VZCZCXRO0334
PP RUEHBC RUEHDE RUEHKUK RUEHROV
DE RUEHMS #1561/01 3101031
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 061031Z NOV 06
FM AMEMBASSY MUSCAT
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7372
INFO RUEHEE/ARAB LEAGUE COLLECTIVE
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0452
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0344
RHMFISS/CDR USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MUSCAT 001561 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR NEA/ARP, NEA/PPD, NEA/PI, AND INR/R/MR 
STATE PASS USTR FOR N. MOORJANI, J. BUNTIN 
LONDON FOR TSOU 
PARIS FOR ZEYA 
USCENTCOM FOR PLUSH 
FOREIGN PRESS CENTER FOR SILAS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OIIP KPAO KMDR MU
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION:  SADDAM VERDICT, IRAQ VIOLENCE, PALESTINIAN 
GOVERNANCE, AFGHANISTAN OPERATIONS, GULF SECURITY 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY: Government-owned "Oman" says Iraqis can curb violence 
if they cooperate against it; Youth-oriented, privately owned 
"Al-Shabiba" believes the "civil war" atmosphere in Palestine makes 
Hamas and Fatah cooperation unlikely and says that U.S. failure to 
heed Afghanistan's history lessons is prompting defeat; a posting on 
"Al-Sablah," Oman's largest online discussion forum, said that both 
Iran and the U.S. have "evil" intentions toward the Arab Gulf and 
that the true loyalty of the Arab Shia is to Iran.  All dailies 
front-paged news of Saddam Hussein's sentencing on November 6.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
-------- 
COVERAGE 
-------- 
 
¶2.  On Monday, November 6, all dailies front-paged the sentencing of 
Saddam Hussein with prominent headlines accompanied by large color 
photos; all content was culled from agencies and to date included no 
opinion/commentary. 
 
¶3.  The relentless "good news" focus of Omani media was demonstrated 
October 31 with prominent, copiously illustrated reports on a 
"loyalty march" that was front-paged in all dailies.  Oman's ruler 
Sultan Qaboos was praised as the leader of the "blessed 
renaissance," and in one headline the Arabic term "al-mafdiy" 
("dearly beloved"), was used to describe him. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
BLOCK QUOTES: IRAQI COOPERATION CAN CURB VIOLENCE 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶4.  On November 1, government-owned, Arabic language "Oman" 
(circulation 38,000) wrote that "Increasing Violence Affects All 
Parties": 
 
"The last weeks have witnessed a serious increase in violence, which 
was directed toward Iraqi civilians from all parties and sectors in 
a desperate bid to push Iraq into the abyss of civil war. However, 
the harmony shown by the Iraqi parties that participated in the 
recent Mecca convention, combined with the Iraqi government's pledge 
to strike all types of aggression, might help curb the violence that 
is costing innocent Iraqis their lives and their future.  Meanwhile, 
as the U.S. vice president pointed out yesterday, if the violence is 
expected to last well into the future, then earnest cooperation 
between all Iraqi parties is the only way to overcome it... 
Restoration of stability to Iraq...would not be impossible if all 
parties cooperate to work for it. We hope that the contacts between 
these parties lead to positive results that improve the welfare of 
Iraq and its people.  On the other hand, if violence continues and 
spreads, it will harm all parties without exception, including the 
multinational forces in Iraq and some other parties outside Iraq and 
around it. Therefore, it is very important for all concerned parties 
to coordinate with each other to prevent any further deterioration 
of the situation." 
 
------------------------------- 
PALESTINIAN COMPROMISE UNLIKELY 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶5.  A columnist in youth-oriented, privately owned Arabic language 
"Al-Shabiba" (circulation 20,000) wrote on October 30 that "Fatah 
and Hamas Must Step Down in Favor of Technocrats": 
 
"Fatah and Hamas should admit that neither one of them alone, or 
even together, can offer a national reconciliation plan that most 
Palestinians will accept.  This plan would need to be comprehensive. 
 It is difficult to imagine that it could appear in the current 
strained atmosphere, which has the makings of civil war.  Fatah's 
failure with Oslo is so obvious that it needs no proof.  On the 
other hand, Hamas's plan to try and meld its 'resistance' with the 
Palestinian Authority's agenda has no chance to succeed.  Iran's 
growing regional influence might be determining Hamas's political 
positions.  The so-called 'Opposition Arc' comprised of Iran, Syria, 
Hezbullah, and Hamas might be encouraging the latter to be more 
stalwart in its position, as it envisions that Hezbollah's war 
against Israel achieved success and radically altered regional 
geopolitics.  According to this reading, Hamas insists on exercising 
its prerogatives according to its own conditions.   However, Hamas 
has to answer two questions: first, what would happen if Israel and 
Syria reach a peace agreement that returns the Golan Heights to 
Syria in an attempt by Israel to break the 'Opposition Arc' in the 
middle?  And second:  what if America and Iran reach a conciliatory 
 
MUSCAT 00001561  002 OF 002 
 
 
modus operandi in regards to Iran's nuclear issue and its influence 
in Iraq?" 
 
