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 AMMAN 002001 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR NEA/ARN, NEA/PA, NEA/AIA, INR/NESA, R/MR, 
I/GNEA, B/BXN, B/BRN, NEA/PPD, NEA/IPA FOR ALTERMAN 
USAID/ANE/MEA 
LONDON FOR TSOU 
SIPDIC 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
 
TAGS: KMDR JO
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION ON THIRD ANNIVERSARY OF IRAQ 
WAR AND IRAN ISSUES 
 
                 Editorial Commentary 
 
-- "A new stage for the Iraqi struggle" 
 
Daily columnist Nahed Hattar writes on the back-page 
of independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al- 
Yawm (03/20):  "On the third anniversary of the 
American invasion of Iraq, the invaders continue to be 
involved in major military operations, which will fail 
just like those before, and yet the mere idea that 
they continue to happen now is a realistic proof of 
the failure of the occupation to cast its military and 
security grip over the 'occupied' country.  From the 
viewpoint of the balance of military power, the 
occupation of a country like Iraq, in terms of its 
population and armament, is of course expected to fail 
. but the American presence in Iraq, despite the 
effective and noble resistance, is ultimately a 
political presence that stems from the following 
factors: 1. Alliance with the Kurds; 2. Collaboration 
with Iran and its influence and militia in Iraq; 3. 
Shiite Sunni sectarian division; 4. Arab acceptance of 
the existing status.  America's presence in Iraq is 
political then, and its departure in turn is very 
possible by political means that begins with unifying 
the Iraqi national movement and pulling in the ranks 
of all Iraqi citizens behind the call for the end of 
the occupation and rebuilding the national state.  In 
my opinion, accomplishing this goal is the only hope 
for the Iraqis." 
 
-- "The dialogue between 'the viper's head' and the 
'axis of evil'" 
 
Chief Editor Ayman Safadi writes on the back-page of 
independent, centrist Arabic daily Al-Ghad (03/20): 
"The American-Iranian dialogue that was recently 
launched is a dialogue of interests dictated by 
necessity.  Each of the two country has its own 
tactical reasons for interacting with the other, but 
no matter how long, expanded or detailed it is, this 
dialogue will yield limited and momentary successes 
that do not contribute to bridging the gap between 
Washington and Tehran.  Iran wants to maintain the 
status of political tension with Washington in line 
with its ideology that is based on using the idea of 
Washington being 'the viper's head' to fuel and 
preserve the revolutionary feeling.  Washington, on 
the other hand, wants to keep Iran as part of the 
'axis of evil' in order to use it as fuel for rallying 
the American people against a terrorism-using foreign 
enemy.  These specifications will not allow the 
dialogue between the 'viper's head' and the 'axis of 
evil' to yield any friendly ties.  Having said that, 
the acknowledgement of both parties of the ability of 
each to affect directly the interests of the other, 
the upcoming stage is going to witness easing of 
tension..  Ultimately, Washington will give tactical 
concessions and so will Tehran, but the outcome will 
not exceed a momentary formula for co-existence.. 
What remains is the fact that America's 
acknowledgement of its need to talk with Iran over the 
situation in Iraq is a laugh in the face of 
Washington's claims that it succeeded in achieving its 
goals from the war on Iraq after three years.  What 
success is this that renders Iraq's stability a 
negotiating card in Iran's hand?" 
 
-- "Is America in the Iraqi quagmire?" 
 
Columnist Bassam Umoush writes on the back-page of 
semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Rai 
(03/20):  "Many politicians, journalists and political 
party people like to emphasize that America is living 
in the Iraqi quagmire.  So is this true?  America is 
not in a quagmire.  It is rather sitting at the table 
of our nation, eating from here and there, throwing 
out what it wants and swallowing what it wants.  There 
is no meaning for its losses in terms of machines 
because these have already been paid for by Arab and 
Iraqi money.  There is no meaning for its losses in 
terms of people because the number does not compare 
with the tens of thousands of Iraqis whose blood was 
shed at the hands of the Americans, the agents and 
countries neighboring Iraq..  I suggest to those who 
talk about America falling in the Iraqi quagmire to 
reconsider so that they are not part of the misleading 
media and so that they start to tell us the truth, 
namely that America killed our people, stolen our 
money and trampled on our dignity.  It is a real 
winner, as it does not care about the people of the 
world, international organizations, human rights 
reports or Security Council resolutions." 
 
-- "Iran wins, America did not win" 
 
Chief Editor Taher Odwan writes on the back-page of 
independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm 
(03/19):  "Three years have gone since President Bush 
uttered his famous words from a carrier in the Gulf 
declaring the completion of the mission and the end of 
the war.  But the war is not over and the mission 
continues!  On the contrary, President Bush's favorite 
remark (until the end of the mission) has become the 
most explicit proof that no one knows when the war is 
going to end.  This is what was reflected by the 
feelings and emotions of world public opinion while 
marking the anniversary of the war.  They are the same 
feelings that were three years ago..  Going back to 
the slogan "Iran wins".  It is part of the reality, 
and the proof is that, in the midst of Iran's massive 
challenge on the issue of nuclear weapons, Washington 
announces its acceptance to negotiate with Tehran over 
Iraq.  Is this not a victory for the Islamic Republic? 
The United States negotiates with Iran over Iraq and 
Israel negotiates with the United States over 
Palestine.  Meanwhile, the Iraqis are absent and the 
Palestinians are absented. This is the standing 
formula of the fourth year of the occupation of Iraq, 
or better still, the war on Iraq that was not started 
for the sake of America's interests, since Saddam 
himself safeguarded these interests, but was started 
for the sake of Israel's security.  It is a war by 
mediation where the Americans wage it on behalf of the 
Israelis.  That is why ever since the occupation of 
Iraq, the leaders of Israel became smug and trampled 
on the peace process.  After all, no one is good 
enough, and so they invented the unilateral solution 
and the idea that there is no partner." 
 
-- "When reason rules the day" 
 
Centrist, influential among the elite English daily 
Jordan Times English (03/19) editorializes:  "Reports 
that Iran and the United States are ready to sit down 
for direct talks for the first time in decades is 
welcome indeed, even if these talks are to be 
restricted to Iraq.  The United States, as the main 
occupying force, and Iran, as the neighboring country 
with the greatest influence in Iraq, are duty bound to 
pool their resources into helping this strife-torn 
country.  It is in the interests of both, and in the 
interest of Iraqis, that they do so..  As by far the 
largest group in Iraq, the Shiite community has a 
special responsibility in this respect.  A united Iraq 
in which all communities have a stake and a say is to 
the benefit of all Iraqis..  This result will be 
hastened once Iraq's communities unite in common 
purpose.  There can be no doubt that America is 
running tired and will be unable to resist pressure, 
both domestic and international, to take the first, 
the best opportunity to leave.  It would be an outcome 
to suit everyone.  But it is an outcome that will be 
much harder to reach without U.S.-Iranian 
cooperation..  There might, of course, be fringe 
benefits.  If Washington and Tehran can learn to deal 
with each other on a pragmatic and rational level, the 
nuclear controversy should also become much easier to 
deal with in a pragmatic and rational way.  Who knows, 
level headedness may yet rule the day." 
HALE