With the beginning of the negotiations round in Baghdad between the P5+1 and Iran, the dust storm did not conceal the predicament of Tehran's uranium enrichment or the West's doubts over the misleading, in order to lead it once again toward a series of endless meetings. Baghdad's dust also failed to block the race of the two sides, i.e. that of the Iranian side to lift the sanctions which are suffocating it, and that of the Western side to corner the former with the demands of the inspectors (which brings back to mind their experience with Saddam Hussein's regime). Hence, it is a new phase in which parity was established since the beginning between the major deal and the regional war that prompted Britain to book a seat in the military scenario, should Tehran sign a deal with the inspectors, then later on would refuse to open the doors of a military base or a fortified nuclear facility for example. The concerns in the region are renewing the interrogation on which side will pay the price for the deal other than the Arabs if Iran were to choose to trade the enrichment with the protection of its regime and the enhancement of its regional influence from the Gulf to Iraq and Lebanon. Also, the turmoil on the Lebanese arena that is linked to the course of the Syrian events, is imposing what extends beyond traditional fear to the search for the side interested in the enrichment of strife. And while it is certain based on the events seen in the last few days that the “ghosts" are trying to lead the sects toward confrontations in the hope that the major clash in Syria and Lebanon will pave the way before the elimination of powers and the enhancement of others, what is also certain is that Baghdad's winds are not far away from the Mediterranean shores. The Iranians are preoccupied with the battle to sustain the regime, which is why they are trying to lift the sword of the sanctions. Among their permanent cards at this level are their influence – which nears hegemony – over Iraq, their influence over Hezbollah in Lebanon and the support offered to the Syrian regime. In all three cases, the major actors are not doing anything to diminish these cards, despite the fall of more than 10,000 dead in Syria, Iraq's return to the threshold of sectarian and ethnic division, and the activation of the denominational winds in Lebanon where the state is the biggest absentee. In Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, whenever one of Iran's allies issues a statement or a threat, it is as though he were threatening on behalf of four states led by a “nuclear power." It is Iran which has so far proven its refusal to relinquish its allies. But what if the hour of truth were to emerge? The West is upholding the stick and carrot policy and has not yet relinquished the “enticements" card in the hope Tehran would spare it from the cost of war which it will not be paying alone – no matter how much the Israelis were to try and promote the inevitability and simplicity of the strike – while belittling its impact on the region. And while the Iranian regime's acceptance of the project of the “enriched uranium bank" abroad is on the table – to meet the needs of its non-military reactors – it is not as obvious how Tehran and the superpowers will divide the cake of influence in a region that is still witnessing the volcanoes of the revolutions, and is besieged by the tornadoes of change and the winds of strife. In other words, hinting at the fact that a stable Iran in control of the Hormuz Strait being a Western need in the face of the turmoil in the Arab revolution states, where the Islamists moved from prison to the palaces to control the rule and besiege Israel with hostility, was not innocent. And at a time when the Hebrew state is not reassured about Egypt's insistence on the peace accord during the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood group, in reality, the American plan to offer the largest military aid to Israel converges with the strategic changes, especially to contain what has become dubbed “the Egyptian threat," no matter how hard Netanyahu and his army were to publically exaggerate in assessing what they call “Iran's and Hezbollah's threat." This exaggeration is allowing Netanyahu's government to justify the increased extremism of the Israeli right wing that is preoccupied with Judaization. And that same exaggeration is being used by Iran in its difficult negotiations over the nuclear file, in order to get some sort of assignment or international recognition of its regional influence. During the last quarter of an hour, would such an assignment to Iran to manage the areas of “strife" at the heart of the Arab world (Syria, Lebanon, etc.) not constitute a revised replica of the Western assignment granted to Damascus to manage the Lebanese civil war? Many circumstances have changed since the eighties, especially since Iran – over which the Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis and Palestinians are divided – is suspected of enriching strife. And from the nuclear file to the sectarian winds, the Arabs are aware of the fact that they are among the cards of the deal and are the ones wasting the opportunities, even in the revolutions spring.
