What similarities are there between the Iraqi army's storming of the square witnessing the Sunni sit-in in the Hawija area in Kirkuk in protest against the policies of Nouri al-Maliki's government, and the storming of the Al-Qusayr Front near the Lebanese border by the Syrian regime's troops and fighters from Hezbollah? Despite all the expected repercussions for the killing of demonstrators and the persistent disputes between Al-Maliki and the most prominent political powers in Iraq, including the Kurdish parties, the prime minister took this risk following threats he issued against the protesters. And despite the wounds that have afflicted the Syrian regime and its waning strength, it also took the risk of practicing excessive force in an open battle staged with the participation of its allies, to avoid the severance of the supply lines and the Free Army's control over the areas close to the Lebanese border in the Homs province. In both cases where Tehran's Iraqi ally is facing a predicament and its Syrian ally is on the brink of the abyss, a new chapter is being drawn up at the level of the regional scene. This could be described as an Iranian counterattack, at a time when Khamenei's command is continuing to seek offers from the West. Iran does not want a stick and carrot in the soft war, but rather a carrot solely, because "the window of opportunity to enter into negotiation for long-term strategic cooperation with Iran, the most reliable, strong and stable partner in the region, is still open." The counterattack in Iraq aims to prevent Al-Maliki from facing the fate of the Syrian regime, as Iran could lose all the regional cards with which it could bargain in its negotiations with the West over the nuclear file. In short, the equation is as follows: Syria, or at least an allied Syrian mini-state allowing Tehran to have a foothold over the Mediterranean Sea + Lebanon + an affiliate Iraq or at least an oil-rich Iraqi Shiite mini-state = the nuclear bomb or its program. What is certain is that the heated race to stage this Iranian counterattack in Syria and Iraq would not have been seen at this point, had Tehran not realized that the P5+1 states will not give it a long period after the Iranian presidential elections in June to make up its mind in regard to the nuclear file deal. It also realized that the erosion of the so-called Shiite Crescent – in light of the faltering grip of the allies – will push it to head to the negotiations with the West without any cards. At this level, the Russian support would be null, as Moscow's position towards the nuclear program is known. For a long time, Iran wagered on patience and steadfastness in the face of the Western pressures. However, its wager over the steadfastness of the Syrian ally which it supported financially and militarily has started to sway a few months ago. In the meantime, the Damascus battle became imminent and the opposition began heading at a faster pace towards the final chapter. In reality, the Russian cover provided to the Syrian regime in parallel to the Iranian support, is immunizing the Shiite Crescent project, especially if Tehran encourages the regime to defend an Alawite mini-state - thus eliminating all other options - and fuels the illusions related to the crushing of the oppositionists if the civilians among them do not engage in negotiations based on Damascus' conditions. There was also American Secretary of State John Kerry who gave the Syrian oppositionists a choice between the negotiations or their country's division. Indeed, he is pessimistic about the horizons of the distant solution, throwing the fireball in the court of the regime that does not wish to move towards the negotiations and into the lap of the opposition and its disputes. In the meantime, Washington is remaining idle because the red line (i.e. the chemical weapons) has not yet been crossed, while the arena is still open before Tehran in its race against time, in the hope that the regime is able to save itself – which has become unlikely – or save what was considered to be Tehran's most precious regional card. It realized that despite the 70,000 dead, the massive destruction and the flow of refugees to the neighboring states among others (it is said there are now around two million Syrians in Egypt), the world will not do anything beyond the issuance of statements of lamentation and condemnation, consequently choosing the perfect moment for the counterattack along the Syrian and Iraqi fronts. As for the Russian attacks targeting the role of the Arab League in the extension of the Syrian catastrophe and the League's accusation of the Security Council of being silent and impotent, they are neither preventing the massacres nor getting the regime to abandon the steadfastness battle which was taken by Tehran to the next level in the war over positions of influence. And between the massacres in Syria and the Al-Fajr massacre in Kirkuk, Iran is insisting it will strip the West of the carrot without the stick, i.e. it will save the allies at any price and at the expense of the Syrian and Iraqi people's blood. The Crescent is faltering and Al-Maliki's attack will carry consequences threatening to sever the remaining lines holding Iraq together. America for its part is watching and wagering on everyone's despair and Iran's drowning in the swamps of sectarian-denominational wars. At that point, it would not matter if the sides involved in the conflict are militias protecting an army in the face of factions or brigades, or if tribes are fighting an army to retaliate against the general commander who is accused of eradicating a sect. The most dangerous factor threatening to burn the maps of the region is the emergence of signs pointing to the collapse of the international tutelage over the entities' borders, and the undermining of the opponents with accusations and weapons of terrorism.
