Here’s a twist. Instead of Iran the troublemaker and sponsor of terrorism, it could be Iran the peacenik.

Clearly, American doesn’t trust Iran and Iran don’t trust America, but after a break in diplomatic relations 27 years ago, the countries are officially talking again. That’s a far cry from four months ago, when America and Iran were publicly lambasting each other and speculation was widespread that the Bush administration was ready and prepared to take military action against the world’s fourth largest oil-producing nation and the second biggest natural gas producer.

To international energy tracker Bob Berke, a decided Iran contrarian, the renewed talks could have significant implications for Wall Street. In particular, he says, they could set the stage for less friction between the two countries, which might knock down the price of oil and have a negative impact on those high-flying energy stocks.

Which, in fact, is precisely what he expects over the next three to six months. Contrary to general thinking, he reasons that there’s a good shot at a diplomatic breakthrough because both countries have a vested interest in reducing American troops in Iraq and diminishing the violence there. That, he says, might pave the way for meaningful negotiations of a resolution of the nuclear crisis.

Mr. Berke, an energy consultant to liquidity tracker TrimTabs Investment Research of Santa Rosa, Calif., says signs that Iran is interested in achieving a less hostile relationship with America are already popping up. Most notable to him is the return to Iraq of a radical anti-American Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, after four months of reportedly hiding out in Iran. Upon his return, Mr. Sadr repeated his call for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, but the cleric, who controls the biggest armed force in Baghdad, also toned down his violence-promoting rhetoric by ordering his militia off the streets in order to prevent conflicts with American forces. He also appealed to his followers to reach out to their Sunni brothers.

“He’s gotten the message from Iran to cool it,” Mr. Berke says.

America’s upcoming national election, Mr. Berke says, could also spur some sort of an “Iranian-American truce,” with the Bush administration becoming somewhat more flexible. The fact is, he says, any Republican presidential candidate, no matter who it is, will be dead in the water if he’s saddled with the albatross of continued violence in Iraq that involves American troops.

Iran is presently holding four uranium Americans as hostages and America, in turn, has captured some Iranian military personnel in Iraq? Mr. Berke says he thinks the matter will likely be resolved by an exchange of prisoners, probably sooner than later.

Yet another major catalyst for improved ties between America and Iran, he points out, is America’s need of an alternative to Russian energy. He also cites likely pressure from American allies in Europe, which is a huge user of Iranian energy.

While America officially doesn’t buy oil from Iran, because its crude goes into an international pot it’s really unclear whether some of our oil purchases from oil traders isn’t partly Iranian crude.

Not everyone shares Mr. Berke’s view that a better rapport is on the horizon between the two feuding countries.

“A nonevent” is how Oppenheimer & Co.’s energy analyst, Fadel Gheit, views the talks, given, he says, the major differences between the two. “It might cool off the price rise in oil, but only temporarily,” he says.

Though a long-term energy bull, Mr. Berke says he thinks “it’s time for investors to take a breather from energy stocks” for the next quarter or two. He theorizes that if he’s right in his belief that the American-Iranian talks go well, the energy sector will take a hit. A burythe-hatchet scenario, he believes, could strip away the 10% to 12% terror and supply-disruption premiums presently inherent in the price of oil, bringing it down to about $50 a barrel. He says energy stocks would also get whacked in the process, falling 15% to 20% and perhaps even more.

“It’s why I would cut back on energy holdings and take profits pretty much across the board,” he says. That includes, he notes, such winners as Exxon Mobil, Conoco Phillips, and Schlumberger.

The energy stocks most vulnerable to reduced American-Iranian friction are said to be those with diminishing reserves, notably British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell. Mr. Berke also sees problems for some big overseas energy companies, among them Norway’s Statoil; China’s CNOOC Ltd. and Petro China, and Russia’s Lukoil, Gazprom, and Rosneft. Likewise for energy-related stocks, in particular coal and uranium, and energy alternatives like corn-based ethanol.

Mr. Berke may be right in his assessment, but a number of Wall Street pros believe, as Weiss Research of Jupiter, Fla., sees it, that “the Iran situation is only going to end when America or Israel takes out their nuclear facilities.”

dandordan@aol.com