If a normal regime were in place in Iran, we might have been impressed with the agreement that is being formulated between Tehran and the West. The rare surprise visit by the director-general of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, to Tehran this week might also have contributed to our national morale. But Iran, as we know, is not ruled by a rational regime, and it does not operate according to principles that resemble ours. Since 1979, Iran has been ruled by a regime whose only objective is survival, even at the expense of its own people. The ayatollahs' regime stuck its neck out for Iran's nuclear program not to ensure energy supplies for the Iranian people, but to preserve the future of the regime. That said, the future agreement between Iran and the West will likely be worth no more than a blank piece of paper. The projected success of Amano's Tehran visit, and the promises, more Iranian promises, are supposed to make the upcoming talks in Baghdad much like the previous round in Istanbul a triumph. They will succeed because that is what the world wants, and for once, what the world wants is also what Iran wants. A final agreement will likely not be achieved in Baghdad. The sides may strike a sort of interim deal. Tehran is expected to soften its stance (not back down, God forbid), and allow IAEA inspectors access to various nuclear facilities. Iran may also agree to let Russia enrich its uranium to 20 percent. But Iran, a well-known player of diplomatic chess, will make sure to get something in return either lifted sanctions or permission to enrich uranium to 3.5%, which means that the centrifuges will stay put. But the main thing Iran has to gain is time which is essential for it to reach a point in its nuclear development that will grant Tehran, like the North Koreans, the ability to survive, and to issue threats. If Iran had a normal regime, we might even have been congratulating Israel's government for knowing where and when to drum up international pressure, and persuading Iran to cave without launching a single missile. But as I mentioned, the Iranian regime is not normal, and that is why the other interpretation is, sadly, the accurate one. "If both sides exhibit goodwill, sincerity and realism the negotiations can open up a channel for compromise, which will ease the concerns of the West and also ensure Iran's freedom to continue its nuclear program and enrich uranium for civil purposes on its soil," Iran's ambassador to France wrote in the French daily Le Monde on Sunday. Between the Le Monde op-ed and the New York Times article on Saturday, it appears that the piece of paper to emerge from talks with the Iranians will be reminiscent of that piece of paper that came out of Munich. Remember-
