-unique leader stage. Also, armed men occupied a Libyan oil field, rendering it their own until their demands are met and transforming rights into royalties. And from the democracy of anarchy spread by the armed men around the walls of legitimacy in the capital Tripoli, we head to the democracy of the Jasmine which quickly withered thanks to the "wisdom" of Ennahda, the terrorization of half of society with the restriction of women's rights and the intimidation of educational institutions in the name of the Shari'a. In the legitimacy of the victorious over dictatorship in the spring of monopoly, we are the new tyrants, thus granting and restricting rights, allotting the states and their institutions in shares and turning nations into war spoils. In addition, we tailor the constitutions to the size of the parties, under the sponsorship of whoever was the first to embrace the revolution, before hijacking it and pillaging the state. On the other hand, whoever opposes us is a collaborator, even if it is the population. A collaborating population? This is the first time such a miracle occurs in history. It is the fruit of the marriage between fundamentalism and rejectionist secularism in the Arabs' region. As for us, the neo-oppressors, it is fine for us to act as collaborators voluntarily, whenever the calculations of our party or group require us to be in the foreign camp. And if the interests of the sponsor diverge from ours, we can hide behind the Sharia'a slogan. At this level, we can draw the lesson from the Muslim Brotherhood: "Firstly Morsi has to return to the palace, and then we will please all the sides." This was said by a leader in the group whose mistake – as it discovered – was that it did not give a share of the Egyptian cake, even if a small portion of it, to the Salvation Front at the right time to save the president's legitimacy! Consequently, the palace appears to be an administration for partisan cooperatives and not for that of the largest Arab state. And while the militiamen in free Libya are turning the ministries into shops to which they hold the keys, the movements of political Islam in Tunisia are insisting on a constitution setting the foundations for a revolution project. We are the neo-oppressors and we will only oppress with the sword of freedom, considering that it must compensate us for all that was endured by populations throughout decades of oppression. On the other hand, and in regard to the holocaust being committed by fundamentalist secularism, each victor should tend to his own arena while the simple people continue to believe the myth of Sunni-Shiite, Sunni-Alawite and Islamic-Christian conflicts. Indeed, they are mere tools with altering roles in the chapters of the greater holocaust. Do we still not know the protagonists of oppression and extermination? To each their group.