----------------------------- 
AFGHANISTAN'S HISTORY LESSONS 
----------------------------- 
 
¶6. On November 2, a columnist in "Al-Shabiba" wrote about "Early 
Defeat in Afghanistan": 
 
"When U.S. President George W. Bush joyfully announced five years 
ago that his country was bringing Afghanis from the darkness of the 
Taliban to the light of American democracy and civilization, he was 
demonstrating his total ignorance of geography and history and of 
the rules of the social, cultural, and political transformation in 
the lives of peoples and nations.  He did not even bother...to 
acquaint himself with the nature of the Afghani people and how their 
struggle against the Soviets led to the defeat of that superpower 
and even to its disintegration... Bush and his NATO allies were not 
the only ones who were foolish and arrogant, but the British were 
too... Afghans defeated them less than 100 years ago.  The British 
dominated the Indian subcontinent but failed to subject the Afghans. 
 Bush's 'spoiled dog,' as his opponents name him in Britain, refused 
to heed the warnings of British military leaders and didn't bother 
to look at history books to see what happened to his nation during 
its previous foray into Afghanistan... Even the commander of Blair's 
armed forces in the southern region of Helmand has admitted that the 
mission was a failure, when he stated in a message to the BBC on 
September 22 that the morale of his soldiers had collapsed. 
Meanwhile, on October 18 the chief commander of the British Armed 
Forces in Afghanistan spoke about the dilemma that British and NATO 
forces find themselves in." 
 
-------------------------------- 
WESTERN AMBITION, SHIA "LOYALTY" 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶7.  This week members of "Al-Sablah," Oman's largest online 
discussion forum (www.omania.net), dealt with the topic of the U.S. 
and Iranian military presence in the Gulf.  At time of writing, 
2,372 people had viewed the topic, and 104 commented on it.  The 
response below was representative of the whole: 
 
"We do not favor a Western military presence in the Arab Gulf 
states... There is no significant difference between Iran and the 
West in this regard, as both of them intend evil for the Arab Gulf. 
The West wants these countries under its influence, as does Persian 
Iran.  It wants to occupy the Gulf Arab States and attach them to 
its sovereignty under many pretexts.  We all remember the Iranian 
marine maneuvers, recently exercised within the territorial waters 
of the United Arab Emirates, a matter that prompted UAE to file a 
complaint against Iran to the Arab League.  All of us are also well 
aware of the loyalty of the Shia in the Gulf States to Iran.  They 
'eat from the same dish' of the Arabs while concealing their evil 
intentions.  They enjoy the security, stability and safety provided 
to them by these countries and they amass abundant wealth, yet their 
loyalty remains to Iran.  If Iran ordered them at any time to carry 
out any military activities, they would never hesitate to carry 
those out.  Such action is an essential part of their belief.  In 
fact, their sect prompts them to hate the Arabs, disdain them and 
degrade them. They don't even show any respect to the companions of 
the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) and the mothers of the 
believers.  Shia loyalty is only to Iran, not to the countries in 
which they live.  I do not defend America and say that it is a 
friend of the Arabs, but I would like to stress that Iran is the 
enemy of the Arabs and does not wish any good to them.  Therefore, 
you have to be aware of this and do not be deceived by Iran's 
challenge to America and the West.  It would not be a surprise if 
Iran occupied the Gulf States with the help of its Shia 
collaborators, who hate the Arabs to an unbelievable degree.  Iran 
has previously occupied three Emirates' islands and refused to hear 
any proposals about returning these islands to their mother state. 
Now you are applauding Iran for challenging the West, so would you 
applaud it when its tanks storm your capitals and towns tomorrow? 
Stop this type of thinking, and take this delusion of Iran's 
challenge to the West from your minds.  Iran is worse than the 
Westerners who are present in your countries these days." 
 
GRAPPO