Israel's public talk about the preparations to wage war against the Iranian nuclear program might not mean that war is inevitably coming. Indeed, is it possible for it to openly threaten to carry out a military action whose basic component is utter secrecy to avoid losing the element of surprise? It did not do so when its aircrafts raided the Iraqi Tammuz reactor at the beginning of the eighties, and did not threaten Syria it will strike what it considered – along with Washington – to be a nuclear reactor. It simply raided the site five years ago and remained silent. No matter how high it raises its fist, Israel cannot wage war on Iran without the approval of or coordination with the United States, i.e. its strategic ally. The psychological war being launched by Benjamin Netanyahu's government is converging with the American-French campaign, and is even rushing Washington's and Paris' actions which – along with all the Europeans – do not want to relinquish the sanctions option. And while this option has so far failed, these states are handling the situation with further sanctions, at a time when the next report of the International Atomic Energy Agency will carry plenty of material for the deployment of new pressures on the Islamic Republic. Numerous are the questions being raised by this wide-scale confrontation with the Islamic Republic, whether at the level of its timing or the goals revealed by this timing. The United States and Israel are aware of the fact that any military action against the Iranian nuclear program will not achieve the desired goal, and might even delay its accomplishment. However, it will not prevent Tehran from resuming its course. Moreover, they realize that a military action will turn the situation in the region upside down, and increase the complications imposed by the Arab action and the unknown future of the international interests in the region. This is not to mention the attacks and wide-scale retaliation operations to which the Hebrew state and the American troops are subjected in the region, in light of the large network of alliances which was established by Iran years ago with forces, movements and parties it provided with money and weapons beyond their need. It would be enough at this level to point to the Israeli circles' talk about an arsenal of one thousand Iranian missiles! Israel's tackling of its fears vis-à-vis the Iranian nuclear program out in the open and its threats to strike it under the pretext of the danger it poses on its national security, may be a mere attempt to hasten the exertion of further pressures on the Islamic Republic. More importantly, it might divert the Israeli community's attention away from the economic and social problems that have constituted the object of a conflict which has not ended since the eruption of the “tents campaigns” - months ago - in parallel to the Arab Spring. Moreover, it could allow Netanyahu's government to elude the international isolation it has been facing due to the Palestinian diplomatic attack, from the Authority's request to see the recognition of Palestine's membership at the international organization to its successful accession as a full member to UNESCO. As for the timing of the American “campaign” against Iran, it is filled with messages. This campaign was renewed with accusations made to the Qods Brigade and its commander of arranging the assassination attempt targeting the ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Washington. It then escalated after President Barack Obama announced the American troops' pullout from Iraq by the end of the year, which is a decision that might allow Tehran to brag – even if for a while – about the defeat of the American project in this country. True, the United States did face problems it was no longer able to handle in Iraq and Afghanistan and offered two priceless gifts to the Islamic Republic by eliminating the Taliban and then Saddam Hussein's regime. But what is also true and is known by the Republic is that America assured on more than one occasion recently and in the past, that the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq did not mean its relinquishing of this country or its interests in it. It even publicly tackled the inclination to enhance its military presence in the region to face any emergency in the Land of the Two Rivers or in the region in general. As much as this assurance constitutes a message of warning to Tehran, as much as it features a message of reassurance to Washington's partners and allies in the region, saying that it will be present to support them and back them up in the face of any hostile activity undertaken by the Islamic Republic. And what is also true and is known by Iran is that the American withdrawal from Iraq will dissipate Washington's fears over the fate of its troops in this country, in the event of the eruption of an unexpected confrontation in the region. This would allow it to exercise additional pressures on the Islamic Republic, being free from this concern which has been governing it since the beginning of the war on Iraq. At this level, this pullout will constitute a major personal opportunity for President Barack Obama in the context of the race to ensure his election for a second term, knowing that it does not necessarily open the door before the Islamic Republic and its apparatuses. Indeed, other regional countries, at the head of which are the Gulf states, enjoy interests and will definitely exercise a role to contain the growing Iranian influence in Baghdad. Meanwhile, Iraq's possible return to its previous status – following the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime and especially after six years of civil war and explosions – will not serve Tehran as much as it will confuse it. If Washington was unable to govern this country due to the sectarian, denominational and ethnic violence, the Islamic Republic will not do any better in the absence of the capabilities which were enjoyed by its opponent in the face of the possible challenges. On the other hand, the American “campaign” against Iran cannot be isolated from the action in the region. The Islamic Republic was and still is concerned about the Arab Spring, regardless of its arrogance and denial of that fact. It is fearful to see the revival of some facets of this Spring in a way similar to the campaign which opposed – two years ago – the renewal of the term of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, after the conservatives were accused of falsifying the presidential elections. Today, what is increasing these fears is the dangerous schism affecting the ranks of the conservatives themselves. In this regard, American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not hesitate to incite the Iranian opposition to act, impose change and seek international help the way it was done by the Libyans! Furthermore, the “campaign” cannot be isolated from the heated conflict over Syria, where the numerous complications affecting the crisis are due to this crisis' intertwinement with many regional causes on which the regime relied for years, as well as the seeking of weapons to be used against the domestic arena and the neighbors. As much as these causes served the regime in the past and secured its longevity, they have now become a burden on all the Syrians – both the opposition and the regime – who have grown aware of the fact that the eventual exit from the tunnel relies on a minimum level agreement between all those concerned by this conflict regionally and internationally. For its part, Iran is present along the course of these files, from the future of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the way it affects the balance of the confrontation with Iran, to the issue of the settlement with Israel, the status of the Golan and the “rejectionist” Palestinian factions which are still being harbored in the Syrian capital and supported and funded by Tehran. It is also present at the level of the future of the situation in Iraq, its status in the Arab system and the regional system in general, and the Kurdish issue that is the object of a tripartite Syrian-Turkish-Iranian concern. Iran is certainly afraid to see the fall of the regime in Damascus, since that would lead to the collapse of one of its most prominent strategic pillars in the Middle East. Therefore, the Iranian officials' silence that has been ongoing for a few days toward what is currently happening in Syria did not go by unnoticed, considering that no official comment was issued after President Ahmadinejad called on Damascus to stop the violence against the civilians. Some perceived this as being an attempt to secure dialogue with Obama's administration following the announcement of the pullout from Iraq at the end of the year, knowing that the developments affecting the Syrian crisis and the opposition's steadfastness in the face of the daily killing machine have exceeded any deals and possible understandings. Consequently, the Arab initiative emerged as an attempt to clear the conscience along the way toward internationalization. And if the regime in Damascus were to witness a seismic fall – as it was heralded by the National Council - or the region were to witness President Bashar al-Assad's earthquakes, would there still be a need for a military confrontation with Iran? Or will the sufferings of the Syrians be extended in light of an internal and regional balance of powers preventing such earthquakes?
