U.S. and Iranian diplomats gather at a Baroque palace in Europe, a historic nuclear agreement within reach. Over Iraq's deserts, their militaries fight a common foe. Leaders in Washington and Tehran, capitals once a million miles from each other in ideological terms, wrestle for the first time in decades with the notion of a rapprochement.

Yet the old adversaries are locked in a proxy war across an ever more volatile region. In Syria, the United States arms insurgents seeking to oust the Iran-backed government. In Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and elsewhere, Iran supports militant groups determined to end Israel's existence. And now in Yemen, the U.S. is backing a military intervention by Sunni powerhouse Saudi Arabia against a Shiite rebellion aided by Iran.

As the United States backs a Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, Washington runs the risk of undercutting its diplomacy with Iran and becoming embroiled in a regional sectarian conflict running from Aleppo to Sanaa.

Despite the risks, and with negotiations on Tehran's nuclear program at a crucial moment, President Barack Obama swiftly endorsed air strikes by a coalition of Gulf countries against Iranian-backed Huthi rebels in Yemen on Wednesday. 

It could be clear to any one that al-Mustaqbal Movement leader Saad Hariri was part of the Arab military intervention against Huthi rebels in Yemen.

Hariri's recent shuttle diplomacy, where he traveled to Egypt 15 days ago and held talks with President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi and then headed to Turkey on Wednesday and met President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, could be a clear indication that he was part of the Arab and regional preparations to intervene in Yemen to combat Huthi rebels, who are supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon is functioning according to a specific timeframe and based on specific rules in spite of the differences between Lebanese politicians on the court's role and objectives.

Although one can understand their differences from a political perspective, it is shameful that the Lebanese from various factions are not benefiting from its technical aspects.

France has called for a U.N. Security Council meeting at the end of March on the protection of minorities in the Middle East after extremists and mainly Islamic State militants committed atrocities against them.

But the adoption of such an approach by major powers, democracies and the international community to resolve the problems of the Arab countries, mainly Syria and Iraq, adds to the already existing dangers.

The Lebanese and mainly politicians are living in a state of schizophrenia as a result of the contradictory stances that they make.

Despite the wave of dialogue between al-Mustaqbal Movement and Hizbullah, between the Free Patriotic Movement and the Lebanese Forces and finally between Bkirki and Hizbullah, all of them insist on holding onto their initial stances, stressing that dialogue does not compel them to change their positions.

In politics, goodwill is not enough to achieve the expected results and objectives. Weighing the success of a strategy is done through the results it achieves.

The Lebanese are now facing two samples.