The greatest voter in the elections to choose the new Iranian parliament was President Barack Obama, the man with soft power, diplomatic wisdom and the stick of the sanctions. Indeed, the sponsor of the fort of the conservative hardliners in Iran, Guide Ali Khamenei, wagered on the stringency of America and the West at the level of the nuclear file, and generated mobilization prior to the elections. He then returned the gesture to Obama by showing openness vis-à-vis the request of the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect one of its military positions, at a time when the American president was resisting the Israeli pressures to get a green light for the destruction of the Iranian nuclear facilities whenever Netanyahu chooses to do so. The Guide is also setting his clock based on the timing of the American electoral campaign, thus alleviating the pressures of the Republicans on Obama, as they carry out overbidding to earn the consent of the Jewish lobby in the United States. Consequently, Khamenei is also turning into the primary voter in the American presidential battle, after he was relieved from the burden of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's obstructions via the lethal blow addressed to his supporters and the decrease of their seats in the Shura Council. The stage of penalty shootout endured by Iran due to the troubles caused by Ahmadinejad's government, the scandals of people close to him and the stuttering seen in the management of foreign policy is over. Khamenei thus seized the opportunity to renew his grip over the tit-for-tat war with the West, without relinquishing the nuclear program. And as soon as all the boats of Ahmadinejad and his supporters were set on fire, it turned out that the Guide succeeded in forming a Western (American-British-French) lobby to distance the Israeli military option from Iran. What is certain is that Netanyahu will not need a second meeting at the White House to realize the meaning of Obama's threat to Israel against the repercussions of being led toward the military option and against thinking that dragging America to war was a guaranteed wager at whichever point in time. But is the American president not risking the provocation of the rage of the Jewish lobby in the United States, and consequently the weakening of his chances of winning a second presidential term following the November 2012 elections? Obama is not concealing the flag of his campaign, i.e. the fact that the American army's strength outside the United States is not the solution to the international crises. It is the flag of the American soldiers' repatriation from Iraq and Afghanistan after two years, and the abstinence from leading the military campaign on Gaddafi's Libya. As to Iran, which was under George Bush's administration considered to be the leader of the “axis of evil,” the chances of rehabilitating it are still on the table for Obama's administration, despite its defiance of the entire West and its refusal to stop its nuclear program. In Libya, the Americans fought with NATO's weapons and in Iran, they are using soft power via the sanctions. In Syria, Washington – just like Paris and Berlin - is accused of fighting the regime with the blood of the civilians, at a time when it is trying to avoid drowning in the swamps of civil war in the presence of sufficient justifications. Obama's heart is breaking over the intensive shedding of Syrian blood, but he is refusing to tackle the possibility of an intervention. According to his administration, the solution should come from within, while his heart is with the innocent and their slogans. He has learned from Erdogan that Judgment Day is bound to come. In parallel to the racket of the drums of war on Iran, the question was the following: Has a new Yalta conference become imminent in the region, especially amid doubts surrounding the tampering with the winds of federalism in the Middle East and the emergence of signs pointing in that direction in the post-revolution Libya, after Iraq in the post-Saddam Hussein stage? The question was: Will the drums of the wars threatening the Gulf region – in case Israel were to commit a mistake while reading into the calculations of the confrontation – come to prevail, as it is happening in Syria and around it in terms of conflicts, killings and destruction, as though a passageway toward the destruction of the state in favor of mini-states? Between the Iranian and Syrian models, there is a great paradox seen in the fact that the Iranian nuclear program is the object of an international-Arab consensus opposing the military option – and only broken by Israel – while the comprehensive killing and destruction machine in Syria is the object of Arab and international divisions - from which the opposition is not spared - related to the intervention option. In both cases, Tehran's and Damascus' submissions are not easy, and the cost of the use of force as a last resort is not justified. Indeed, Syria is at the heart of the Middle East and controls the veins of this region's balances. As to Iran, it occupies an entire Gulf bank and controls the crater of the nuclear volcano. Whichever war with Iran will be waged with the blood of the people of this region, and this is a card whose use is still mastered by Khamanei. For their part, the mobile wars will deplete Syria as a state and people, and the solution can only be secured via the Arabs' Yalta.
