This theory is supported by Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki’s strange behavior.

On July 17, he and President Bush agreed by video conference on a “general time horizon'' for the reduction of US combat troops in Iraq. This general time horizon would be included in agreements now under negotiation that would define the US role in Iraq and the status of American forces there.

But then along came Barack Obama, and Maliki backtracked on his agreement with the US president, evidently under Tehran’s influence.

Without even a polite by-your-leave to Washington, the Iraqi prime minister said the Democratic senator’s 16-month timeline for the exit of American troops from Iraq “could be suitable”.

A rumor, which may have its source in administration suspicions, went around Washington and Baghdad this week, that while Obama was in Baghdad, some of his advisers met secretly with Iranian officials who came especially to the Iraqi capital for the purpose. Because of that meeting, they explained, the Democratic senator decided to head south to Basra to see for himself how US-Iranian understandings were working on the ground.

(Tehran’s possible switch of negotiating partners from Bush to Obama is analyzed in the next article)

Wednesday, July 23, Ahmadinejad broke the Iranian wall of silence, although his two-track statement did little to dispel the fog of uncertainty hanging over Washington.

He declared, “The Iranian nation… will not retreat one iota [on its nuclear program] in the face of oppressing powers.”

In a different tone, he praised US participation in the latest round of nuclear talks with Tehran [in Geneva] as a “positive step forward,” towards recognizing Iran’s “right to acquire nuclear technology.”

He was saying that American was on the right path, but needed to try harder to swallow Iran’s position whole. ...