This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 005295 
 
SIPDIS 
 
WHITE HOUSE FOR TUCKER ASKEW 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/16/2012 
TAGS: PREL MOPS KPAL IS IZ JO UNSC
SUBJECT: PRESIDENT'S IRAQ SPEECH:  JORDANIANS WELCOME MOVE 
TO UNSC, FEAR WAR IS COMING, AND ASK "WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL?" 
 
Classified By: DCM GREGORY L. BERRY FOR REASONS 1.5 (B) and (D) 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (C) Initial reaction in Jordan to the President's UNGA 
speech has been mixed.  The government issued a generally 
supportive statement on September 12 calling for the return 
of inspectors to Iraq, and many of our GOJ interlocutors have 
privately praised the forcefulness of the speech.  Those 
Jordanians who view the speech in positive terms point to the 
U.S.'s renewed commitment to multilateral diplomacy as its 
most important component.  However, local media and numerous 
contacts outside the government have been decidedly negative. 
 Those critical of the speech say the President did not 
convince them that a preemptive strike was necessary. 
General public opinion and press commentary pointed to a 
perceived "double standard" in U.S. foreign policy between 
enforcement of UNSCRs on Iraq but not on Israel.  Whether 
critic or admirer, however, the Jordanian public is 
increasingly convinced that a U.S.-Iraq war is coming.  End 
Summary. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
PRAISING THE ART OF THE SPEECH, IF NOT ITS CONTENT 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶2. (C) On 9/12, Minister of State for Political Affairs and 
Minister of Information Mohammed Adwan issued the only 
official GOJ response thus far to the President's UNGA 
speech.  After welcoming the President's reference to 
establishing a Palestinian State in three years, Adwan said 
"We also hope that President Bush's speech will lead to an 
immediate dialogue between Iraq and the United Nations for 
the implementation of all UN resolutions" including the 
"immediate return of UN arms inspectors to determine whether 
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction." 
 
¶3. (C)  In a 9/14 discussion with A/PolCouns, Ashraf Zeitoon 
of FonMin Muasher's Private Office gave a positive assessment 
of the speech.  Zeitoon said that by focusing the discussion 
back on the Security Council, the President made it "much 
harder for the U.S.'s international critics to say anything." 
 Zeitoon qualified his praise, however, noting that he and 
other MFA colleagues feel that while the President had won 
points among Jordanians for his renewed multilateralism, he 
had not provided convincing evidence that a preemptive strike 
was warranted.  Ali al-Ayed, also of the FonMin's Private 
Office, told A/DCM on 9/15 that he understood Mubarak soon 
would be making a tour of the region to drum up Arab support 
for the return of inspectors.  The President's speech, 
al-Ayed noted, had made Iraq the issue of the moment in the 
GOJ, pushing aside, at least for now, the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict. 
 
----------------------- 
SOME POSITIVE REACTIONS 
----------------------- 
 
¶4. (C) Samplings of other Embassy contacts also show that the 
speech resonated in some quarters.  Former Iraqi Oil Minister 
Issam Chalabi said he was "extremely impressed."  The speech 
was "well-balanced, turned the issue around, and covered 
points that were long overdue."  Chalabi was particularly 
full of praise for the President's emphasis on the plight of 
the Iraqi people under Saddam: "This was very important.  So 
many democratic governments have forgotten this, as have 
people in the Arab world.  They should be ashamed of 
themselves."  Jamal Tahat, a telecommunications researcher, 
observed that the speech "made it easier to defend the 
American position. If there is going to be a war, it will be 
a more rational war."  Several other business contacts also 
offered a general positive reaction, noting that "anything 
that reduces uncertainty is welcome." 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
MEDIA NEGATIVE: U.S. WANTS WAR, WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL? 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Those positive statements among Embassy contacts 
notwithstanding, Jordanian media and opinionmakers almost 
unanimously discussed the speech in negative terms.  Even the 
government-affiliated English language Jordan Times (which is 
generally very measured in its criticism of the U.S.) stated 
in an editorial on 9/13 that the President "failed yet again 
to show solid evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass 
destruction.  His argument that Iraq is a threat to the world 
remains unconvincing."  The paper went on to argue that it 
was the U.S. -- not Iraq -- that posed a threat to regional 
stability: "Baghdad says it does not want a war.  It will 
have to demonstrate that.  That Bush wants a war, it has long 
been clear.  It is not too late to deny him the chance to get 
it." 
 
¶6. (U) Arab language daily "Al-Arab Al-Yawm," in a 9/13 
editorial was particularly critical of the perceived U.S. 
"double standard" in the region: "We, the Arabs who live in 
an area that the U.S. Administration is seeking to turn into 
a zone of war and destruction, cannot but feel bitterness for 
the double standard policy that was clearly evident in Bush's 
speech.  He totally ignored what the Palestinian people have 
been enduring for the past four months at the hands of the 
Israeli troops, while showering the world with the 
'violations' of the Iraqi regime." 
 
¶7. (C) Other conversations with Embassy contacts over the 
past several days have keyed in on the "double standard" 
issue.  Urayb Rantawi, Director of the Al-Quds Center for 
Research characterized the President's statements on 
Palestine as "the clearest U.S. statement thus far" in 
support of Palestinian aspirations.  He qualified that 
praise, however, by adding that "what's going on on the 
ground, however, undermines its credibility."  Former 
Jordanian Ambassador to Iraq Faleh al-Tawil told us 
"attacking Iraq because of WMD is unconvincing, especially 
when you don't do anything about Israel and its WMD." 
Several other Embassy contacts asked rhetorically why the 
U.S. is focused on Iraq while Israel, they feel, is guilty of 
the same offenses: flaunting UNSCRs, possessing WMD, and 
occupying others' territory. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
IN ANY CASE, WAR (EVERYONE NOW BELIEVES) IS COMING 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶8. (C) What has solidified in the thinking of most Jordanians 
-- both among critics and admirers of the President's speech 
-- is a growing sense that war between the U.S. and Iraq is 
coming.  For those who praised the speech, the direction 
ahead lends itself to a straightforward interpretation. 
Former Iraqi Oil Minister Chalabi summed it up succinctly 
saying: "The U.S. appears truly sincere in wanting to topple 
Saddam this time.  I hope that means we are nearing the end 
of this tragedy."  For the critics, the U.S. challenge (or to 
some "threat") to the UN to "shoulder its responsibilities" 
is only a superficial repackaging of U.S. war plans. 
Journalist Musa Keilani in a 9/15 opinion piece stated: "On 
the surface, it looks great . . . but it is an easy task to 
reject Iraqi compliance as falling short.  The new U.S. move 
is deceptive and another stepping stone to military action 
against Iraq." 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶9. (S) Many of the Jordanians who praised the President's 
speech welcomed the U.S. pledge to work with the UN in the 
hope that it will give Iraq one last chance to permit 
inspectors into the country and avoid military action, which 
they fear would have serious consequences for Jordan.  In 
contrast, the negative street and media reaction focused on 
the perceived U.S. double standard in dealing with Arabs 
versus Israel, a strong undercurrent in the popular Jordanian 
view of regional issues across the board. 
GNEHM