© IRAN-RESIST.ORG – August 3, 2010 | Ahmadinejad claimed Bush to be gutless and dared Obama to accept a face-to-face debate. The representive of the mollahs at the United Nations as warned that Tehran « will set Tel-Aviv on fire if Israel attacks the Islamic republic over its controversial nuclear programme » whereas neither Israel nor the United States had mentioned any attacks, and that the United States even accepted last week a dialogue under the conditions set by Tehran. Here’s the problem : to remain in its leader figure in the Arab street, which gives the privilege to control Hezbollah, Tehran must avoid any appeasements with Washington. « Clash » must be provoked to ruin dialogues. However its declarations sometimes seem all the more contradictory even though they are very provocative. In fact there is nothing contradictory : its declarations are very technical and in charge of very accurate insinuations linked to its face-to-face history with America.

The mollahs of Iran and Americans are to be found in an impossible relation : Washington needs to be on good terms with the mollahs in order to get to Central Asia and brigade its muslims against China, they also dream of exploiting the shia muslims of Saudi Arabia to detach the oil-producing regions they dwell because the sunni muslims at power have refused since 1996 to reiterate the historical exclusivity granted to American compagnies. But the mollahs must avoid at all costs any appeasements with Americans, protectors of Israel, to keep their leader figure in the Arab street and in Hezbollah. There are two contrary philosophies : one which multiplies the dialogue initiatives, and another that wants to ruin them by seeking conflicts.

To contradict this attitude, Washington has tried for years to weaken the mollahs (as well as avoiding to overthrow them) to submit them. The method used is simple : Washington deprives the mollahs of their foreign investors and regularly sends its allies to propose them contracts that they couldn’t have as long as being under Washington’s sanctions. This is an economical and psychological war of attrition. Washington bites and proposes the antidote.

Start of the war of attrition | The first guinea pigs of this so called economical war of attrition were the Europeans who where at one time the best partners of the mollahs, but those of the United states too. These are the TROÏKA years. Mullahs understood then what was Washington’s economic power. Aware of the efficiency of this war of attrition, they only found one case of protection : storing up the most threatening provocations to be unfriendly and inappropriate to an entente, but as well to engage Washington into an escalation of war in order to have all the allies of the US encourage it to give up its war of attrition against the mollahs, by the fear of a conflict likely to harm the cause of oil. This method of amplification of the crisis has well harmed Washington because after failing at an escalation of war, it had to take stronger sanctions against the mollahs to reassure American citizens feeling mentally attacked by some provocations notably evoking the destruction of Israel. Having the certitude that the mollahs could not survive very strong sanctions, Washington eventually searched for substitution pressures : non-economical sanctions.

Non-economical sanctions | Washington could have used the condemnation of human rights, but it didn’t because it would have discredited the regime and put again in question the pertinence of an entente. In the same philosophy of avoiding the disrepute, Washington also restricted itself from speaking liberally about the terrorists actions of the regime that it has sanctioned since 1996. To remain in a philosophy of weakening and not of discrediting, it decided to break off the physical links between the mollahs and the militia, which is their strength of dissuasion. As this link was assured by Syria, Washington at the time under Bush, attempted to approach this country to keep it away from the mollahs. But this attempt turned out to be a failure because President Bechar Assad of Syria had very high requirements. In addition, Tehran defended its virtual territory in Syria by triggering off assassination attempts aiming the people around the Syrian president.

fear of the escalate | At the same moment, Teheran affirmed that it was open to a dialog (just as now), but unconditionally as the abandonment of the enrichment which had been required by Bush and whose refusal had justified the sanctions. At the time of the change of president, the United States reached this request : the Obama administration invited the mollahs with a dialog without any prerequisite with the idea that Teheran may takes a step towards their direction to have a reason to remove their sanctions. With the pretext of giving a chance to this dialog, the new administration then announced that there would be no more new sanctions in 2009 and gave itself 9 months to succeed in softening the positions of Teheran. In this new atmosphere, the new administration also forgot the Syrian approach which did not function.

