“Death to America...Death to Israel” has been for long the slogan of those loyal to the Iranian regime, and which they were chanting on the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of storming the Unites States embassy in Tehran. Meanwhile, “death to the dictator” is what the demonstrators from the opposition to the regime chanted...As such, the division sun glimmered in Tehran's sky, and was the clearest demonstration of the futility of the authorities' attempts to undermine its internal crises, and to pretend that it is fighting an endless war against America, while the other face that the regime doesn't show, wishes for negotiations with the White House under the terms of the Supreme Leader. It might be out of the ordinary for any country or authority to celebrate taking hostages whatever their nationality might be, and regardless of the timeframe that only translates in Iran's case into further confrontation with the United States – albeit verbally – in order to contain the domestic opponents of Wilayet al-Faqih. However, the pretext for this remains this eternal equation: All those who say “no” are co-conspirators with the “arrogant” Americans. Moreover, the concurrence between the thirtieth anniversary of holding 52 Americans hostages at the embassy for 444 days, with the arrival of the Iranian nuclear issue to a crossroads where a choice needs to be made between the IAEA's plan and a new collection of sanctions, this concurrence did not mean anything for Tehran except further retaliation with Washington. Nonetheless, this retaliation is such as it relies on an American hesitation, or what is understood by the Iranian leadership to be a weakness that invites further defiance on its part. This is the only conclusion that can be inferred from the speech given by the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei when he tackled the issue of the relationship between the American “wolf”, whom he accused of holding a dagger despite his “sweet” talk and his smiles, and the Iranian “lamb”. While the description of being a wolf is something that can be considered, given the record of American policies in the region, the description of being a lamb is as far from being applicable to the Iranian policy, as Tehran is far from Washington. The simplest yet surprising issue mentioned in Khamenei's speech on the eve of this thirtieth anniversary was the Supreme Leader's denouncement of the interference by the United States in “the affairs of peoples” while the people in the region all know that the number of Arab countries that complain about an Iranian interference in their affairs has become momentous. The only difference between Iran and the Arabs is that the former “oppresses” them while it complains day and night about the West's attempts to “oppress” it, and even goes further in returning the challenge by means of its nuclear program. This is also consistent with the fears and concerns that such a challenge might be translated into a hunger for further domination...in the region. Away from the bitterness of being a neighbour to Iran-the revolution, which has chosen to establish its revolutionary identity by means of an eternal confrontation with the “Great Satan”, and which requires an annual celebration of detaining human beings; away from this, Tehran's slogans- on the thirtieth anniversary of the revolution's baptism in storming the U.S Embassy- sum up the type of confrontation between the “dictator” and the United States!... While the reality requires us to acknowledge that the Supreme Leader was not unreasonable when he saw the arrogance of the American policies over decades, especially during George W. Bush's disastrous tenure as president, calling the Supreme Leader “a dictator” is an Iranian matter that concerns both reformists and hardliners. What concerns the Americans today meanwhile is the act of contrition regarding the storming of their embassy in Tehran, and which was announced by Hussein Montazeri as the police swooped on the dissidents. In fact, the protests of the latter against the renewal of Ahmadinejad's term seem to have distracted them from chanting curses against the “Great Satan”, with them opting instead to shout out “death to the dictator”. What is certain here is that the Supreme Leader, like the Revolutionary Guard, has discovered again that the reformists have left his call for obedience unheeded, and that the chapter is yet to be closed on the internal crisis in Iran. This is occurring for the first time in thirty years, the lifetime of the regime and of the confrontation with America. While Montazeri's “repentance” provided the spark of a new confrontation at home, where accusations of treason, and the guilt these are associated with, haunt all those who dare placate Washington, the fact of the matter is that President Barack Obama still prefers enticing Tehran with the carrot of “a new chapter”, over threatening it with the stick of further sanctions. As Tehran realizes this, it becomes more and more drawn towards retaliation that entails eliminating all “rogue” voices in Iran. The Supreme Leader neither wants the smiles of the Americans nor does he want their “dagger”; he does not want to jump to shake their extended hand on their own terms. Alternatively, he wants to do so on his own terms, in order to attract the best possible terms and conditions of a “nuclear” deal with “Satan”, whose regional requirements are no longer a secret, not in the least in Iran. While the question remains who will blink first, Montazeri's repentance will not remain only a whisper amongst those whom the Revolutionary Guard classifies as being a traitorous fifth column.
