Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
QandO has Moved
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Iraq’s election "Devil’s brew"
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, December 15, 2004

If you read the lead of a NY Times piece today, your first inclination is to think that another Islamic theocracy is simply a vote away in Iraq:
On a list of 228 candidates submitted by a powerful Shiite-led political alliance to Iraq's electoral commission last week, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's name was entered as No. 1. It was the clearest indication yet that in the Jan. 30 election, with Iraq's Shiite majority likely to heavily outnumber Sunni voters, Mr. Hakim may emerge as the country's most powerful political figure.

Mr. Hakim, in his early 50's, is a pre-eminent example of a class of Iraqi Shiite leaders with close ties to Iran's ruling ayatollahs. He spent nearly a quarter of a century in exile in Iran. His political party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, was founded in Tehran, and its military wing fought alongside Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war. American intelligence officials say he had close ties with Iran's secret services.

John Burns and Robert Worth
then spend much of the article explaining why a theocracy might not necessarily be in the wings afterall:
Nonetheless, many Iraqis and American experts on Iraq believe those fears are overstated. They say Iraqi clerics are generally wary of the idea of religious government, partly because of an entrenched doctrinal opposition among Iraq's Shiite religious leaders to direct rule by clerics, and partly because they recognize that Iraq's Sunni Muslims would fiercely resist it.
My first thought on reading this paragrapah is "gee, American and Iraqi 'experts' have been so ... on target ... to this point, haven't they?" Both predicted we'd be welcomed by smiling and waving crowds of Iraqis. Both predicted we'd be seen as liberators and not occupiers. Both predicted we'd be in and out of Iraq fairly quickly.

So excuse me if I'm not completely impressed with American and Iraqi 'experts', especially if we're using the same ones.

You probably also remember a recent report mentioning that up to a million people have crossed from Iran to Iraq, most believe in an effort to influence the vote on January 30th.
In a BBC interview in London on Monday, Sheik Yawar cited reports that Iran had pushed up to a million people across the 900-mile border with Iraq in a bid to influence the elections, and that Iranian money was flowing covertly to Shiite religious groups competing in the election.

"There are some elements in Iran who are playing a role in trying to influence the elections," he said.
Our experts, however, have another explanation:
But American and Iraqi officials say that many of the migrants crossing the largely unmonitored border are Iraqi Shiite families that fled Saddam Hussein's repression, particularly after the failed Shiite uprising that followed the Persian Gulf war in 1991. Aid groups working on Iran's side of the border have said that tens of thousands of Iraqis have been forced to return home, and that the citizenship of many other migrants remains unclear, in an area where there have been unregulated flows of tribal Arabs for centuries.
Or, in other words, "nothing to see here, move along, move along".

My guess is that the truth in this particular case lies somewhere in the middle, but obviously, given the background Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and his Iranian based Iraqi militia (a militia which fought side-by-side with the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war), its harder to disregard Sheik Yawar BBC report than, given their track record, our experts.

But there was some other interesting information within the article which gave me glimmer of hope that perhaps Iraq could avoid the feared theocracy:
Also weighing against the prospect of an Iranian-style theocracy in Iraq is that Iraqi clerics, unlike the ayatollahs who dominate the government in Iran, mostly belong to the "quietist" school of Islam that holds that clerics should not hold political power directly. A forceful exponent of that view has been Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq - an Iranian by birth - who used his pervasive influence to push rival religious groups together in the political alliance Mr. Hakim now leads.

In his rare interviews, Mr. Hakim has also spoken out against clerics filling government posts, saying that they should project their influence from the mosques, not ministries.
So one of the leading Shiite candidates, a candidate with very, very close ties to Iran, says clerics should fulfill their role in the society but not in the government. While nice to hear, it still just doesn't give me all the comfort I somehow think it should.

Had he mentioned a constitutional provision providing for the separation of church and state, I might have heaved a huge sigh of relief ... but I don't forsee that happening anytime soon.
According to rivals of Mr. Hakim within the Shiite alliance, the close ties he forged with Iran's ruling clerics during his exile have been maintained since he and others in the Supreme Council returned to Iraq after Mr. Hussein's overthrow.

Those sources say that Mr. Hakim's group and other parties in the alliance, including Dawa, are receiving political advice and financing from Teheran. American officials say that Iran, or at least powerful agencies controlled by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, have backed a wide array of parties, militias and charitable groups that act as fronts for political activities here.
Keep in mind that Hakim's rivals are describing his ties, so take that for what its worth. The fact that he has maintained the ties is hardly surprising as Iran was one of few Shiite safe-habors available during Saddam's reign. However, it is the influence by Teheran among the Shiites which is critical in terms of the upcoming election, and it appears that the influence has been substantial, despite our experts waving off the importance of the border crossers.
Mr. Hakim has said that his party is respectful of Iran, but independent of it. In an interview with The New Yorker magazine before the American-led invasion of Iraq, he said the group's forces "will never be used as a tool of any foreign power."
The question is, does one Shiite consider a fellow Shiite a "foreign power"? Our experts are silent on that one.