The mollahs could not accept the invitation because they were still under the threat of the economical war of attrition of the Americans : to agree to take the first steps under the threat of the sanctions would have been interpreted by the Arab world like the proof of a cowardice. By taking the 1st step, the mollahs would have lost the support of the Arab world and then the right to preserve the command of Hezbollah although they are his founders and his principal givers. The mollahs then asked the Americans to take the 1st step to lift all their sanctions and in parallel, they store up the provocations. Against their provocations, Washington initiated the policy of dodging to avoid any escalate, but it also took account of the terror of Teheran to take the 1st step and tried to find a solution.

Its second attempt then was to suggest the presence of the mollahs who want to be a regional power within the International Conference on Afghanistan to include them in the panel of its partners in charge of the rebuilding of this country. It was a gesture of respect. The mullahs were nevertheless to refuse by obligation towards the Arab street. After having required with obstinacy an official invitation of Washington to force it to take the 1st step, the mollahs went to go to announce the refusal to collaborate with an occupying State. They benefitted from the platform which was offered to them to compare the United States to “the entity Zionist which occupies Palestine” in order to transform the conference into a scene of battle with the United States to cause an escalate. It is what they also aim by requiring a direct debate with Obama.

At the Hague, the Obama administration carried out the difficulty of its task. It kind of stepped back in order to avoid giving the mullahs the opportunity to get in this kind of offensive and started to seek a solution to the problem of the 1st step.

For its third attempt, the Obama administration found an interesting idea : the mollahs had a hard time to find a nuclear fuel supplier for their engine of research for medical use, it took the 1st step to propose to them to provide it to them in return for their stock of 1200 kg of slightly enriched uranium (which had the potential to produce the necessary substance for 1 atomic bomb). Washington took the 1st step. The mollahs took the second step to eliminate their military nuclear potential on an American proposal with the participation of Americans. Then, the two countries used a bilateral warming. Washington could then decontaminate its sanctions to seal an alliance. But fearing a provocative counter-offensive of the mullahs, Washington did not make a public offer, but a private one.

Theoretically everything was perfect, but not for the mullahs who must avoid any appeasing with the Americans. The mollahs simply ignored the proposal. Washington then threatened them to put an end to its ice on the sanctions to apply the embargo on the gasoline which is seen like the death of the regime. The mollahs answered in an editorial of the first Iranian daily newspaper that they did not believe in these threats because Washington could not carry out its objectives without them.

The Americans were to then admit the failure of this approach, but they would have failed any possibility of agreement and were to consider the take of new stronger sanctions starting the end of the time granted to the dialog, which is by the end of the year 2009.

To avoid these sanctions likely to sweep up the mollahs, Washington was to necessarily prove the availability of the mullahs for a dialog : it was to avoid any escalate or any face-to-face discussion making it possible to the mullahs to have hostile remarks with the dialog.

Double escape ahead | The first American initiative was to hide. It gave the project of supplying fuel to the IAEA that is supposed to assist the States in their nuclear activities to force the mollahs to answer and cooperate in spite of them with its plan.

The mollahs then accepted the principle of the co-operation to go towards a face-to-face discussion to Vienna where they refused to deliver the totality of their stock to preserve a certain military nuclear potential in the hope of causing an escalate. In front of American dodging they put into question the supplying countries of fuel before announcing that they were going themselves to enrich their stock up to 20% to produce their own fuel, which increased their military nuclear potential.

The Obama administration dodged all these new provocations to avoid ruining the chances of an agreement. In search of media scandals, Teheran which one did not receive anymore, accepted the exchange going on 1200 kg, but at one moment when its stock was going to reach 2400 kg and that by yielding 1200 kg it could preserve its military nuclear potential. Like a favor granted by generosity, Teheran also proposed to cease enrichment at 20%.

