The verdict in the Saddam Hussein trial was welcomed. Rasha Saad reads the early obituaries In the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper, Zuheir Kseibati wrote that Saturday was the day of reckoning for former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein who "got what he deserves: execution by hanging". Kseibati described two spectacles on display "on this day of judgement": the keenness of the authorities in Baghdad on insisting on this ruling against Saddam, hoping that this just might weaken the valour of his Baathist supporters. The second is "the enthusiasm of the Bush administration over the execution of the deposed president in the hope that it will salvage their declining popularity on the eve of the Congressional elections." Kseibati also charged that the Iraqi court, whose legality was questioned by the defence panel, was being politically motivated, giving the panel more reason to doubt it when it ignored the timing of the ruling, relying on the Green Zone, even though Iraq is practically under occupation. Kseibati wondered who is going to hold President George Bush and his administration accountable. "Who would hold [Richard] Pearl [chairman of the US Policy Board] and [Kenneth] Adleman [US presidential adviser on defence issues] and the advocates of a 'clean invasion' in Washington accountable?" he asked. Kseibati charge that "the democrats in the Iraqi authority" had passed up the opportunity to detach the court from the occupation because of their hasty ruling against the deposed president. They, according to Kseibati, no doubt cannot account for those who ignored setting up a court for the pervasive atrocities of Abu Ghraib. "On the list of accusations directed at Saddam are killings, torture, and forced migration of citizens. Is this not the state of Iraq today? In the post- dictatorship era, and if 'Mr President' deserves, in the opinion of many, more than capital punishment, who would hold the gangs who are slaughtering a nation accountable? This nation will neither be saved by the ruling coalition, the coalition against the authority, nor by an occupation that stands watching. Yet some wish this occupation a long life," Kseibati wrote. Also in Al-Hayat, Jamil Ziabi commented on a recent sermon by supreme Iranian leader Ali Khamenei in which he said the region had turned a new page in its history, thanks to "Hizbullah's victory over Israel in the last war." Ziabi deciphered Khamenei's calls as an indication that "Hizbullah's victory is a call upon every group not controlled by either people or country to lead the region into new wars and disasters. Is this the new page that Iran wants the region to turn to, by spurring parties and militias without recognising the will of governments and peoples, as it has been doing by nurturing its loyal militias in Iraq?" Ziabi said there was no doubt Iranian policy in the region was a source of danger for all countries there which are striving to achieve stability, development and peace. Iranian policy is still governed by the conspiracy theory "since it considers itself a peaceful Islamic state that knows the interests of the region but which at the same time interferes in Middle East affairs, and has ambitions, so much so that the next generation will inherit years of misfortune, turmoil and instability." Ziabi believes that if Iran is looking forward to turning a new page in its history, as its leader has said, "it must restore rights to those it has deprived them of, and must give up interfering in the affairs of others. Additionally, it has to take advantage of its missiles and torpedoes to achieve peace and stability in cooperation with the countries of the region, and not at the expense of their security and stability." In the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat, Amir Taheri wrote that with the United Nations Security Council now scheduled to debate a new resolution concerning Iran's controversial nuclear programme, the word "crisis" is back on many lips in Tehran. Taheri said this particular resolution was more dangerous than the previous one which Tehran ignored, in that the new draft was presented under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which opens the way for any member state to take military action to implement it. Taheri said it was quite possible that Russia or China, or both, will try to water down the text by including a paragraph demanding that any military action be made subject to a second and specific resolution. But, Taheri argues, even if that were to happen, Iranian President Ahmadinejad would have little to cheer about for many reasons. According to Taheri, the mere fact that the Security Council raises the possibility of military action against a member state of the UN is a rare, grim and serious affair. Taheri explained that even if the sanctions imposed prove to be minimal and largely symbolic, they would still oblige all of Iran's neighbours to enforce them, thus helping isolate the Islamic Republic and undermine confidence in its future. He added that even if there is no resolution, the perception that Iran is a loose cannon and, as such, a threat to regional stability, cannot be easily dismissed. "There is little doubt that quite a few of Iran's neighbours, notably Iraq, Azerbaijan and Afghanistan, regard it and its messianic ideology as a threat to their security. And that, by all measures, is a serious challenge for policymakers in Tehran." However, Ragheda Dergham in Al-Hayat believes that "passions in Tehran are now less inflamed because Iran is confident the US will not clash with it militarily, and that Israel will not strike at its nuclear reactor because it considers itself a winner in the outcome of the war in Iraq, whether US troops depart in retreat or gradually pull out, or even remain stuck in the quagmire." Leaked information from a report by former secretary of state James Baker, who heads the Iraq Study Team, calls for talks and a dialogue with Iran and Syria. Dergham said President Bush's intransigence was an important element hindering dialogue between both countries in the past. Bush regards Iran and Syria as two neighbours of Iraq using their borders to leak fighters, weapons and equipment to be used against US forces there. "Bush considers proposals to rehabilitate Iran and Syria for helping the US leave Iraq as a reward for blackmail, support of terrorism, and as a means to subjugate the US. This is why he rejects recommendations for embracing Iran and Syria and concluding deals with them to get out of Iraq. He completely rejects this advice." However, Dergham concluded that electoral pressure and the situation in Iraq have started to prevent Bush from making headway and to find other options.
