Pundits advise that only dialogue can solve the Iranian problem, reports Rasha Saad With reports that the US and Iran might hold talks on Iraq and possibly Tehran's nuclear ambitions, Patrick Seale wrote in the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper that the US should indeed start direct talks with Iran as soon as possible. "It may be the only way to defuse the threat of war, to provide the US with an exit strategy from Iraq and to build bridges to an inflamed Muslim public opinion." Seale reached his conclusion after arguing that in confronting Iran, the US should fully weigh the possible consequences: the extreme danger to US forces in Iraq; soaring oil prices; and encouragement for the worldwide jihadi movement which is bound to result in terror attacks against US and Israeli interests. "It looks as if the US has no coherent policy towards Iran -- only bluster." He reminded Washington of the dangers of striking Iran, arguing that Iran has an inalienable right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to acquire atomic knowledge for peaceful purposes. It has the ability to hit back hard against any aggressor. And even were it to acquire nuclear weapons -- a remote possibility several years in the future -- it could surely be contained and deterred by the immensely greater nuclear arsenals of the US and Israel. Also in Al-Hayat, Abdullah Iskandar wrote that the ambiguous and often contradictory messages sent from Washington are being met by Tehran sending the same mixed signals. He argues that the quasi-public US hunt targeting the Iranian regime gives Iranian fundamentalists justification to contain local voices calling for negotiations. Accordingly, any hostile and unjustified international pressure, as advocated by the United States, will benefit those insisting on uranium enrichment in Iran. On the other hand, Iskandar continues, any weakness in the international position, as a result of economic interests and side conflicts, would encourage the Iranians to resume their ways, benefiting from the weak message conveyed by the international community. "Between those two extremes, serious negotiations could return the issue to the International Atomic Energy Agency, thus returning the problem to its technical nature instead of limiting its solution to the Security Council with the risk that entails, from politicisation and possible slippage into confrontation." As the third anniversary of the war on Iraq was marked this week, Arab writers offered a balance sheet. Amir Taheri in the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper wrote that Iraq 's "democratisation process" suffers from three fundamental weaknesses which, if not addressed, could undermine its success. According to Taheri the first is the failure of the new leadership to develop political bases that transcend ethnic and sectarian boundaries. He argued that what Iraq needs is the creation of political parties or alliances of parties across ethnic and sectarian divides. Taheri pointed out some movement in that direction in the last general elections when at least three non- sectarian lists were on offer. "In the end, however, only a quarter of the electorate voted across ethnic and sectarian divides. Thus much more work remains to be done on that score." The second weakness of the Iraqi experience, according to Taheri, is the failure of the state to impose itself on coercive forces. He said that by most estimates there are at least 11 militia armies in Iraq with a total of 150,000 men -- almost as large as the newly created national army. In a few areas these militia have carved out fiefdoms where the central government has little effective presence. "No one knows quite how much of the violence that Iraq is experiencing is imputable to militia activities. But anecdotal evidence suggests that some militia units are involved in racketeering, contraband, and even Mafia-style killing of rivals and opponents." The third, and which Taheri claims as perhaps the most worrying, is the attempt by some prominent politicians to derail the democratic process by involving the clergy in decision-making. Some Shia politicians are committing a mistake by constantly going to Najaf to meet Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani. By claiming that he has endorsed whatever their plan of the day happens to be they are promoting a system of Iranian Velayat Al-Faqih, or the rule of the clergy, in all but name. Taheri referred to his talks with Al-Sistani, insisting the Ayatollah acknowledges Iran's tragic experience and does not wish to see Iraq take a similar route, "and yet politicians who seem unable to solve their problems insist on presenting him as a player in the political arena. That is bad for Iraq and dangerous for Shiism as a religious faith," Taheri warns. The Saudi Al-Watan wrote that the US, which has easily won the war in Iraq, wrongfully thought it can run the country in the same way. Al-Watan criticised Washington which thought that the picture of the US president carrying a plastic Turkey in Baghdad airport in Thanksgiving will offset an ugly scene. It did not realise that the security void in Baghdad will increase the ugliness of the picture with bombed shrines, destroyed mosques and hundreds of bodies littered here and there. "The Iraqis who were freed from one of the worst dictatorships in the world found themselves under a new political leadership that was not up to the historical transformation which their country witnessed," the editorial wrote.