Washington detected the provocation and did not have anything to answer. But in these efforts, it exceeded the 9 month deadline that it had to respect : it was to admit the failure of the dialog and to adopt the very strong sanctions that it had promised throughout these nine months.

The Obama administration then suddenly became an unconditional partisan of the sanctions taken unanimously by the United Nations Security Council. At the same time, two of its most important business partners and strategic allies, Turkey and Brazil, endorsed the role of hostile States to all new U.N. sanction.

Thereafter, Turkey and Brazil were authorized to go to propose investments with the mollahs in return for an appeasement, which was a return to the basic process of the war of attrition including the bites and the antidote. Teheran then reacted in a traditional way by aligning the ballistic or nuclear provocations. Washington ignored them, but it charged its two puppets with supporting the last Iranian proposal for an exchange about 1200 kg of Iranian stock to engage Teheran in a process of dialog and co-operation. The White House was the first organization to greet this tripartite agreement Iran-Turkey-Brazil as one 1st step towards an appeasement. Face to face turned to their disadvantage, the mullahs turned back to their own project to find a face-to-face discussion explosive : then they said they were laid out for a dialog on their program, but in several unrealizable conditions like the destruction of the Israeli atomic arsenal or the cancellation of all resolutions of UNO and the sanctions in progress.

Towards a clash | Washington censured this advertisement to avoid the clash. Deprived of platforms, Teheran announced its provision for a dialog without any prerequisite to implement the exchange of 1200 kg with the group of Vienna chaired by the United States. Since the media reflected this change, it rebounded on its 3 famous conditions to cause the clash with the United States. Washington still censured the attempt of the mullahs, but since they sought the brawl, on July 22nd, the Special court for Lebanon evoked a possible committal for trial of Hezbollah for the murder of Rafic Hariri.

The committal for trial of the mullahs in attacks anti-American is one of the tracks to make pressure on them, but that never goes very far not to harm the agreement. Teheran concluded with a lack of means of reprisals and counteracted by agitating its provision for a dialog in Vienna to scare Washington which wants to avoid any face-to-face discussion with this nuisance.

One can estimate that Teheran had badly judged the matter because the Americans then caught it on the wrong foot by accepting its offer to co-operation which was to be only a bait. Then they sent King Abdullah from Saudi Arabia to Damas to conclude a pact with Assad to guarantee the stability of Lebanon from the point of view of a charge for Hezbollah. After having wedged it in a co-operation which was to be only a bait, they humiliated Hezbollah which means ridiculing the capacity of Teheran to agitate the area.

In the case of the agreement on the nuclear power, we had announced the possibility of provocations to sabotage this non-desired co-operation and in the case of the agreement on Lebanon, we had spoken about an earthquake for the regime and had evoked the need for a response to restore its authority.

This week, Teheran did one after the other. To sabotage the co-operation, it announced an opposition of his Parliament to any exchange based on the abandonment of enrichment to 20%, then a lawsuit for espionage against the three American nationals and to restore its own regional strength, it threatened to set Tel-Aviv on fire, which evokes a capacity of harmful effect of Hezbollah beyond Lebanon. Then, it went back to the way of its efforts to find itself in a face-to-face discussion with the Americans by inviting Obama to accept a debate with Ahmadinejad, debate which his predecessor Bush, had refused by fear.

All depends on Washington. If it dodges, Teheran will be delighted to trigger off threats against Israel or psychologically torture the American citizens with the fate reserved to their three compatriots held in Iran. Everything depends on the United States.

The french version of this article :
- Iran : Le régime est en quête d’un face-à-face explosif
- ( 3 AOÛT 2010)

All our articles in English...

| Mots Clefs | Institutions : Diplomatie (selon les mollahs) |
| Mots Clefs | Nucléaire : Politique Nucléaire des mollahs |
| Mots Clefs | Institutions : Provocations |

| Mots Clefs | Décideurs : OBAMA |
| Mots Clefs | Enjeux : Apaisement |