A Kayhan editorial titled “Geneva 2, The Arena and its Reflections” by Saadallah Zaraei: Talks between Iran and the 5+1 have sparked tremendous interest this past week, and particularly over the past three days. The unexpected arrival of foreign ministers of six countries in Geneva further added interest, and, in and of itself, indicated the special importance of the Geneva talks. Prior to this, the Americans demonstrated much activity to show that they were managing the events and that everything was moving according to their plan. Barack Obama’s television interview, with his emphasis that they would make one small step against Iran’s large steps, further emphasis on the fact that all options are on the table, John Kerry’s numerous trips to Tel-Aviv and Riyadh, statements made by Wendy Sherman, John Kerry, and others, but are the Americans truly in control of the talks between Iran and the 5+1? The author of the article analyzes the American position and determines that the US does not believe that the situation is playing in its interests and is therefore trying to cause the outcome of these talks to tilt in its own favor. But why? He believes, in light of events of recent months in the international and regional arena, that the conclusion can be drawn that the Americans are feeling weaker than ever. Failure in Obama’s efforts to recruit Europe in the attack against Syria, European efforts to convene the UNSC against American eavesdropping and other incidents prove the degree to which the US feels isolated. If the US fails to recruit a world coalition against Syria, the less it will be able to obtain a consensus against Iran. It can be said, almost definitively, that the Americans fear that 4 of the member countries of the 5+1 will reach an agreement with Iran that will make continued US pressure on Iran difficult. If this happens, the US can no longer direct other events around the world, and this means an end to America’s ability to forge alliances and to persuade…Obama and the US government are extremely fearful of Geneva becoming an arena in which the power of Iran and the US will again be tested. The first danger is that the Iranian negotiating team not sensing American weakness and relying on sharp statements made by American officials, erroneously thinking that the American danger is serious and that failure to cooperate with the US will result in frightening events. An incorrect analysis can make Iran’s opportunity into a disaster. The second danger is that the Iranian negotiating team rush to reach an agreement. It is clear that there is no need to unnecessarily extend these talks but at the same time, haste on the Iranian side can result in its enemies and rivals to conclude that Iran is desperate for an agreement and is willing to give the advantage to the other side. In this case, the position of Western countries becomes more rigid, and Iranian flexibility against the rigidity of the other side will lead to no where. Iran should not be hasty. Iran must emphasize a certain model of talks but it cannot insist on reaching an agreement in this or in the next round. This weakens the Iranian negotiating team.