Russia embarks on a diplomatic and political confrontation with the US because it feels that American politics is so shaky and unfocused that it offers Moscow the opportunity to impose bilateral and international equations; equations that would help it retrieve its special position in the balance of powers and strengthen its leadership in oil alliances as well as in new strategic alliances. China, on the other hand, is swallowing its ego to let the Olympics pass and is keeping its cool to avoid provocation over what it considers violations and interference in its domestic affairs. However, it may adopt an explicitly harder position and slip into an open diplomatic confrontation with the West, especially the US, not only for the sake of revenge, but also to cover up the disturbing domestic events expected after the Olympics. These two oil and strategic allies prefer Democratic candidate Barack Obama over Republican candidate John McCain. They believe that he is a fresh leader who is capable of taking risks and committing errors, untrained as he is for leadership, political sharpness, witty negotiations and sweet talking. They are seconded in this evaluation by the Islamic Republic of Iran whose leaders master political wittiness and the art of using fine white cotton to cut open a deep wound with surgical precision. Tehran is a major player in the oil alliance, as is Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. It has gathered the cards it earned from the Bush administration during its war in Iraq and is slated to use everything it has in the most important round of negotiations following the US presidential race. Tehran hopes to deal with Barack Obama as president. For this reason, it is practically “voting” for him, as are its smaller allies, such as Syria which has no weight in the oil alliances. Damascus, in turn, awaits the next president to take office and will not offer peace with Israel to the Bush administration no matter how far this administration backs off on its threats and commitments. Damascus hopes Barack Obama will rush to embrace it as a partner to facilitate the American exit from Iraq and as a major Arab player in the new relationship with Israel. Under such a scenario, he would rehabilitate the relationship with Damascus by directly exchanging ambassadors with the country rather than having to go through France, Europe or Qatar. 

Russia, as reveals its behavior at the Security Council, is exploiting regional issues to escalate its confrontation and defiance against the US, even if this came at the expense of causes, peoples, rights and principles. The open political rhetoric exchanged between Russian ambassador Vitaly Chirkin and his US counterpart Zelmay Khalilzad resembles the Cold War rhetoric. Chirkin is far more violent than Khalilzad, not only because Russiaís policy at this turning point is far more aggressive while the US policy is on the retreat, but also because the socially shy Chirkin can quickly transform into a media gun when need be. Khalilzad, on the other hand, favors appeasement and prefers to win hearts. For this reason, he appears weak and hesitant contrary to his predecessor, John Bolton, who not only implemented American policy, but also persistently tailored it to the power and weight of the US. 

For her part, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice undermined ñ whether deliberately or unintentionally ñ her predecessor, Colin Powell, when she aligned herself with the neoconservatives as National Security Advisor. Today, she is trying to adopt the very policies that might have succeeded when embraced by Colin Powell back then. At this, we can possibly say that the golden opportunity for a black woman and a black man to hold the two most sensitive posts in the US administration is almost wasted as a result of poor alliances and assessments ñ let alone numerous blunders. Condoleezza Rice’s policy today can be described as the “too late” policy. Since the US foreign policy is shaky amidst the attempts to revive it in the last days of George W Bush, various states try to make use of the weakness and disorientation of this administration in its last days. Files, formerly on top of Washington’s priorities, have been delegated to friends of the US administration, such as Nicolas Sarkozy. The French President has in turn assigned his Syrian counterpart, Bashar al-Assad, a part of that mission, namely courting Iran. 

The real causes behind this policy of assignment are unknown because one day Condoleezza Rice dispatches her senior assistant to participate in meetings intended to lure Iran into cooperation through a package of generous incentives, but the next day she speaks of sanctions through the Security Council just before media leaks claim that the US military strike is inevitably on its way against Iran as soon as Iran rejects the incentives offered over its nuclear file, most probably in the period between the end of the elections and before the new president takes office. In fact, Iran’s rulers are adept at the art of grand bargains and deals and at the art of buying time and imposing one reality after the other. They are diplomatically and politically very skilled. They may play excessively, lose bets and pay prices, but hundreds of years of experience and expertise are no cheap commodity that can be ignored or overlooked. 

