The axes of conflict in international relations are the contradiction of interests or values ​​between the parties to the conflict, and the conflict's inclusion of individuals, groups and states.

And the struggle of individuals, states and groups in the Middle East, today enters a watershed moment at the gates of the forty days of the Iranian revolution, after the states and groups realized the contradiction of their interests and values ​​with Iran, and its possible rapprochement with (Israel), which seems to have become a spearhead against Iran’s militias.

A spearhead against the militias of Iran's (religious) regime and crescent, forty years after Iran's revolution, after Israel was a spearhead against individuals, groups and countries of the Arab National Crescent.

This conflict also enters its defining moment at the gates of the fortieth of the Warsaw Conference, to which Israel was called, forty years after the Quadeloupe Conference that overthrew the Shah.

From Washington, Iraqi parties opposed to Iran announced the holding of a conference in Michigan and another in March, to form rescue governments, at a time when the American and Israeli focus on Iraq is striking.

In Tehran, the Warsaw Summit took a big place in the Iranian political street, and dozens of statements were issued resenting and attacking it, from politicians and religious figures, and the first of them was Zarif.

Zarif arrived in Baghdad, and spent five days on his longest trip outside Iran. Zarif's visit to Baghdad came after a similar visit to Pompeo that extended for five days in Arab capitals.

At the beginning of his visit, Zarif addressed the Iraqis not to bet on the losing horse, while America's message to Baghdad was that the time of enemies was over, and they had to choose between America and Iran, and that Israel might target the Hashd factions in Iraq.

In response, Zarif sent a message to his allies in Baghdad that they should enact a law through parliament to remove US forces from Iraq, and Iran's factions took pledges from Sunni Arabs not to cooperate with the Americans.

At the end of his long visit, Zarif addressed Pompeo from Karbala, that you are leaving and we are the rest because we are the owners of the land, in the hottest war of nerves between Iran and America.

And because Iran has become the official sponsor in Iraq, Baghdad is unable to take any position that distances it from Iran.

But the two parties’ unannounced messages have indicated that Zarif’s visit, which lasted for five days, was a marathon of indirect negotiations between Iran and America through (Al-Hakim and Barham Salih), perhaps the Baghdad government would save itself from a scene it had not been familiar with since 2003.

The indirect negotiation marathon coincided with the presence of King Abdullah II of Jordan and French Foreign Minister Le Drian, as well as a high-ranking American delegation (no one has announced their visit).

Zarif's arrogant speech at the end of his visit to Iraq may indicate the failure of the indirect negotiation marathon between the two parties, but Zarif's announcement that Rouhani will visit Iraq on March 11, which will coincide with the Warsaw summit, may indicate the opposite.

Zarif's indirect negotiations may have established an infrastructure at the ministerial level, and a higher level may need to be decided upon after consulting with Tehran.

In particular, Rouhani said after Zarif's return that "Iran can enter into talks with the United States if Washington lifts the embargo and shows respect" for it.

Rouhani will visit Iraq next March, at a time when his deputy, Muhammad Nobakht, says that Iran has entered an unprecedented crisis, and we are facing difficult conditions at the international level, merciless sanctions and an ominous phenomenon called Trump.

And the Baghdad government, located between the sword of Iran and America, may have entered into an unprecedented crisis as well, so it invited the President of the Republic, Barham Salih, to visit Washington soon, to discuss the issue of excluding Iraq from the commitment to American sanctions against Iran, which will end in mid-March.

And if Iraq is looking for exceptions from America, does it every time deliver the jar? What upcoming exception may mean, more concessions from Iraq to America?

Just as Iraq is looking for a way out of its crisis, Iran is also looking for a way out of its crisis. Well-informed sources from within the pro-Iranian Al-Fateh coalition denied that the idea of ​​a law includes the removal of American forces from Iraq. It has been turned into a bill in Parliament.

And she adds that the idea is still circulating among the political blocs, and has not yet turned into a draft law, despite Hoshyar Zebari's tweet, that this file will soon be a major political issue, and this may indicate that indirect negotiations have not yet settled on land.

And in a marathon parallel to the indirect negotiation marathon, direct negotiations are taking place between the European Union and Iran on Europe's financial mechanism with Iran.

