WikiLeaks in Arab world!

The outing of some 92,000 secret military documents by WikiLeaks has not only put Washington in the dock and rattled the US military machine over its conduct in combat; it has sent shock waves through world capitals.

The unprecedented leak the organisation released the files to one leading newspaper each in the US, the UK and Germany, besides posting them on their website of such a huge amount of confidential data, quite naturally, has sent the Pentagon scrambling into damage control mode, investigating how that happened and how to minimise its impact not only on US military efforts in Afghanistan but also on US national security.

Speculation about the why and how of the leak is rife.

One speculation sees it as part of the Democratic Partys manoeuvring to garner support for early withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and finally end the longest war in US history. Another sees in it the Republican Partys efforts to project the Democrats as incapable of handling the issues of US national security and the war in Afghanistan.

Some find the sudden change of the commander of US forces in Afghanistan prompting the leak while others see a strengthened Al Qaeda paying people with access to confidential information in order to create a wedge between the US and Pakistan. Yet others see groups within the US government upset with Obamas policies playing their hand to discredit his administration.

Be it as it may, the point we would like to raise is: If the documents contain information about US forces committing war crimes in Afghanistan, as they likely do, will the International Criminal Court (ICC) use the data to start proceedings against the US for war crimes in Afghanistan?

The ICC should be fair in pursuing countries or people who commit war crimes and not concentrate just on people like Sudans President Omar Hassan Al Bashir and Iraqs Saddam Hussein.

Unfortunately, we see the world media likely focusing on who leaked the documents and how it happened and not on what the document contain, like it happened in the case of the leaked photos and documents of atrocities in Abu Ghraib prison and the Israeli war on Gaza.

Bahrains King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa didnt mince his words in a November 2009 cable to Washington on what should be done about Iran's nuclear programme. According to a cable released by WikiLeaks, Hamad said:

That programme must be stopped. The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.

Its a view echoed by Deputy Supreme Commander of the United Arab Armed Forces Emirates Prince Mohammed bin Zayed. In a July 2009 memo to the US government, he described Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Hitler, and urged the United States not to appease Iran.

And theres plenty more where that came from. Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia, asked the United States to strike Irans nuclear programme and to cut off the head of the snake. Another memo showed Qatar had agreed to allow the United States to use a base on Qatari soil to bomb Iran.

These revelations are highly embarrassing for Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, underscoring as they do the intense level of hostility and mistrust Irans neighbours feel about its nuclear programme.

But what should particularly concern Iran's leadership is the statement from the Emir of Qatar. On numerous occasions, Iran's leaders have openly stated that theyd be willing to attack any neighbouring country that allows its territory to be used by foreign forces to stage an attack against Iran. By telling the United States that hes willing to allow his territory to be used as a launch pad for a strike, the Emir of Qatar is effectively saying that hes so concerned about the prospects of a nuclear-armed Iran that hes prepared to risk massive Iranian retaliation against his country to stop it from happening.

Whats particularly interesting about the WikiLeaks revelations, though, isnt so much the enthusiasm that countries like Saudi Arabia demonstrated over a US-led attack on Irans nuclear facilities, but that they wanted the United States to decapitate the entire leadership of the regime. (Lebanon's Caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri is also revealed to have stated to US officials in 2006 that they should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq). Another important, related, point made clear by the cables is that the Obama administrations negotiations with Iran have broadened the regional consensus against Iran's nuclear programme, with the UAE and Bahrain having joined existing anti-nuclear Iran countries such as Saudi Arabia.

The Iranian government, for its part, has dismissed the recent revelations as 'psychological warfare.' Other analysts, meanwhile, have dismissed the WikiLeaks reports as part of the Western media's narrative of war with Iran. Some have also argued that the views of the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the UAE should be ignored as they are unelected.

But the fact that the leaders of the UAE and Saudi Arabia arent elected should hardly be a source of comfortopposition forces in these countries include many Sunni extremists, who are even more anti-Iran and anti-Shiite than their governments. Indeed, these groups would in some cases be more than willing to take matters into their own hands, rather than simply urging the US to attack IranIran would be well-advised to work with its neighbours current leaders, because the alternatives could be much worse.

All this means that anyone interested in finding a peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear programme cant afford to dismiss the WikiLeaks reportsand the insights they offer into how desperate Irans neighbours have become.

Its true that earlier this month, the outgoing head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, said Iran wouldnt be able to acquire a nuclear bomb until 2015 at the earliest (revising a 2009 assessment, in which he told an Israeli parliamentary panel that Iran could have its first nuclear warhead by 2014).

But the fact that the estimate for Iran to reach bomb-making capacity has been pushed back a year doesnt take the onus off of the Iranian government to cooperate with the West and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Tehran must alleviate concerns about the true nature of its nuclear programme and cease any military-related activities that are deemed unacceptable by the United Nations.

If it can, it will find itself in a much better position to enjoy closer relations with its neighbours and in a position to tap nuclear technology to produce energy for its own citizens. But until it does, Iran's neighbours will view its nuclear programme as an unacceptable dangerregardless of whether they share their fears in WikiLeaked cables.