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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ABU DHABI 001119 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR NEA/ARP; NEA/PPD; NEA/RA; INR/R/MR; PA; INR/NESA; 
INR/B; RRU-NEA IIP/G/NEA-SA 
WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESS OFFICE; NSC 
SECDEF FOR OASD/PA 
USCINCCENT FOR POLAD 
LONDON FOR MCKUNE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OIIP KMDR KPAO AE TC
SUBJECT:  MEDIA REACTION: TEHRAN AND WASHINGTON 
 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY: A SAUDI COLUMNIST IN "AL-ITTIHAD" WONDERS WHY 
WASHINGTON HAD TO RESORT TO ITS ENEMY IRAN AND NOT TO ITS 
ARAB ALLIES TO RESOLVE IRAQ'S ISSUES.  AN EDITORIAL IN "AL- 
ITTIHAD" CLAIMS PRESIDENT BUSH'S RECENT SPEECH SHOWS THAT 
ZIONIST INFLUENCE CONTROLS THE WHITE HOUSE.  A UAE COLUMNIST 
IN "AL-ITTIHAD" OPINES THAT EVERYONE IN HAS LOST IN IRAQ. 
END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.   Under the headline "Why did Washington resort to its 
first enemy Iran", Dr. Khalid Al-Dakheel, a Saudi columnist 
wrote in Abu Dhabi-based Arabic daily "Al-Ittihad," 
(circulation 65,000) 6/22: 
 
"Bush in his speech affirmed that his country would use 
force against Iran to defend Israel.  With the Bush 
administration's negative position against Iran possessing 
nuclear weapons, a question comes: Why does Washington need 
to negotiate with Tehran to find a way out of Iraq?  Another 
question: Why is Washington resorting to Iran, its first 
enemy in the region, instead of resorting to its Arab 
allies?  This step taken by Washington has multiple 
connotations: It confirms that Iranian influence has reached 
a point where it cannot be overlooked inside Iraq, while at 
the same time, Washington admits that Iran has interests in 
Iraq and that it is time now to have these interests 
enmeshed with Iraq's current issues.  Does Washington want 
to open a door for negotiations with Tehran where it would 
recognize the legitimacy of Iran's interests in Iraq against 
Iraq giving up its nuclear weapons?  What does this also 
tell us about U.S. foreign policies towards the Arab 
countries?  ...Can these negotiations lead to an exit from 
the current situation in Iraq and having Washington leave 
Iraq?  It more likely seems that this step yields reverse 
results...  It is also strange that the Arab weakness is the 
biggest factor that has allowed such a dichotomy which maybe 
the reason behind removing the Iraqi issues from the hands 
of Arab foreign policies to end up as a captive of two 
strategies: either the American strategy backed up by the 
Israelis, or the Iranian strategy. " 
 
¶3.   Under the headline "A message to those who do not yet 
understand", Abu Dhabi-based Arabic daily "Al-Ittihad," 
(circulation 65,000) 6/22 wrote: 
 
"What the two American researchers have said complies with 
many studies taken, especially the American ones, affirming 
the fact that the Zionist entity is the force that 
influences the direction of the new conservative's 
administration at the white house.  Bush's speech came as a 
literal translation to this fact when he said that he would 
use force to defend its ally Israel.  This happens at a time 
when the region needs somebody to evict the Israeli terror 
from it and not encourage this terror while nurturing and 
protecting it. " 
 
¶3.   Under the headline "The third year for U.S. occupation: 
Everyone is loosing in Iraq", UAE columnist Mohamed Al- 
Hammadi wrote on Abu Dhabi-based Arabic daily "Al-Ittihad," 
(circulation 65,000) 6/22: 
 
"Iraq has become a hostage not of the U.S. but of regional 
countries.  It has reached a point where the U.S. and Iran 
want to bargain over it, and it seems that the price they 
are bargaining is too precious against the democracy that we 
have witnessed.  By the U.S. accepting to sit down with Iran 
and confer with it on Iraq, shows that Iran is reaping the 
fruits of patience and this is not a reassuring indicator. 
Iraqis are watching the U.S. and Iran bargaining with each 
other on their own issues.  Iran's interference is not new; 
what is new is that it is seeking for an international cover 
to legitimize its interference, while Iraq's sovereignty is 
ignored.  During Saddam's era, all Iraqis agreed that they 
had Saddam Hussein as their one and only enemy, but today 
Iraqis enemies are quadrupling and yesterday's friends are 
today's enemies.  Some Iraqis see Americans as their 
enemies, while others see Al-Zarqawi and the terrorists with 
him as their enemies.  The Shiites see Sunnis as their 
enemies, while some Sunnis consider the Shiites as their 
rivals.  The resistance regards members of the current Iraqi 
government as their opponents.  On the other hand, the Iraqi 
politicians take their neighboring countries as their 
enemies...  The list of enemies is getting so long.  After 3 
years of occupation, the United States along with its allies 
including Iran should realize that any security breach or 
civil war means a breach in the entire region." 
 
 
SISON