'Reassurance' could be the title of the current phase of Barack Obama's administration, in anticipation of what strategies it will disclose for the Middle East region, including Iran, Israel, and Pakistan, as well as Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon. In her three-hour stopover in Beirut US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conveyed a message of reassurance to the Lebanese people in two parts, the first being the assurance that Washington will not forsake the sovereignty of the State in Lebanon and will not allow the International Tribunal for trying those involved in the political assassinations to be the object of trading with anyone. The message's second part is that the Obama administration will not make the mistake of the Bush administration when it refused to accept the Palestinian elections results because of the victory of Hamas, and that it is ready to accept any result of the Lebanese elections - including a potential victory of Hezbollah - provided the Party of God constitutes a part of the State.

What Clinton did was clarify the US policy not just towards Lebanon but also towards Syria and Iran, through Hezbollah, with a message of interest and reassurance that preceded the visit of Iran's special advisor Dennis Ross to Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt, in a round of reassurance on the US policy towards Iran. President Obama himself had assured Jordanian King Abdullah II of his commitment to the 'two-state solution' while getting ready to welcome Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. However, there is nothing that would taint the strategic alliance between the US and Israel regardless of any superficial or radical conflict that might arise between them. When Barack Obama welcomes Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, he will reassure him that any US opening to Hamas will come in the framework of the national Palestinian reconciliation and the joint work between it and the Palestinian Authority - and not at the expense of the Authority or as an alternative to it. Also, the US President will reassure Egyptian President Hosni Moubarak during his visit to Washington on the stable position Egypt enjoys with the new administration and the refusal to export the Iranian influence to Egypt through Hezbollah cells or any other means. All this reassurance is beneficial in the transitory period, until the full strategic policy is set. However, the formulation of this policy should not be dictated by the accomplished fact imposed by Tehran or Tel Aviv, especially in light of the signs pointing towards an international acceptance of a 'peaceful' nuclear Iran.

The US administration's resolve to attract the Islamic Republic of Iran into serious negotiations for opening a new page in bilateral relations could be faced with the reality of Iranian nuclear and regional ambitions. Tehran wants to be acknowledged as a nuclear state along with its regime, even if it seeks to export its model beyond its borders.

The reassurance signs carried by Dennis Ross to the Arab countries this week might not lead to what is dubbed by pundits as 'nuclear mystery', whereby the United States and Europe disregard the Iranian nuclear capacity with a military dimension and yield to a 'reality' that turns it into a civil nuclear state. This 'nuclear mystery' is accepted by some of the US elite and not by the US public opinion, which will not accept a nuclear Iran, especially with the current ruling regime. Accepting this would trigger a nuclear race in the Middle East and Persian Gulf, where vital interests are located.

What Arab countries should inform all the parties concerned is their extreme distress at the implicit racism of this elite that considers that nuclear weapons in the hands of Israel and Iran constitute a lesser - more acceptable - danger than if they were in the hands of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Iraq. It is clear racism against Arabs and must be rejected both in words and in actions. If the Islamic Republic can be trusted not to use nuclear weapons at a later stage, then the Arab states are also trustworthy and able to seek implicitly and explicitly possession of nuclear capacities - just like Iran and Israel.

Of course, it would be better not to witness the launching of the very costly nuclear race at the expense of education and the development of civil society. However, there are great interests that take advantage of the terror race because they sell nuclear technology. There are also those who see no problem in nuclear weapon spreading, since any party owning such weapons will not use them for fear of the other party. This is part of the logic behind the Iranian 'nuclear mystery' that is preferred on the US war option on the nuclear facilities in Iran.

Arabs do not want a US war on Iran but they also do not want to run after balances of powers that put Iran and Israel, as well as Turkey, in the leading positions. Arab countries today are in a position that allows them to insist on a key position in the balances of powers along with a solid partnership with the great active countries in the world, at the foremost of which are the United States, China, Europe, and Russia.

One could say: let the Islamic Republic spend some of its money on a nuclear power that it does not need for civil purposes and that it will use neither militarily against Israel for fear of nuclear retaliation nor against Arabs since it is an inherent part of them. In all its vanity as a nuclear state, Pakistan is still the most dangerous place in the world and is still able to bring together its people. Today it faces the monster it created in its backyard which has come to infuriate it even more under the name of Taliban-Pakistan. Even Israel, which owns superior nuclear weapons, is nothing today but a disassembled state that lives in fear and trembles in the siege mentality. It is ruled by those who want it to be a Jewish state 'clean' from one million Palestinians. Migration away from it has increased, while migrating to it used to be a dream.