A meeting was held between a European delegation and an Iranian delegation 10 days ago, headed by Iranian Assistant Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi. Iranian intelligence in Europe and the Babist missile file.

After diplomats from France, Britain and Germany, and envoys from Holland, Denmark and Belgium, told the Iranians that Europe could no longer tolerate it. Assassinations on European soil and ballistic experiments;

Following this European notification, the Iranian delegation suddenly stood in the middle of the dialogue and left, violently closing the door behind it, in an unusual violation of protocol, according to what European diplomats described.

Iran's unusual violation of the protocol may be a gain of time and pressure on Europe, at a time when the Expediency Council is discussing the dispute between the Shura Council, which approved the international mechanism in combating terrorist financing, and the Guardian Council, which rejected it.

And if Iran is putting pressure on Europe, Europe is also under American pressure, to take a series of sanctions against Iran, in order to push Iran to stop attempts to carry out assassinations in Europe that have not stopped for forty years.

The announced results of the direct and indirect negotiation marathon are almost identical in Iranian arrogance, whether by closing the door violently in the face of the Europeans, or by lengthening Zarif's tongue as he announces from Karbala his position on America, amid complete Iraqi silence.

And if the announced and undeclared results match, this may indicate that Iran rejects the European and American deal.

And until reality proves the opposite of this trend, Iran's position today may not differ much from Saddam's position on America's conditions after his invasion of Kuwait.

Otherwise, what are Iran's options for waging a war of nerves with America, other than the overt non-state factors, which are the cause of Iran and the region's affliction?

Since Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear program, Iran has been relying on Europe's position, so what after Europe's last position, which is closer to abandoning Iran, as only Russia remains with Iran, which is upset about the Warsaw summit?

And between Iran's declared rejection and the serious orientation of Europe and America, and between the Baghdad government's concern about the repercussions of the American-Iranian conflict, Israel infiltrated Iraq, taking advantage of the historical moment, as it was invited to the Warsaw Conference as well.

So Israel removed Iraq from the list of enemies, and announced the visit of Iraqi figures to Tel Aviv, and confirmed that it might target the Iranian factions that withdrew from Syria to Iraq.

And Israel, which is invited to the Warsaw summit, infiltrated Baghdad during Zarif's visit, and is threatening Iran's factions in Iraq, knows that it may be the biggest beneficiary of the confrontation with Iran, within the framework of the second phase of the fight against terrorism that Warsaw may announce.

This means that the possible end of the era of Wilayat al-Faqih at the hands of Israel and its successor (the Warsaw Pact), may be enough to restore the relationship between Iraq and Israel and between it and the Arabs.

It is noteworthy that the new Iraqi foreign minister spoke for the first time a few days ago about Iraq's acceptance of the two-state solution (a sign of possible normalization), and this may be considered an Iraqi exit (official) from the Iranian resistance axis.

The end of the conflict with Israel, depending on the outcome of the conflict with Iran, and Iraq's withdrawal from Iran's mantle, may be the alternative condition in return for the return of the relationship, in light of Iran's refusal to withdraw from Iraq.

It may also mean that the liberation of Iraq from Iran may be carried out by none other than the Shiites of Iraq, and this task needs international support, and the first aid may be (Israeli) support.

And Israel sponsored the militias of the axis and the Iranian regime, it may be a kind of integration in the face of non-state factors of terrorism among America's allies, as Saudi Arabia sponsored the jihadist and political Sunni Islam groups, while Turkey sponsored Ocalan and Golan.

The question is, has the era of throwing Israel into the sea and wiping Israel off the map, after the axis of resistance found itself, or is it almost crossed off the map and thrown out of coverage?

One hundred years of conflict with Israel has proven that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel have succeeded in the nation-state exam, so they crossed the map from those who failed this exam, those who remained insistent on the imperial mentality, whether Arab, Iranian or Kurdish.

Today, countries and (groups) have realized the most important axes of the conflict, which is the contradiction of interests between them and Iran, which has paved the way for a possible rapprochement of interests between them and Israel, and with this realization a moment of historical upheaval may occur.

But the future of dialogue and reaching peace between Iraq and Israel, or between Israel and the Arabs, depends in the main today, after people realize the contradiction and convergence of interests, on the outcome of the conflict between Wilayat al-Faqih and Israel.

Writer Dr. Omar Abdel Sattar Mahmoud