Iran has partially backed away from the terms it had accepted during its meeting with the six major powers in Geneva earlier this month, and expressed its opposition to any possible role for France in enriching the Iranian uranium (which will be mainly done with Russia). In fact, Iran was supposed to give its answer in what regards the plan proposed in Vienna last Friday; however, the Islamic Republic decided that it needs more time to study the details of the plan, while many officials from both the United States and Europe are saying that Iran is stalling and bargaining by accepting then delaying its response in order to gain time. But what is the reality of the situation if Iran was not actually stalling, and was instead seeking to sign a deal regarding its nuclear program? In this vein, the bottom line of my information coming from the highest-ranking relevant sources, to say nothing more, is that both the United States and Iran need each other, since each has demands that only the other can provide. Iran wants to be recognized as a major regional power, or as the most important regional power, and as such would actually prefer a bilateral cooperation with the United States; this is because Iran believes that the latter alone, since it is the real decision maker, can guarantee Iran's regional role. As such, Iran does not heed Europe's opinions and positions, whether in supporting or in opposing [Iran]. Of course, Iran also wants the sanctions to be lifted, in addition to seeking to supply itself with the necessary technology to modernize its own oil industry and infrastructure, and perhaps even to be qualified to join the World Trade Organization. On the other hand, what does the United States want in return, and what can Iran offer? In fact, Iran is able to help the United States in Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, and with the Palestinians, or specifically with Hamas, and against terrorist organizations in addition to securing the oil supplies from the Gulf. If we compare between what the United States can offer to Iran, and what the latter can offer to the United States, we will soon find that the Iranian “incentives package” is bigger than the American package; this is especially valid when President Barack Obama seems to not to want to get involved in any military adventures against Iran or other countries, and when he is of the belief that any military confrontation will cause more problems than it will solve. Also, the Israeli Minister of Defence Ehud Barak had declared that any Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities may delay the nuclear program one to three years, but that this strike will not succeed in ending it and will prompt the Iranians to become more determined to proceed with it. Furthermore, my sources tell me that Iran does not need a nuclear bomb to boost its goals, or its greedy ambitions, in the Gulf since Iran already has a fifth column in each country; instead, Iran wants its nuclear bomb, or the fear that it may soon possess one, to be the key to being recognised as a major regional power, and as a key player along with Turkey and Israel, in the absence of Arab countries or more precisely, while they are all in a coma. In Geneva, a meeting took place between the Iranians and the Americans, and again in Vienna where another bilateral meeting took place, attended by Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the IAEA, at the request of the Iranians. Although Dr. ElBaradei remained reticent in commenting about this meeting and said that there is progress being made albeit slowly, my other sources confirm that such bilateral negotiations will eventually lead to a deal between Iran and the United States, since each one of them has certain needs that only the other can provide. Nevertheless, the above does not eliminate the possibility of a setback down the road. This is because Iran, following the presidential election ruckus last summer, no longer has a unified position; for instance, the Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said while the delegations were meeting in Vienna that his country will never abandon its right to enrich uranium. This is while Ali Larijani, the former chief negotiator and the current speaker of the Iranian parliament, warned against the deception by the six major powers and of their attempts to trick Iran into sending its uranium to be enriched abroad, but without ever returning it to Iran. In contrast, many Western officials believe that Iran is trying to buy itself some time, without having any real intentions to suspend its enrichment of uranium, or to convince the six major powers (and Israel) that its nuclear program is peaceful and that it has no military purposes. For this reason, both President Obama and the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have made it clear that the United States will not negotiate with Iran indefinitely. The Iranians are negotiating with a “bazaar” mentality, and are adept at both tactics and stratagems. As such, they are trying to get the best possible deal, and perhaps their feeling that the Obama administration needs them more than they need America is accurate if we are to take into account the deterioration of the military situation in Afghanistan, and the endurance of terrorism in Iraq, not to mention the faltering efforts to form a cabinet in Lebanon. In fact, an Iranian negotiator claimed in the corridors of the negotiation hall that Iran can form a cabinet in Lebanon in 24 hours. Perhaps he is exaggerating as Iran needs 48 hours to do so. In any case, its influence cannot be denied, and it is not Iran's fault that things are as such, but rather, it is the fault of those who forfeited their leadership to Iran, whether in Lebanon or elsewhere. I continue tomorrow.
