Written by Nasser Kandil,
This month will witness a lot of deadlines; therefore, their approach will mean an escalation in the region in preparation for either a confrontation or a negotiation. The first deadline is that one determined by Iran, it is the end of 60-days for the withdrawal from its nuclear program. The seeking to bring Iran back to it will become more complicated and its presence outside it will be considered as an open path of escalation. Therefore, any development or negotiation in the region cannot be separated from the result of persuading Iran to extend the deadline if it was difficult to convince it to stay under the understanding. The persuasion here is not linguistic or mental, it is a persuasion in the language of interests and offers that meet Iran’s minimum demands according to this understanding and which are recognized by partners sticking to the understanding as Russia, China, and Europe, but they cannot secure them due to the US sanctions especially Europe. Therefore, any offers Iran will receive will be American offers in a European language and a Russian-Chinese guarantee.
The issue of the Iranian nuclear program cannot be separated from the issue of “the deal of the century” which is parallel to the besiegement of Iran in the American-Israeli-Gulf map based on the premise of the ability to encircle the resistance forces and imposing the concept of the Israeli security on them. Bahrain Conference which is going to be held at the end of June forms the first testing opportunity of balances that rule “the deal of the century”. Just as Washington seems confused in dealing with the consequences of its behavior regarding the nuclear program after a series of pressures that impose on it either the withdrawal or going to war, Washington seems confused too in dealing with the consequences of its behavior regarding the deal of the century, where the Prime Minister of the occupying entity is facing an enviable situation in the Israeli interior and where there is a Palestinian consensus to confront the deal of the century. These two factors are enough to hit it by the knockout. The American hesitation in the successive steps in confronting Iran is similar to the hesitation in announcing officially the content of the deal of the century.
These two issues which are open to the confrontation in the region coincide with two deadlines that form negotiating opportunities; it is difficult to talk about any positive result apart from what Washington will do in its dealing with Iran on one hand and with the deal of the century on the other hand. The American talk about reaching to a Russian-American solution in Syria and considering the meeting of the Russian- American-Israeli security advisers a step in that understanding and its inclusion in advance signs of the withdrawal of Iran and the resistance forces from Syria versus American recognition of the Syrian victory is doomed to failure if it is based on an implicit bet on tempting Russia or exerting pressure on it to accept a solution without any coordination with Iran or the resistance forces and that is refused by Syria, because as facts proved; Russia does not fall in such a trap and does not have a roadmap to implement it if it decides as America knows. But if Washington seeks for an opportunity of a mutual agreement with Iran and the resistance forces from the Russian gate and regardless of any terms of conditions but within a comprehensive solution that includes the besiegement on Iran and the deal of the century, then this means that there are many opportunities for this negotiating path.
Without this comprehensive path, it is difficult to talk about any value of any negotiations, especially a premise of a Russian-American summit on the sidelines of the G-20 in the end of June in Japan. Both Moscow and Beijing have a multi-titles clash with Washington commercially and strategically. The roles of Russia and China in the issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the siege on Iran are apparent in the decision of boycotting Bahrain Conference as in the positions towards the confrontation in Idlib which are apparent at the Security Council and the double veto on the American-British-French draft-statement.
If Washington decides to lift the siege on Iran even indirectly or under European cover and if it decides to ignore the project of the deal of century even under the title of the need of time and coordination with the international parties, it will be possible to search for compromises in Syria and Yemen that reflect the victories of the resistance axis and face-saving those who were defeated in wars by securing a safe withdrawal whether from Syria or from Yemen.
The resistance forces which are preparing for a meeting at the level of leaderships that may include the resisting movements in Lebanon. Palestine, Yemen, and Iraq with the resisting countries especially Syria and Iran will put under the control of the Russian ally in addition to their readiness for an open confrontation the possible negotiating solutions if this is the American option and if there are serious indicators towards it.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,