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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 000685 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
DEPT FOR INR/R/MR; IIP/RW; IIP/RNY; BBG/VOA; IIP/WEU; AF/PA; 
EUR/WE /P/SP; D/C (MCCOO); EUR/PA; INR/P; INR/EUC; PM; OSC ISA 
FOR ILN; NEA; WHITE HOUSE FOR NSC/WEUROPE; DOC FOR ITA/EUR/FR 
AND PASS USTR/PA; USINCEUR FOR PAO; NATO/PA; MOSCOW/PA; 
ROME/PA; USVIENNA FOR USDEL OSCE. 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC KMDR FR
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION REPORT - State of the Union 
Iran Hamas 
PARIS - Thursday, February 02, 2006 
 
(A) SUBJECTS COVERED IN TODAY'S REPORT: 
 
State of the Union 
Iran 
Hamas 
 
B) SUMMARY OF COVERAGE: 
 
Despite a plethora of domestic stories which capture the 
attention of today's front pages, President Bush's State of 
the Union address, the tug-of-war between the West and Iran 
and the Quartet's balancing act to juggle Hamas's electoral 
victory and its terrorist past are extensively reported, with 
wide editorial commentary on the SOTU and Iran. On SOTU, Les 
Echos comments: "The declarations of intent of George W. Bush 
are being welcomed with a certain skepticism. It's 
nevertheless undeniable that since his ascension in 2001, 
George W. Bush has not ceased to make the energy question one 
of his priorities." Regional editorials are particularly 
critical of the President's talk of "America's leadership." 
(See Part C) 
 
(C) SUPPORTING TEXT/BLOCK QUOTES: 
 
SOTU 
 
"Bush Weakened" 
Left-of-center Le Monde in its editorial (02/02): "It is a 
weakened George Bush who delivered his fifth State of the 
Union speech on January 31. The modesty of his proposals is in 
spectacular contrast to the ambition and assurance 
demonstrated in the 2003 and 2004 speeches. His approval 
rating has plummeted to 40%. In this context Mr. Bush could 
not afford to be flamboyant. The traditional litany on freedom 
and democracy. was pronounced but without an accompanying 
magic recipe. Realism prevailed, including on the thorny 
question of Iran. But how is it possible to [prevent Iran from 
acquiring the bomb] when a good part of the world depends on 
Iran for its supply of oil? No answer was given to this 
question during the speech. Mr. Bush promised to increase by 
22% the funds for research for alternative fuels.. Adding that 
he intends to set in motion the possibility for the U.S. to 
reduce by 75% its dependence on Middle Eastern oil between now 
and 2025. It is significant that Mr. Bush decided to broach 
this sensitive and vital subject at this stage in American 
history. Realism also prompted him to mention China and India 
and the competition that these two giants represent in an area 
long dominated by the U.S.: scientific research. This is 
another challenge for America." 
 
"The Energy Patriotism of George W. Bush" 
Jean-Marc Vittori in right-of-center Les Echos (02/02): 
"George W. Bush wants to protect U.S. energy, just like 
Dominique de Villepin wants to save French businesses.  In his 
seventh (sic) State of the Union speech, George W. Bush 
sounded an unusual theme for a former Texan oilman, even 
though he became president of the United States. `America is 
dependent on oil which is often imported from unstable regions 
of the world.' However, America will have difficulties 
reducing this portion (of its energy imports). George W. Bush 
knows that the energy question is once again becoming a key 
one.  The rise in prices, Iranian blackmail, the Ukrainian 
crisis, the cracks in Saudi Arabia, the Chinese takeovers of 
foreign oil companies, and the bravado of Venezuelan President 
Hugo Chavez reveal an unbalanced oil market. (but) the path 
described by George W. Bush is not up to the measure.  Even 
the heads of American business know it: in order for the 
United States to follow a true energy policy, it will need to 
await his successor." 
 
"A Global Battle for Energy" 
Philippe Waucampt in regional Le Republicain Lorrain (02/02): 
"The U.S. President's sole role was to try to defuse America's 
worries while remaining totally colorless. The only thing new 
was his will to make America self-sufficient in terms of 
energy. It is clear that India and China's growth potential 
are a source of concern for the U.S." 
 
"Leading the World" 
Gerard Noel in regional La Liberte de l'Est (02/02): 
"President Bush once again reiterated that `America must lead 
the world.' Will the countries he fingered, Syria, Burma, 
North Korea and Iran, be suffering the same fate as Iraq? Not 
likely: the American President is too criticized on his own 
turf to dare get involved in another quagmire." 
 
