Doaa El-Bey previews not the candidate but the kind of voter needed for the upcoming People's Assembly elections, while Rasha Saad assesses the consequences as the last American combat brigade pulls out of Iraq Pundits focussed on the significance as well as the consequences of the end of US combat operations in Iraq as the last American combat brigade left Iraq and crossed into Kuwait last week. The newspaper Oman described the move as "significant to Iraq, its neighbours and the US." In its editorial the newspaper focussed on the recent surge of violence in Iraq which casts doubt on the readiness of Iraqi forces to take over sole responsibility for the country's security. "There are some forces in Iraq which will continue to try to make use of these developments to their advantage even if it costs the lives and blood of innocent Iraqis," the editorial warned. The editorial called on political and military powers in Iraq to unite and double their efforts in the near future "to build a national shield against all those who are messing up Iraqi security". As for the US, the editorial explained, the withdrawal of the combat brigade means that Washington is serious in implementing the pullout agreement reached with Iraq in 2008 and also means that Washington is confident in the ability of Iraqi forces to maintain their role in the next phase albeit with some assistance. The editorial reminded readers that there were remaining US brigades in Iraq for advise and assistance as part of American plans to help train and build up Iraqi forces before a complete withdrawal at the end of next year. In the London-based daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Abdel-Bari Atwan, however, painted a bleak picture. "US soldiers did not waive the V-sign as they were sneaking at night into Kuwait two weeks ahead of their withdrawal schedule. The Iraqis did not bid them farewell with flowers as their liberators and their allies either were kept in the dark or were too busy thinking of their own destiny [after the withdrawal]" Atwan wrote. Atwan echoed statements by top Iraqi officials fearing the withdrawal is premature. Earlier this month Iraq's top military officer Babaker Zebaris said the country's army would not be ready until 2020 and called for US forces to stay until then. Atwan argued that the US insistence to withdraw from Iraq despite pledges that it would remain might be an indication that Washington is planning another war in the region. "The premature US troop withdrawal despite pledges might be in preparation for another war that targets Lebanon first, Iranian nuclear facilities and infrastructure second, or maybe both countries at the same time," Atwan wrote. He explained that the Americans comprehend that any military blow to Iran or Hizbullah in Lebanon "will backfire on their troops in Iraq where Iran has a heavy presence and influence and can easily retaliate." Atwan also pointed out that the US force withdrawal to Kuwait coincides with reports that the US plans to sell Kuwait its newest Patriot anti-ballistic missile system. According to Atwan the deal is aimed at defending US troops from any counterattack from Iran. Atwan also believes that Washington's pushing for direct negotiations is another reason he fears a war is coming to the region. "Experience has taught us that every time the US pushes for peace talks and speaks about a settlement of the Palestinian issue, missiles are directed towards an Arab or Islamic country." In the London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat Bilal Hassan wrote that "US planning, European pressure, Arab complacency, and fragility of the Palestinian negotiator -- these are the four factors that have made the racist right-wing government, led by Binyamin Netanyahu, seem as if it is the victorious power that can impose everything it wants in the face of the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations." According to Hassan, we have reached the near debut of direct negotiations "which will take place completely in accordance with the formula Israel wants." "Israel's formula is negotiations without any prior conditions, ie negotiations in which the Palestinian side concedes all its demands," Hassan maintains. He explains that this means that the Palestinian negotiator is facing two possibilities, with no other alternative: "to capitulate to the Israeli negotiations formula, and to accept the establishment of a Palestinian state that lives within Israel's grip, to be an organisational structure subordinate to Israel;" the second possibility is that the negotiations will be talks in which President Mahmoud Abbas "will repeat the previous rounds he conducted without having any alternative for an expected failure." At the same time in Jerusalem, Hassan warns, settlement activities have escalated to the level of evicting people from their homes, considering the city as part of the "state of Israel" and not territories occupied in 1967, and applying the Israel Absentee Property Law to the population of the city living outside it, along the lines of what happened with the Palestinian refugees in 1948. Also in Asharq Al-Awsat Abdel-Rahman Al-Rashid commented on reports about Iranian plots to target the Arab Gulf states through local Shia cells planted and programmed to carry out terrorist activities and create chaos in the event of an attack on Iran. While Al-Rashid argues that this may not be far from the truth, he adds it is incorrect to suggest that the Shia alone would be Iran's agents at a time of crisis. "This belief is completely naïve, for Iran today is the largest employer of Sunni movements, specifically the Salafist groups, who are considered the most radical Sunni group," Al-Rashed wrote. Al-Rashed argued that the attack on the Japanese oil tanker near the Straits of Hormuz a month ago was not a Shia operation but that of a Sunni-Salafi Saudi national based in Iran. Al-Rashed charged that there are hundreds more like him, of Arab nationality, hiding and being trained inside Iran as well as others receiving support from Iran for their activities in other areas such as Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Lebanon and Gaza. "Thus there is clear evidence that Iran does not see the world along the lines of a sectarian divide, but in accordance with the interests of its politically pragmatic system. This system strives to do all it can to serve the Iranian regime's objectives and spread its influence, to Sunnis or Shia," Al-Rashed concludes.