On the other hand, Russia, through an understanding with China, is ready to be a party to any grand deal with Iran. This boosts Iran’s self-confidence and strengthens its position in negotiating and bargaining. Officially, the talk is over the nuclear issue. The understanding is taking place among the five permanent member states at the Security Council (the US, China, Russia, Britain and France) in addition to Germany. Practically, however, Iran is talking to the US with the language of sharing power in Iraq and buttressing its position in the regional balances. At the same time, it sticks to its oil alliance with Russia and China and maintains its strategic understanding with both sides. While Khomeini’s 1979 revolution was based on the principle of “neither East nor West”, Iran’s policy under Ali Khamenei strives to turn Iran into a need for the East and West alike. Hence, Khamenei presents President Ahmedinejad as a basic element in policies intended for everyday consumption, while he himself formulates the means to implement his ideologies, with his eye not only on Iran but also on Iraq. After all, the two countries stand as twins in the Iranian, Russia and Chinese strategies in light of several considerations, such as oil and the relationship with the US. 

Just as the idiots among the neoconservatives came up with the war on Iraq and the preemptive strike principle in the name of American interests, today the wise men of China and Russia are turning against this ideology. Iran has benefited from the plans of the neocons who truly believed that the war in Iraq would be to the advantage of Iran and Israel, perceiving this alliance as the smartest in the history of the Middle East. Iran also benefited from the plans of Russian and Chinese leaders who decided at the time that they would not allow the US to control oil and its reserves. Today, Iran is victorious since it is both Iran and Iraq at the same time. This is what can be dubbed a bonanza unless the equation is totally reversed with a decision to deliver a military strike. According to Iranian, Russian and Chinese calculations, Barack Obama is the best bet to completely rule out a military solution with Iran. Excluding the military option seals the benefits these states have reaped as a result of the miserable adventures of the Bush administration in Iraq and the subsequent American retreat in front of Iran and its sisters. 

Even the Iraqi government that was given birth at the hands of George Bush does not hesitate to slap him in the face in fulfillment of Iranian desires. This is why Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki “voted” for Barack Obama on the latter’s visit to Iraq when he supported his views on the timeline for the American withdrawal from Iraq. At the same time, trust in the US has faltered as a result of its repeated retreats on its commitments, especially during the George Bush era. Consequently, while states such as Russia, China, Iran as well as Syria become more attached to Obama because they believe dealing with him is easier, several Arab countries lose their trust in the Republican Party as a result of Bush’s policies. A senior Gulf official said that his country has been working for years to transform its relationship with the US from one of a “traditional ally” into one of “partnership”, whereby strategy and dangers are shared, adding, “Today, I fear that the other believes that his partner is not me”. In the past, American foreign policy has largely and steadily revolved around two priorities, namely oil and Israel. Those two elements are still top priorities. But the players in the regional equations are racing, embracing, and making peace and war in a different manner as a result of the war in Iraq and its outcomes.

Today, Israel, as the case is with Iran, is the major beneficiary of the war in Iraq. George Bush’s war in Iraq has completed Bush Senior’s first war, as it eliminated Iraq from the strategic regional balance. In other words, it eliminated the most powerful Arab state from the military confrontation with Israel, Iran and even Turkey. Even with Iraq out of the question, Israel is still uncomfortable because it does not want any Arab state to be powerful or influential regionally, internationally, strategically or even on the oil level. For this reason, its entire policy currently centers on the continuous attempts to dwarf the Saudi regional role by supporting Syria and overlooking Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon, or by silently participating in the grand deal over which Iran is negotiating. 

The two US presidential candidates must carefully consider whether this Israeli position meets the long-term American interests. Both candidates must also weigh the war in Iraq and its repercussions on regional partnerships. 

The everlasting enigma, however, remains the American-Iranian-Israeli relations. A few claim that the deal in question will collapse, to be replaced by a strike this fall. A few others confirm that this is nonsense and that there will be neither an American nor an Israeli strike to Iran because such a decision is not governed by the military establishment alone, nor by economy and oil, but involves other factors, some of which are related to the art of negotiation, the shrewdness of partnerships and the pressures of an anonymous player referred to as terrorism.