"American Leadership" 
Patrick Fluckiger in regional L'Alsace (02/02): "The U.S. 
President's grandiloquence on America's leadership is a shield 
for a President on the defensive. This has not stopped him 
from being particularly aggressive and pursuing his policy of 
the carrot and the stick: subsidies for countries that march 
to the U.S. tune, and the stick for all the rest. While Europe 
remembers what followed its refusal to follow in the Iraqi 
adventure, we can rightly feel concern upon hearing President 
Bush say `the only way to ensure peace is for America to 
lead.'" 
 
"American Leadership: A Mission from God?" 
Jean Levallois in regional La Presse de La Manche (02/02): 
"Not only has President Bush ignited a powder keg in the 
Middle East, he has managed to get Latin America to turn its 
back on the U.S. Wanting to lead the world is okay if it is 
through example, success and respect for others. If it is 
through the belief that it is a god-given mission, the 
experience has already been tried and no one needs it." 
 
Iran 
 
"Iran: A Dangerous Vacuum" 
Pierre Rousselin in right-of-center Le Figaro (02/02): "After 
the Iraqi adventure, diplomacy has taken over at the White 
House. But sanctions are not the answer: they would have 
little impact in Iran. Before March 6 deadline, Russia and 
China will try to convince Iran to stop its uranium enrichment 
program. Putting the issue in the hands of the UNSC re- 
enforces the IAEA's position. Despite the impression of 
hesitation, pressure on Iran is increasing. President Bush 
last evening called for a change of regime in Iran: but that 
is not in the cards. President Bush's strategy lacks solutions 
for the mid-term when it comes to Iran, just like it did for 
Hamas. Once again there is a dangerous vacuum between the 
ideal democratization of the Middle East and the day-to-day 
management of the Iranian crisis." 
 
"Iran: the Need for a Coercive Strategy" 
Laurent Murawiec of the Hudson Institute in right-of-center Le 
Figaro (02/02): "What is new in Iran is not the verbal threats 
made by Ahmadinejad, but rather the nuclear threat to 
implement what Iran's Jihaddists have been imposing on its own 
people. For years the West has tried to engage in a dialogue 
with Iran, and appears surprised that the dialogue has not 
worked. But the West has been fooled by Iranian ideology: 
every time the West is confronted with a totalitarian regime, 
western democracies are ignorant of the role of ideology. 
Ahmadinejad's diatribe against the Jews is his way of creating 
an artificial crisis in order to re-arrange his positions, 
inside and outside Iran. The West is guilty of pusillanimity. 
While Bush put Iran in the axis of evil, he was convinced by 
Richard Armitage that `Iran was a democracy!' Worse, the U.S. 
Ambassador to Iraq has been allowed to engage with the 
Ayatollahs, who with the Syrians are the number one supporters 
of terror in Iran. Despite Bush's grandiloquence about 
democracy for the Middle East, the U.S. is not supporting 
Iran's opponents. And as for Europe's diplomacy, one is torn 
between laughter and tears. The failure of diplomacy with 
regard to Iran is patent. The window of opportunity before 
Iran is in possession of nuclear weapons is beginning to 
close. It is time to think about a coercive strategy to avoid 
the ultimate resort of using force." 
 
"The Hour of Truth for Iran." 
Laurent Zecchini in left-of-center Le Monde (02/02):  "Iran 
can no longer doubt in the international community's 
determination to stop its nuclear program, but it can still 
hope to be able to divide it on how to reach this goal. In 
this diplomatic game three countries - Russia, China and India 
- hold the winning cards while at the same time being 
restricted by their close relationship with Iran. Imposing 
sanctions will come at a later date, if Iran fails to grab the 
hand that is being held out to it by Europe, the U.S., Russia, 
China and India through the `Russian Compromise'. If Iran 
chooses not to give up its nuclear program. the world will be 
faced with an international crisis. Russia, China and India 
are up against the wall: either they take sides with Europe 
and America, or they take sides with Iran. In short, their 
choice is between their own interests and those of the 
international community." 
 
Hamas 
 
"Hamas: It Would Be Prudent to Wait" 
Jacques Amalric in left-of-center Le Figaro (02/02): "The 
Quartet's decision to `wait' and to give Hamas time is not 
surprising. The Quartet wants to delay the hour of truth as 
much as possible, because it does not want to involve the 
Iranian factor in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed 
freezing the funds allotted to Hamas would in effect open the 
door for Iran to step in as the savior and protector of the 
Palestinian people. This would be a godsend for this Shiite 
regional power which is marching towards becoming a nuclear 
power and which has yet to play its Iraqi trump card. American 
and European diplomats know that the three months delay is 
nothing but a lesser evil while they try to influence the 
formation of the Palestinian government. But nobody knows 
whether these calculations will resist world events, or 
whether President Bush, who is less pragmatic than Secretary 
Rice, will, in time, reject them." STAPLETON