Is it possible for all of the US's positive initiatives towards Iran to be for free? Or are they indications of an undisclosed understanding which would pave the way for an agreement that would neither kill the wolf nor slaughter the sheep? And is “handing over” the leader of Jundallah to Tehran part of such an anticipated deal? Far from the “conspiracy theory” that is dear to many, there is a clear direction to the current US Administration's approach towards the Iranian issue in all of its aspects. It is a positive direction, one which involves compromises, pressures and a mutual exchange of strikes or of gifts, but which does not diverge from its predetermined track. Indeed, since the first day of his reaching the White House, Obama has considered Iran to be a country which plays a pivotal role in the region, and that clashing with it would come at a high cost for the United States as well as for the countries of the region, especially as his main transitory objective is to disengage the US in both Iraq and Afghanistan and to ensure withdrawal from these two countries with the minimum of losses possible. He thus not only considers that not heading towards a clash with Iran can facilitate achieving his objective, but that making truce with Tehran can be very helpful to him in that respect. But how does Washington display its good intentions? First, it does so by pressuring Israel to prevent it from directing any military strike against Iranian nuclear sites, which could inflame the whole region and turn the US's plans and calculations upside down. This is why US civilian and military envoys are flocking to the Hebrew state, bearing warnings of the consequences of undertaking such an adventure, the latest being Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) of the US Army, Michael Mullen, who stressed the fact that any military strike against Iran would only delay its nuclear program, but would not put an end to it. Mullen also said that Israel had “not provided guarantees” to Washington that it would not resort to the military option, which is of course necessary to remind the Iranians that it is the United States that is preventing a strike from being directed against them. As for threatening with further economic sanctions and gathering diplomatic support for them, it falls within the framework of peaceful pressures, through which the Americans hope to convince Iran to head towards a settlement of the nuclear issue, and for which they are sending regional envoys to Tehran, such as Turkey's Foreign Minister, who convey American ideas for the formulation of common grounds for a solution. Second, the US does so through an understanding in Iraq. There the sharing of influence between the Americans and the Iranians appears clearly, despite arm-wrestling to improve the “share” of each side, where Washington plays the role of defending Iraqi Sunnis and their role in political life while excluding those of them who hold strict stances against Iran, in exchange for Tehran agreeing to replace those Shiites who meet neither Iraqi consensus nor Arab support. Such an understanding could be interpreted as defining a new political map of Iraq under a moderate leadership. As for the “gifts”, the latest of them seems to have been Abdolmalek Rigi, whom Iran accuses of being responsible for painful bombings, one of them leading to the death of a number of Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) leaders in Zahedan some months ago. And although the details of the operation of delivery and reception have not yet been revealed, it was noteworthy that the British welcomed warmly and without reservation the capture of “a terrorist responsible for despicable attacks”, knowing that the protests of Iranians who support the regime before the British embassy in Tehran have been ceaseless, and that Members of Parliament put forth last month the suggestion of severing relations with London. And until the final version of a comprehensive settlement between the administrations of Obama and Khamenei takes shape, mutual accusations, fiery statements and obstinate stances are ongoing, as they are a necessary element of the agreement's “toolkit”.
