It seems that the Geneva meeting today (which is the highest-ranking one for decades) between Iran and the superpowers represented by the five permanent members of the Security Council in addition to Germany – in the presence of the witness Javier Solana – is more like a dialogue among the deaf… as Tehran has accustomed the West, which accuses it of stalling in the nuclear file. While it is certain that the meeting is not similar to the Geneva meeting (January, 9, 1991) during which Secretary James Baker addressed the final warning to Tarek Aziz, so that Saddam Hussein withdraws the Iraqi Forces from Kuwait, it seems almost certain that the administration of President Barack Obama hopes for convening a series of meetings with the Iranians, and does not rule out recognizing Iran's regional influence. It is funny that Tehran should respond to the description of Secretary Hilary Clinton of today's meeting – who said that the meeting will be a test for the side that shocked the West when it revealed the uranium reactors that is protected by missiles nearby Qum – by stressing that it will go to Geneva with "good intentions". Thus, the mission of Sa'id Jalili, secretary of the Iranian National Security Council, is to test the intentions of the superpowers. In fact, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei realizes that the time of the "deal" has approached, and that the American carrot is a realistic alternative for the Israeli stick. This stick can of course launch a painful response, and Iran cannot rule out that the Israeli threats to resort to the military option will impose the option of strict international sanctions. While the Pentagon did not hide its indifference vis-à-vis any strike, Iran's reassurance that the American "rationalism" is paralleled by an inevitable serious apprehension over the increasing chances of resorting to sanctions, at a time when Iran is facing a domestic crisis whose flames have not been quelled yet with the opposition. The disclosure of the Qum "nuclear" plant will reinforce the European approaches that doubts all what Iran does and will tip the balance in favor of the assumption that Iran is lying by saying only the quarter or half of the truth. It is true that Moscow fluctuates between holding onto its interests with Iran, and its power in the Caucasus and central Asia in general, where Obama gave it a gift of canceling the George Bush project for missile shields, but the equation is not correct even if theoretically, and we cannot fall in the illusion of enticement to possess all the cards in one package, i.e. wagering on a comprehensive American defeat. It is clear that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton tried during her meeting in New York with the foreign ministers of GCC countries and of Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan to reassure everyone that the White House is holding on to the political solution with Tehran, although Obama ruled out the option of the military strike – an option that the region does not want in any case, because it will be paying the heaviest price of it. In return, Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheikh Khaled Ben Ahmad Al Khalifah did well in his statement to Al-Hayat when he expressed the current situation of the Arabs, saying they are stuck between the "price of the strike" and the price of any agreement of which they are not part. It is not expected that Clinton promised the ministers to have Arabs participate in the "deal", or to distribute the maps of the regional influence as shares, in the hope that their countries agree to grant those who do not possess the right to call for determining sovereign issues for others. The Iranian "work program" for negotiations with the superpowers is enough to consolidate more fears in the region. The fear is that the verbal disagreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the "cancerous enemy" Israel is a war of words to deceive the Arabs, while the first chapter of the agreement of a deal Washington calls "automatic" is rapidly drawing near. The Israeli campaign on the "insane regime" in Tehran does not change the reality of this equation, nor does the insanity of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman change the reality either. The penitent Lieberman who did not hide his grief said: "We missed an opportunity in 2001 to address the Iranian issue akin to Iraq," as the American forces did not continue their campaign to Tehran after Baghdad. It is certain that none of the Arabs wishes a war on Iran in a region that is still suffering from the results of a major war that gained a fake "legitimacy" from a big lie. But it is also certain that the Arab vulnerability has reached its peak since the invasion of Iraq, and that any mistake in the calculations, whether in the "deal" or in manifesting power, will force Iran too to pay the price of acting like Saddam in exaggerating its power and ability to make the West succumb after the Qum "nuclear" shock. Neither Europe nor the United States lament the interests of the Arabs. It is also certain that they will not surrender to the threats of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and allow Iran to ponder over possessing a nuclear bomb and dominating the Gulf and the Middle East.
