The independent Shabab Al Iraq newspaper said Tuesday in an editorial titled "Bush will be in the region soon" that President Bush was visiting the Middle East early next year.
"Israeli news agencies announced that Bush is going to visit Israel for the first time since he was re-elected," the paper said.
It said no doubt this visit is important and was decided as President Bush "increased" his interest in committing support to the "peace negotiations" between Israel and the Palestinians.
"In spite of the fact Annapolis conference decided that Israel freezes its building of settlements and that the two sides stop violent actions, Israel doesn't commit to such decisions and still besieges the people of Palestine, still building settlements," the paper said.
It said though the visit's main goal was to focus on "peace negotiations," Iran's nuclear program will not be absent from Bush's speeches and negotiations with Israeli and Arab governments.
"For Bush, Iran's nuclear program negatively affects U.S. national interests that for sure include the security of Israel," the editorial said.
It also said that Bush would be mistaken if he mentioned the Iran nuclear program as a threat to Israel given the latest National Intelligence Estimate that said Iran's nuclear weapons program was halted in 2003.
The editorial said: "We are waiting for Bush's visit, but in spite of its importance, it won't be more than a reassurance of U.S. support for Israel, an opportunity to express Bush's support to the state of Israel, and to empty Palestine of its people."
The Iraqi Hezbollah Al Bayyna newspaper said Tuesday in an editorial the Baker-Hamilton report contained 79 articles that were discussed with President Bush.
"The articles were a report on the situation in Iraq and the methods followed to get out of this crisis after the increase of sectarian strife and the worsening security situation," the paper said.
The editorial said it was unclear in the report whether the danger in Iraq came from political sides or as a result of the relationship between politics and security or the position of the Multi-National Forces in all of this.
Al Bayyna said the absence of a united political statement was the danger Iraq faced.
"The way to solve the political disputes is to unite the political statements, get rid of the sectarian notion and agree to one policy toward extremists and killers," the paper said.
The editorial expressed frustration when it described the presence of U.S. troops.
"Although there was no mention of a timetable for withdrawal, a decision to decrease the number of troops in 2008 was taken, which means troops will be leaving if there is enough logistical support from the Iraqi government to train Iraqi forces," it said.
It said the Iraqi government could take over from the Multi-National Forces gradually if they trained Iraqi troops.
The newspaper said supporting the Iraqi government means there would be jobs for the unemployed, preventing terrorists' nets from recruiting Iraqi civilians.
"On the political side, the U.S. government should support the Iraqi government and keep working on negotiating with the neighboring countries to protect their borders and prevent fighters from entering Iraq."
The paper said the above recommendations could be a "good prescription" that could be useful considering that the United States has its own agenda. It said if this "medicine" wasn't used as prescribed, it would harm the Iraqi people more than anybody else.
