Tehran seemed so secure about the new chapter in its relationship with its Iraqi neighbor that upon the return of the Iranian President Ahmedinejad from his historic visit to Baghdad, it set a date for a fourth round of dialogue with the Americans in Iraq's capital, for Iraq's security, without the knowledge of Iraq's government. It is certain that this government will not be upset since it only sees good intentions: the good Iranian neighbor "will use all its powers" to return stability to the country divided mainly as a result of the policy of dividing shares which has fed sectarian disputes…not to mention the stealthy fifth, sixth and seventh columns which Iran denies sponsoring, financing, and arming. As a way of returning the favor, Baghdad can claim credit for opening the channels of dialogue between its former enemy that it had fought in the eight-year war before Khomeini swallowed the bitterness of ceasefire, and the American occupation which it prefers not to part with even if this kept Ahmedinejad sleepless.

At the same time, if a faction of Iraqis is complaining about the enigmatic agreements signed by the Iranian president to start a new chapter in the relations with Iraq, against the will of Americans but under their custody of the Green Zone which hosted the grand guest as a conqueror after the elimination of the dictator Saddam Hussein (to use Ahmedinejad's words), such complaints should be directed at the government of Nouri al-Maliki….and President Jalal Talabani.

It goes without saying that the charges of ultra-chauvinism, the sectarian view toward Iran, and its sponsoring of the Maliki's government are readily available to be directed at those complaining. So is the denial that a new Iraq will complete its fifth anniversary on March 20th, even if it remains confused between the Iranian circle of influence and the American occupation which claims guardianship over the country while it is highly suspect of engagement in conspiracies for influence and power.

In all accounts, neither Ahmedinejad and his visit, nor the suggestions that accompanied it about settling accounts with history that once saw Iraq a trench stopping the exportation of the revolution in the 1980s, are the last lines of division among the Iraqis. Of course, a few will sorrowfully remember and regret, not Saddam Hussein and his era, but the great capabilities of an Arab country that once never needed financial grants from Iran or any other side to develop projects and build factories.

On the other hand, not many Iraqis were relieved by Ahmedinejad's sense of humor when he advised Bush from Baghdad that it is time to start working instead of talking too much, especially as the Iranian president vowed to use all his powers "to develop the Iraqi people!"...By what means and why would Ahmedinejad volunteer to retrieve Baghdad's glory and power?... Why would Iran do that after it has finally gotten rid of its powerful neighbor and attained its ambition by negotiating with the Americans as the custodian of the region, its interests and regional balance?

The biggest fear of those Iraqis opposed to the Iranian influence is seeing their country transform into a satellite in the Iranian orbit at the expense of its unity. One of the symptoms of this Iraqi disunity was Vice President Tarek Al-Hashemi's pouncing to complain about "Iranian intervention," while President Talabani was hugging Ahmedinejad to express his gratitude for the Iranian billion-dollar grant.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of the Iranian project to develop the Iraqi people, while the major guest has no time to calm the anxiety of a certain Iraqi faction that cannot comprehend the enigma of this development or its objectives since the forces under the leadership of the "Awakening Councils" are confronted with Iranian weapons when fighting al-Qaeda elements.

For those complaining about the policies of orbits and satellites, there is nothing calming about Iranian intentions toward a country that once kept Tehran anxious about its military and economic power, a country that has become too helpless to resist the attempts to bring it under foreign custody.

Those complaining face a dilemma, as they reject Ahmedinejad's advice while the Palestinian "holocaust" slaps all in the face. The Iranian president stood in the heart of Baghdad as if he were declaring a "victory" overdue since 1988, the year of the ceasefire with Iraq, while SS Cole was exercising a show of the Bush muscle faraway in the Mediterranean. In the meantime, those who had gone too far in listening to Ahmedinejad's "wisdom" also have a claim to "victory" against Israel…with scores of martyrs and devastating destruction of Palestinian possessions and institutions.

For each there is a round, but they are all "victors" in Baghdad as well as in Gaza.