It's not in America's interest or in Iran's to stop the nuclear negotiations. The diplomatic option is the only option. The American President Barack Obama does not want to resort to force; neither does Iran want to lure its opponents into a military confrontation. The war was not a real option to begin with. The current favorable conditions for the conclusion of an agreement between the Islamic Republic and the P5+1 will not be repeated. The Iranian leaders and their pillars of the US administration know that. Therefore, if there is no agreement reached at the 24th of this month, then the negotiators might resort to a new "framework agreement" formula that leaves the door open to find a solution to the unresolved issues, which are many and they needed the mediation of Oman and they might need Oman's mediation again. Both Presidents will not risk missing the opportunity, which might not be repeated in the foreseeable future with the Republicans holding a majority in both houses of Congress. It is noteworthy to highlight the possibility of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's return to adjust the rhythm of the internal political conflict, including limiting the freedom of the Iranian President Hassan Rohani's government. Therefore, there is an urgent need to leave the door open to continuation of the US-Iranian dialogue. And its a dialogue beyond the nuclear file that includes the latest developments that is taking place in the region, though the two sides stressed on more than one occasion that there is no relationship between the swap, the negotiations, and the agreement, which was concluded about a year ago on one hand and other issues concerning the region on the other hand. What is happening on the Middle East's ground, especially in Iraq and Syria, is a clear picture of what is beyond the expected agreement. Or it is a preliminary basis of preparation for any serious and direct dialogue that will certainly address the future of the regional political and security order. The beginning turning the page on the nuclear issue since the November agreement, which took place last year, introduced new dynamics in a number of issues and urgent developments. Since that date, it seemed clear that the States concerned with drawing the region's future is now in front of challenges that imposed and still impose a re-examination of its security beliefs, network relations, regional and international interests. There is no doubt that the establishment of "Islamic state" was the main development in those challenges. It is what made President Obama return to the region, especially to Iraq and may soon return to Syria. And that what prompted Iran to reposition itself in those two countries, as well as strengthen its presence in other regional disputes such as Yemen in particular. And that in turn pushed the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, in addition to Turkey, to contribute towards the construction of an international-regional coalition to participate in the war on "ISIS". Perhaps it is too early to talk about the understandings or concessions from certain party to the other in a particular issue, that's to say that Iran, which has received a severe blow in Iraq so far, has not shown any flexibility in recognizing the role of other partners in that country. Iran has introduced in the political scene, what demonstrates that it is ready for dialogue. It has abandoned its support to Nouri al-Maliki forcefully. And it welcomed the new leaders in Baghdad. And encouraged them to open up and seek to restore what was lost between the capital Baghdad and some Arab capitals, especially Riyadh. But Iran, in contrast, did not translate this "openness" in reality. Apart from Yemen and its reckless "Hotheiheen" to control that country, Iran did not introduce in Iraq what reassures its opponents from the Sunnis and the tribes, on the contrary, they accuse Iran of seeking to regain what it lost during ISIS's invasion. And they accuse Iran of trying to through the Shiite militias, or the so-called "public assembly" force, or restoring control over sites that ISIS gained control of, in addition to spreading its control over new areas, as well as the Government of Haider Al-Abadi looks tied in light of the political tension between its ministers. And it did not register a breakthrough in the Sunni sect, with the exception of starting a settlement with the government of Kurdistan. While turning a blind eye to the Iranian interference on the field, it refuses the air interference of the Arab "Alliance". In light of that fact, Obama's administration, which raised the slogan of the priority of Iraq in the war against the terrorist organization, had no choice, but to increase its field engagement. And resorted to lift many of its soldiers from Iraq in order to arm and train tribal fighters, as long as the Islamic Republic is fighting its war with "Caliphate State" through "public assembly" which has expressed its refusal to cooperate with the Americans, and through forces in "Peshmerga". And as long as the process of restructuring the official military and security institutions, might take long time. Whatever the complexities facing the war on ISIS in Iraq are, the US administration can rely on field partners in that country, unlike the situation in Syria. It can reach an understanding on sharing the tasks and coordinating with Iran to prevent any malfunction or collision, like what is happening now. But, despite the little progress made by these partners, there cannot be any achievements or significant breakthroughs without unity of the stage of operations from Mosul to Aleppo. And that prompted President Obama to reconsider the approved policy towards Damascus. There is no escape route for Obama any more, but to adopt a clear choice in order to defeat ISIS. He so far refused the option of confronting the Syrian army out of fear for the existing of that institution and the repetition of the Iraqi and Libyan experiences. And out of fear of jeopardizing the dialogue with Iran. And because of Obama's belief that there is no proper alternative or even a future promise concerning the possible collapse of the order. On the other hand, he refuses to engage the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in any political settlement. The Syrian situation does not form a dilemma for America alone. It's a dilemma for Iran, as well, which have come to realize over time the size of attrition that it faces in that issue, in addition to many other issues from Yemen to Palestine, to Lebanon, to Iraq, among many other countries. Iran sacrificed and still sacrifices the blood of its men and its allied militia fighters in the land of the Levant. Iran turned into the only "wet nurse" of the people of the regime in Damascus. And provide their military arsenal all what they need, in addition to, paying the bills in many economic sectors. Nevertheless, the talk about a return to the political path in Geneva seems to be unrealistic. The initiative put forward by the UN envoy Staffan de Mistura seems far from being realistic. The agreement on a cease-fire called for by de Mistura in Aleppo, the regime wants it to be some sort of surrender that is similar to what has happened in other places from Homs to neighborhoods in Damascus and its countryside. However, Turkey will remain the first and main partner that decides the fate of the northern capital; moreover it can play a major role in the comprehensive settlement of the crisis. War on ISIS if confined to the military scene, will not yield, because that organization was not born out of nowhere; it is the result of political and sectarian factors, in addition to national conditions and conflicts. And there will not be any progress on that front until the beginning of finalizing the Iranian nuclear issue, which serves as the gate to removing the unresolved issues in the region, especially the struggle for influence and interests locations. Certainly it's no secret to America that settlement of this conflict is more complicated than the campaign against terrorism, as it is, without exaggeration, the real door towards the eradication of terrorism. The nuclear deal will only be a first step, no matter how big and articulated it is. If the United States tends to focus on other regions that are more important to its strategic interests than the Middle East region, it must contribute in launching a dialogue that is indispensable, even if it's too late, between the major powers in the region, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey. The first leads what is left of the Arab world; the second leads some Arab capitals and forces here and there that battle the ruling regimes and governments. Whereas the third builds alliances in the Arab region that serve as a massive protective umbrella, that protects forces of political Islam that battle the governments of North Africa to the Levant. The storms that swept across the Arab world in the past four years changed a lot, and destroyed what remained of the Arab order. But before that the former Secretary General of the Arab League Amr Moussa, launched the famous call during the summit of Sirte, in Libya, in 2010, which was to form a new association of neighboring countries that includes the League states, Turkey, and Iran to build for the security of the region. But, he neglected to include Israel, however some Arab voices have called for its presence ... and if the government of Benjamin Netanyahu is to succeed in its provocative policy in pushing the Palestinians into a third uprising, it will open a conflict that is more serious than of any in the whole region, which will push the future of what is left of Palestine into the unknown. So is President Obama tends to launch political negotiations between the people of the "Grand Middle East" and will his remaining two years allow him to, or he will be satisfied with what can be accomplished with Iran ... whereas the war on terrorism continue from generation to generation and from decade to decade? (Al-Hayat)
