Iran shares Lebanon the clamor of the elections… while Israel's clamor is a “nuclear” one. It fears its challenges from Tehran to Pyongyang, or at least it claims so whenever it classifies the “threats of the evils.” Its clamor also has to do with the settlement activities, with which stones turn into a commodity to be exchanged for the nuclear bomb. Between Lebanon and Iran there is the clamor of the parliamentary elections here, and the presidential ones there; insults here and promises there, alongside a race over the post-election bazaar awaiting the Obama-Khamenei dialogue. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad learnt the lesson from the Supreme Guide Khamenei. He got the message in the season of electoral escalation. For this reason, he has embraced the slogan of a partnership with the United States over running the world's affairs. Has he - temporarily - abandoned his desire to wipe Israel off the map? What provokes suspicions in the region over the Israeli great maneuver, or foments fears in Lebanon and amongst Hezbollah circles at least, is met with one “weird” approach shared by Ahmadinejad and the Israeli Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkinazi. The first considers the military exercises – that are aimed at containing a war from all directions – as mere media clamor, while the second finds them routine ones. Most importantly, the Iranian president does not share Hezbollah's warning against a hidden scenario plotted by the government of Benjamin Netanyahu which regarded the suspension of Iran's nuclear program as one of its top priorities. This program is worth being traded off for random settlements in the West Bank. Simply, the Obama administration is convinced that Israel is responsive with respect to the peace track with the Palestinians. Hence, Washington offers swift guarantees as to the peace and war tracks with Iran: Dialogue is for peace. Yet if the military option is adopted, the United States pledges to be Netanyahu's partner but… If Ashkinazi himself – who does not pin much hope on the outcome of the anticipated American-Iranian dialogue – and the father of the extremists in the Israeli government, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, both wager on strict sanctions to change Iran's behavior and curb its nuclear program, then can't Defense Minister Ehud Barak dream that the world's alertness to the Korean nuclear program would teach Iran a lesson? In both cases, with dialogue postponed until after the Iranian presidential elections and the American grace period until the end of this year, and in light of the potential guarantees, Iran rules out any attack on its nuclear facilities. It is also reassured that Netanyahu's demand of American guarantees is not a price to relinquish the abrupt and individual scenario, but rather a demand for an American pledge to respond to any Iranian rashness and to study the “operational” option if the anticipated dialogue fails. Isn't this the knot of the American-Israeli talks in London prior to the visit expected by the “dreamer,” Minister Barak, to Washington where he will be called to learn from the wisdom of the president who prefers diplomacy and memorizes the Baker-Hamilton recommendations? President Barack can also dream that the former commander of the Revolutionary Guard Muhsin Rida'i would win the hearts of the Iranians who would be attracted by a slogan he raised to attract the Americans, not with the help of his rival Ahamdinejad, but with Kissinger's diplomacy to normalize relations step by step. In Lebanon, the electoral slogan is “we hate the United States.” In Iran, the graduate of the Revolutionary Guard is cozying up to the United States. In Lebanon, they are afraid of Israel's madness and of what is worse than its atrocity in the July war. In Tehran, they downplay Israel's media clamor over the military exercises and are reassured that Netanyahu will not strike the hidden and open nuclear reactors. After all, if he does, there is the open arena: Lebanon. Is this clamor an electoral dust in June? In Lebanon, if we remember Gaza: Hamas has won, the missiles have stopped, and the dreams of construction have disappeared. There are some in Tehran who are still reassured that the confrontation arena is still far from the center of intimidation and threats. In Beirut, there are questions over the second [face] of Ahmadinejad if he wins another presidential term. Questions surface about whether he will change now that he implicitly seems to accept the two-state solution in Palestine, describing the Israeli military exercises as desperate acts of a loser. How would Lebanon and Palestine look like should this second Ahmadinejad adapt to a partnership with Washington? As for Netanyahu who is procrastinating with the stones and lands of the settlement, he will not give the Palestinians any dream in the “nuclear” barter.
