"These constants directly or indirectly affect the major U.S. interests," the paper said in the editorial titled "U.S. Strategy in the Middle East."

The "constants" are the guarantee of the flow of oil; the safety and security of Israel; the safety and security of U.S. allies, especially the oil exporting countries; and to prevent non-allies from owning nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.

"We know that the U.S. will not be silent towards any threat to these four constants, and that it is ready to be involved in worse wars to protect them," the paper said.

"To analyze if this is a right or a wrong policy," the editorial said, "is not the point here."

It added that politics is not the reason why the United States is carrying out these wars, but it is their interests in the Middle East.

"We disagree with the point of view that says that oil justifies the reason for the war on Iraq because we know that what the U.S. has lost and will lose isn't worth the reserved oil Iraq has," the paper wrote.

The editorial commented that "Saddam tried to exceed all the constants mentioned and that made it impossible for both the Democrats and the Republicans not to stop him."

"The same scenario is being applied to Iran, which has the nuclear weapons," the paper concluded. "Another destructive war is going to take place no matter what, if Iran didn't give away its nuclear program."

The Sunni Al Basaer Newspaper published a critique of the war in Iraq in an editorial entitled "Occupation of Iraq: the absolute lying show."

"Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter was right when he described the Bush's administration 'a failure' in solving the international issues," the editorial stated.

It said "Carter was accurate when he described Bush's administration as 'the worst in the history of the U.S.,'" because it used military force before exhausting other options.

The paper criticized claims that the situation is improving in Iraq, which "has been sopped with Iraqis' blood, destruction, bullets and gunpowder."

It added that these claims only confuse and camouflage the situation militarily, and this happens when generals give up their professionalism and responsibilities.

"These deeds," the paper added, "could only mislead the U.S. public opinion and their followers regardless of the unjustified sacrifices and the soldiers who die in Iraq."