One of the main problems of yielding to the accomplished fact and making it the cornerstone of setting policies towards Iran and Israel is the imminence of reaching the confrontation point with them and maybe - wrongly so - between them. Since both of them have expansionist policies - Israel by land and Iran by ideology - they lack the sense of contentment and are keen on hegemony and domination as an accomplished fact.

The problem of the US President in dealing with the Iranian and Israeli issues is that Russia and many countries from the Soviet Union will not give sufficient assistance. Russia will not pressure Israel into accepting the two-state solution. It will sell talk to Palestinians and will sell their dreams through its political support of those who speak the language of the 'resistance' as a commodity rather than a strategic option. It will also reinforce its bilateral special relations with Israel no matter how far Israel goes in its settlement measures or how many civilians it kills. Also, the European Union will protest and become angry, but it will not do what it is supposed to do, which is to impose sanctions on Israel because of its continued rejection of international resolutions and its perpetration of the horrors of occupation and revenge.

Also, regarding Iran, Russia - just like European countries such as Germany - will oppose further sanctions on Tehran no matter how much Iran refuses to comply with the unanimous request of the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany for 'freezing' uranium enrichment. Russia seeks today a 'shortcut' to an international recognition of a nuclear-civil Iran. It speaks in the language of yielding to the accomplished fact of Iran's influence in Iraq and maintaining a base for itself through Hezbollah in Lebanon - and even Iran's 'ownership' in the Palestinian cause. Moscow speaks of its conception of Iran from an 'it's-too-late' and 'this-is-the-reality' perspective.

The stances of some Europeans are close to the Russian ones in the assessment of the regional Iranian influence and the rejection of the options of military action and additional sanctions on Iran no matter how much it stickles, interfered, or tried to unsettle the stability of important countries in the region.

The US President is not of the same opinion, according to indications received until now. Although his administration is sending reassurance vibes to Iran, it is not acting on the basis of yielding to the accomplished fact and dictations. He may have his hands shackled by refusing to discuss the military option - although he has not withdrawn it from the negotiation table - but the US President did not acknowledge the Iranian agenda. Rather, he challenges it in Egypt, Iraq, and Lebanon.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has fully understood the gravity of what took place in Egypt and highlighted in his report to the Security Council Hezbollah's military expansion outside the Lebanese borders. He protested against it and demanded for Hezbollah to continue its transformation into a political party exclusively and not as a military arm for Iran in Lebanon or Egypt. Ban Ki-Moon boldly stated the margins of what is refused, i.e. Iran's expansion through Hezbollah in order to unsettle Egypt's stability under the pretext of helping the Palestinian 'resistance' through violating Egyptian sovereignty. He is seconded in this by the US President and a number of important European and Arab leaders.

Egypt's delay in waiting for the end of legal investigations before deciding if it will submit a complaint to the Security Council is a wise and appropriate move that avoids escalation and prevents the repetition of violations.

Hillary Clinton's message to Hezbollah and Iran is also wise and might benefit Iran a lot if it pondered it without contempt. It is a call for the respect of the other that is requested by Tehran. The message was in no way hostile and mentioned the possibility of opening a new page with Hezbollah if it approved the central issue in the US policies towards Lebanon: the power must only be in the hands of the State, which is represented today by President Michel Sleiman. What is required is Tehran's respect of Lebanon's independence and sovereignty without any interference in its internal issues.

Respect versus respect. This is what constitutes the basis of Barack Obama's policy, contrary to the policies that want to respectfully yield to an accomplished fact that was imposed after another accomplished fact. It is an opportunity offered by the US administration to Tehran with the hope of getting a favorable response rather than delaying. Members of this administration are aware of Iran's size as a small partner in Iraq and Afghanistan, as they are also aware that preventing the return of Taliban to Afghanistan is a favor made by the United States to the Islamic Republic of Iran. They understand the limits of Iran's economic capacity compared to its nuclear and regional ambitions, even with Russian and European lagging.

The Obama administration knows who is qualified in the Middle East for making necessary economic and strategic partnerships, and is keen on not only reassuring them but also on working jointly to create this partnership. Iran has a position ready if it grabs the opportunity of seriously getting involved in the various issues - the most important of which being the Lebanese issue. It is why Hillary Clinton said in Beirut: "Trust us this time. Lebanon is not a commodity to be bartered and will not be dispensed with."