From Istanbul to Baghdad and Moscow, three rounds of “nuclear" negotiations were held between Iran and the P5+1 states, during which Tehran maneuvered around the negotiations table and in the Gulf waters until Pentagon revealed its completion of the deployment of reinforcements for the warships and aircraft carriers in the region. Washington thus surprised the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that was busy testing ballistic missiles “capable of destroying 35 American military bases." The Pentagon's message was clear, and intentionally accompanied the entering into force of the European ban imposed on Iranian oil. It said: Do not even think for a moment about closing the Strait of Hormuz. So has President Barack Obama's administration made up its mind and become ready for war against Iran? And subsequently, has Obama realized that the scenario of no-return which features comprehensive confrontation with Tehran will not be a costly adventure that will ruin his chances during the American elections next November? On the other hand, has the Iranian command fallen in the trap of American-European dupery, thus finding the naval forces mobilized to strip it of the Strait of Hormuz card? Since the beginning of the year, the Revolutionary Guard has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz several times. However, these threats retreated until the European Union insisted on separating the course of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program from the increase of the sanctions, considering that Iran has not been cooperating with the demands of the P5+1 states, the International Atomic Energy Agency (and Israel). What neither Guide Ali Khamenei nor President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad realized this time around is that the rules of the game have changed. This is not only due to the fact that Obama needs to take the Israeli demands into account to please the Jewish lobby during election year. The rules of the game have actually changed due to the storms of the Arab spring that are stripping Iran of cards and positions of influence in the region, at a time when Syria is drowning in its predicament and the other allies are suspicious about the timing of the major confrontation which will not be based on traditional calculations or on wars by proxy. And while circles close to Western decision-making centers believe that war with Iran will erupt after the summer, the timing which is becoming expected and surprising at the same time is on the eve of the American elections. This requires Washington and Tel Aviv to guarantee the launching of swift strikes against the Iranian nuclear facilities, while the Marines and NATO prevent the Revolutionary Guard from closing the Strait of Hormuz and targeting navigation and oil carriers in the Gulf. It has become certain that Israel intentionally leaked the scenarios in regard to comprehensive confrontation with Iran's allies in the Middle East, but also the preparations to gain control over the so-called “lethal arsenal" in Syria, so that they are not used against the Hebrew state. This implies concurrence between the regional war and the last chapter of the conflict in Syria, while regardless of the expectations, all the steps being announced by Iran in parallel to the insistence on the language of escalation and defiance, have started to reflect clear confusion for two reasons. The first is the West's relinquishing of the negotiations diplomacy with Tehran without any time ceiling, while the second is the faltering of the Russian-Chinese-Iranian axis at the level of its wager on the quick settlement of the conflict in Syria and the adoption of a reformatory course without sacrificing the regime. This goes in line with Tehran's realization of the fact that the increase of the Western pressures and sanctions on it is escalating in parallel to the singling out of each of the two wings in the Syrian-Iranian alliance. As to the question regarding Washington's unlikely drowning in the mud of the crises of the region at a time when it is establishing its new strategy based on its presence in southeastern Asia, it probably summons readings into the winding policy of Obama's administration, some of which expected a full withdrawal for the American influence in the Middle East. Once again, the crisis affecting the Iranian nuclear file leads us back to the impossibility of seeing the West succumbing to Tehran's hegemony over the navigation passageways in the Gulf, as well as Israel's submission to the talk about coexistence with Iran despite its nuclear fangs, knowing that the latter is threatening – even before acquiring the “bomb" – to wipe Israel off the map. In reality, the command of the guide seems to have fallen in the trap set up for it by its Western opponents. Moreover, as soon as the Arab spring surfaced, all the Iranian slogans regarding the defense of the oppressed populations collapsed, considering that in the battle against tyranny, the priority is neither Israel, nor Iran's nuclear rights. Tehran is thus losing allies and its resounding slogans on the Arab street, and summoning military mobilization in the Gulf waters. Between the defiance, escalation, pulling of muscles and threats, the policy of the brink of the abyss is collapsing.
