There is nothing that gives the impression that Barack Obama wants to enter history in the fashion of George Bush. The two persons are different, and the United States is tired and drained. It fought a lot during the first decade of this century. It is most probable that Obama dreams to be the president who brought back the army from difficult or impossible missions. It can be said that he needed in his first year a success in the Iranian dossier, i.e. launching a dialogue or paving the way for it, in order to prove the advantage of a policy of involvement, dialogue, respect of differences, and interests. This did not happen. Iran did not take Obama's extended hand. Assumptions will still be made over this lost opportunity whose causes are hard to determine. There are those who believe that hostility to the United States is not a passing option for the existing regime in Iran; that this hostility is necessary for the regime's cohesiveness; that any real dialogue with the United States would open doors through which winds will infiltrate the fortress of the “Islamic Republic”; and that the regime prefers to work on the tension line with America rather than on that of dialogue. One finds it difficult to understand. If Iran really does not want to manufacture a nuclear bomb, then why is it unable to convince America, Europe, Russia, and even China of its sincere intentions and absence of ambiguity in its stance? Why is it particularly unable to convince the International Atomic Energy Agency? What does Iran really want? A nuclear bomb that constitutes an “insurance policy” against any US attempt to end the “Islamic Republic” regime? Or does it want a role in the region that it feels America will not concede? Or does it want the role and the bomb together, and this would mean a great change in the region whose keys it is difficult for the great nations to put in the hands of a country like Iran and a regime like its regime? Why hasn't Iran submitted what would prevent the UN Security Council from ratifying a package of new sanctions against it, with Russian and Chinese approval? Why didn't it submit what would put an end to the escalation of US sanctions against it? Any observer is entitled to ask these questions. The signature of Barack Obama on the Iranian sanctions bill is no mean feat. It is true that Iran is a large country by Middle Eastern standards. It is also true that it has experience in facing sanctions, that its strict regime is cohesive and hasn't shown any indications of fissures or cracks, and that it is unlikely that the opposition's condition will go through an imminent or close change. However, it is also true that the US sanctions, after the international and European sanctions, will leave their traces on the Iranian economy, not to mention the isolation. We are not on the eve of a US-Iranian war. Obama might have chosen the sanctions to keep war away. Perhaps Iran feels it is able to coexist for a long time with the sanctions and bypass them thanks to its regional relations and conditions of the neighboring countries, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. The danger phase could start if it appears that the sanctions are effective and harmful. Iranian reactions would then be expected in some of the regional arenas. But while we wait for this, the extent of tension can be restrained under the umbrella of sanctions that allow Obama to curb the appetites of the hawks in his country and allow Ahmadinejad to continue in his fiery speeches against the Great Satan.
