Many reports from analysts around the world consider the latest attacks in Baghdad as a message confirming the continuation of violence, the Sunni al-Mashriq newspaper said Tuesday.

The blood of people and sectarianism

The use of force to stop violence is in vain and ongoing disputes between politicians who are opposed to the government are a means to strengthen their positions, the paper said.

The refusal by some political parties to take part in the political process is an indirect cause of the continuation of bloodshed. Iraqis blame their political parties for destroying Iraq in the same way as the occupier.

The solution is simple, many Iraqis suggest. Political factions have to be wiser and accept better solutions that will benefit the country and its people.

The political process is "frozen" because of the sectarian divide between Sunnis and the Shiites, whose members look to stay in power but refuse to compromise. Sectarianism is an obstacle that many political parties in the government, as well as the Sunni Awakening Councils, face in their attempt to restore peace.

The way to eliminate violence in the Iraqi streets is to comply with an emergency plan of compromise for the political process until the occupation forces leave Iraq and the security situation is stable.

-0-

Countries of powers constantly compete for domination and attempt to thwart others from gaining strength.

Iran's nuclear program exhausted the efforts of the international community in its effort to prevent the development of such a program, al-Sabaah al-Jadeed newspaper said Tuesday.

Iran between peace and war

Iran's nuclear program impacts the geostrategic interests of the powerful countries in the region. The United States, as the major and most active power, works to prohibit Iran from developing its military or its nuclear program.

Israel, for its part, views the Iranian nuclear program as the utmost threat against its existence, as well as its political and economic ambitions in the Middle East.

It is unclear whether the dispute between the United States, Israel and Iran is fueled by the interests of each power. These interests are dominating the Gulf energy sector and gaining the attention of the public in the region.

The reason Washington disagrees with Iran is because of the security and economic role the United States wants to play in the Middle East, not to mention fear of Pakistan appointing a president who is loyal to Iran.

The United States and Israel have overextended their position in the Middle East. If their role has accomplished anything, it was to anger the people.

Nevertheless, the United States follows the policy of containing Iran but leaves the military option on the table.

-0-

Many factors challenge the strategic agreement the United States hopes to pass with Iraq. The Iraqi side of the negotiations has set conditions, such as full sovereignty, as a required component. The future of the U.S. forces in Iraq is another critical point, with amnesty a matter many in the public reject.

The positions of the Iraqi political leaders have crystallized with their rejection of articles that grant amnesty to U.S. contractors as well as disdain for a failure to secure a time frame for the U.S. troop withdrawal, al-Bayyna newspaper of the Iraqi Hezbollah party said Tuesday.

The crisis of the strategic agreement

The Iraqi government has two options to consider in regard to the agreement. One is to announce submission to U.S. demands, leaving the Iraqi national will eliminated as the people refuse to be a tool for U.S. plans.

The Iraqi government would bring the Zionist agenda to reality if it agreed to the provision. By submitting to U.S. conditions, Iraq abandons the social standards described by the Islamic faith, something that is unacceptable from both the religious and national perspective.

The other option is to reject the measure and handle the consequences of accepting a relationship with the United States based on a stronger military presence. In the long term, this option might lead to more chances for Iraqis to negotiate for full sovereignty. However, it also could result in endless clashes between the Iraqis and U.S. forces.

Depending on which path the Iraqi government takes, a confrontation between the ambitions of Washington and the will of the Iraqi people is a possibility.

Whether the agreement is passed or not, the policies of Washington have forced the American people to pay the price. Prior to the Americans, it was the Vietnamese, the Afghans, the Palestinians and the Somalis who had to pay the price for U.S. foreign policy.

© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in any form.