The verdict in the Saddam Hussein trial was welcomed. Rasha Saad
reads the early obituaries.
In the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper, Zuheir Kseibati wrote that
Saturday was the day of reckoning for former Iraqi president Saddam
Hussein who "got what he deserves: execution by hanging".
Kseibati described two spectacles on display "on this day of
judgement": the keenness of the authorities in Baghdad on insisting
on this ruling against Saddam, hoping that this just might weaken
the valour of his Baathist supporters. The second is "the enthusiasm
of the Bush administration over the execution of the deposed
president in the hope that it will salvage their declining
popularity on the eve of the Congressional elections."
Kseibati also charged that the Iraqi court, whose legality was
questioned by the defence panel, was being politically motivated,
giving the panel more reason to doubt it when it ignored the timing
of the ruling, relying on the Green Zone, even though Iraq is
practically under occupation.
Kseibati wondered who is going to hold President George Bush and his
administration accountable. "Who would hold [Richard] Pearl
[chairman of the US Policy Board] and [Kenneth] Adleman [US
presidential adviser on defence issues] and the advocates of a
'clean invasion' in Washington accountable?" he asked.
Kseibati charge that "the democrats in the Iraqi authority" had
passed up the opportunity to detach the court from the occupation
because of their hasty ruling against the deposed president. They,
according to Kseibati, no doubt cannot account for those who ignored
setting up a court for the pervasive atrocities of Abu Ghraib.
"On the list of accusations directed at Saddam are killings,
torture, and forced migration of citizens. Is this not the state of
Iraq today? In the post- dictatorship era, and if 'Mr President'
deserves, in the opinion of many, more than capital punishment, who
would hold the gangs who are slaughtering a nation accountable? This
nation will neither be saved by the ruling coalition, the coalition
against the authority, nor by an occupation that stands watching.
Yet some wish this occupation a long life," Kseibati wrote.
Also in Al-Hayat, Jamil Ziabi commented on a recent sermon by
supreme Iranian leader Ali Khamenei in which he said the region had
turned a new page in its history, thanks to "Hizbullah's victory
over Israel in the last war." Ziabi deciphered Khamenei's calls as
an indication that "Hizbullah's victory is a call upon every group
not controlled by either people or country to lead the region into
new wars and disasters. Is this the new page that Iran wants the
region to turn to, by spurring parties and militias without
recognising the will of governments and peoples, as it has been
doing by nurturing its loyal militias in Iraq?"
Ziabi said there was no doubt Iranian policy in the region was a
source of danger for all countries there which are striving to
achieve stability, development and peace. Iranian policy is still
governed by the conspiracy theory "since it considers itself a
peaceful Islamic state that knows the interests of the region but
which at the same time interferes in Middle East affairs, and has
ambitions, so much so that the next generation will inherit years of
misfortune, turmoil and instability."
Ziabi believes that if Iran is looking forward to turning a new page
in its history, as its leader has said, "it must restore rights to
those it has deprived them of, and must give up interfering in the
affairs of others. Additionally, it has to take advantage of its
missiles and torpedoes to achieve peace and stability in cooperation
with the countries of the region, and not at the expense of their
security and stability."
In the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat, Amir Taheri wrote that with the
United Nations Security Council now scheduled to debate a new
resolution concerning Iran's controversial nuclear programme, the
word "crisis" is back on many lips in Tehran.
Taheri said this particular resolution was more dangerous than the
previous one which Tehran ignored, in that the new draft was
presented under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which opens the way
for any member state to take military action to implement it.
Taheri said it was quite possible that Russia or China, or both,
will try to water down the text by including a paragraph demanding
that any military action be made subject to a second and specific
resolution. But, Taheri argues, even if that were to happen, Iranian
President Ahmadinejad would have little to cheer about for many
reasons. According to Taheri, the mere fact that the Security
Council raises the possibility of military action against a member
state of the UN is a rare, grim and serious affair. Taheri explained
that even if the sanctions imposed prove to be minimal and largely
symbolic, they would still oblige all of Iran's neighbours to
enforce them, thus helping isolate the Islamic Republic and
undermine confidence in its future.
He added that even if there is no resolution, the perception that
Iran is a loose cannon and, as such, a threat to regional stability,
cannot be easily dismissed. "There is little doubt that quite a few
of Iran's neighbours, notably Iraq, Azerbaijan and Afghanistan,
regard it and its messianic ideology as a threat to their security.
And that, by all measures, is a serious challenge for policymakers
in Tehran."
However, Raghida Dergham in Al-Hayat believes that "passions in
Tehran are now less inflamed because Iran is confident the US will
not clash with it militarily, and that Israel will not strike at its
nuclear reactor because it considers itself a winner in the outcome
of the war in Iraq, whether US troops depart in retreat or gradually
pull out, or even remain stuck in the quagmire."
Leaked information from a report by former secretary of state James
Baker, who heads the Iraq Study Team, calls for talks and a dialogue
with Iran and Syria.
Dergham said President Bush's intransigence was an important element
hindering dialogue between both countries in the past. Bush regards
Iran and Syria as two neighbours of Iraq using their borders to leak
fighters, weapons and equipment to be used against US forces there.
"Bush considers proposals to rehabilitate Iran and Syria for helping
the US leave Iraq as a reward for blackmail, support of terrorism,
and as a means to subjugate the US. This is why he rejects
recommendations for embracing Iran and Syria and concluding deals
with them to get out of Iraq. He completely rejects this advice."
However, Dergham concluded that electoral pressure and the situation
in Iraq have started to prevent Bush from making headway and to find
other options.