Our experts do, however, list a few more reasons that give them cause to believe Iraq will not fall under the sway of Iran and thus into theocracy. For instance:
In addition, Iraqi and American officials say, the ethnic and cultural divisions that have carved deep historical fissures between Iran and Iraq militate against Iraq becoming a client state of Iran. Since Arab warriors conquered much of the Middle East 1,200 years ago, the land that is now Iraq has served as an Arab frontier. Iraq's Shiites, overwhelmingly Arabs, the officials say, have always formed a crucial part of the Arab world's front-line defenses against Persian ambitions, most recently when tens of thousands of Iraqi Shiites fought in Iraq's armed forces during the war with Iran from 1980 to 1988.
I've known both Arab and Persians. Believe me when I tell you that neither want to be mistaken for the other. Nor is their any love lost between the two groups. There is indeed a fierce cultural and ethnic division. However, in terms of regional power and alliances, pragmatism and realism, is this division enough to overcome their mutual religion and their mutual desire to be rid of western influence? I'm not sure it is, especially if Hakim is elected.

The experts also point to this:
There are also bitter rivalries among Iraqi Shiites themselves, and within the religious groups with ties to Iran. Mr. Hakim's party suspects that the group loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric who has led uprisings against the Americans, is a likely suspect in the assassination of his older brother, Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, in August 2003. For now, those rivalries have been held in check so that religious Shiite parties can band together for the elections, but, judging from conversations among the groups, few believe the truce will last long after the elections.
Which, one has to ask, means what in terms of peace and stability in Iraq if one or the other of the rivals should lose? We've already seen al-Sadar's willingness to take up arms at the drop of a hat (or the chance at grabbing power). Considering Hakim's past, one could see the possiblity of his group doing so as well. Given these problems and rivalries, does January 30th promise a huge step toward peace and stability in Iraq ... or civil war?

And finally the experts claim there is a secular "tradition" to consider, imposed during Saddam's rule. Will it be a factor? Ironically it could be the saving grace for a free and peaceful Iraq, if in fact it still exists:
There is also tension between religious and secular Shiite parties. While Mr. Hussein focused much of his brutality on restive Shiites, his rule entrenched secularism, and many Shiites say they would fight rather than submit to the dictates of a harsh Islamic state.

"Eventually, the Iraqi people will have to decide: Do they want a secular democracy or a regime dominated by religious figures?" said Adnan Pachachi, the 81-year-old former foreign minister and a Sunni Arab. "A religious government - I have a feeling that the Iraqi people would not tolerate a situation like that for too long. I can assure you that a lot of Shia, I think a majority, do not want a government dominated by religious figures."
One can only hope so, but obviously, since the toppling of Saddam's regime religion has again flourished in Iraq. Does the old secularist tradition still remain in today's Iraq, or has it too been swept out the door with Saddam?

Unlike Adnan Pachachi,I don't think its clear at all that a majority don't want a government dominated by religous figures.

But don't lose heart quite yet. Doing what they do best, our experts have commissioned polls which tell them that Iraqis are deeply suspicious of ties with Iran:
American and Iraqi officials said polls commissioned by the American occupation authority, and more recently by the interim government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, have shown that ordinary Iraqis, including Shiites, are deeply suspicious of Iran's religious leadership and strongly averse to a government dominated by religious figures.

"Groups too closely associated with Iran may well suffer," said one American official in Baghdad who has long experience in the region. In fact, the new Shiite alliance almost fell apart last week when some members complained about the prominence of groups with links to Iran.
My question is are enough "deeply suspicious" such that they'll vote accordingly? That, again, is not at all clear since our polls dont' cover that.

So is that the crux of the problem then? Iran?

Well not really:
Many American and Iraqi officials say the talk of Iranian influence here reflects what they call a more plausible fear: that Shiite dominance in Iraq, coupled with Shiite rule in Iran, would reshape the geopolitical map of the Middle East. The development would be particularly threatening to Sunni-ruled states that border Iraq and run down the Persian Gulf, the officials say, carrying as it would the threat of increasing unrest among long-suppressed Shiite populations.
In other words, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria aren't particularly thrilled with the thought of a Shiite majority in control of Iraq while Iran is.
"What they are really voicing is their angst over the transition from a Sunni-led state to a Shiite-led state," one Bush administration official involved with policy toward Iraq said after the remarks by Mr. Yawar and King Abdullah. "That touches emotional, religious and historic chords and signifies changes that they don't like. It's a big emotional hurdle for the Sunnis in the region to accept."
Which says to me, non-expert that I am, that its logical Iran isn't the only player at work trying to influence the elections. We've seen it mentioned that Syria is doing so, but would anyone be particularly surprised to find Jordan and Saudi Arabia just as active in that regard? It certainly wouldn't suprise me in the least.

The Shiites, on the other hand, say they just want to restore their rights, both civil and religious:
The concerns have rippled through the Shiite religious establishment, and prompted leading clerics to offer reassurances. In a sermon in Najaf on Friday, Sadr al-Din al-Qabani, an influential imam, addressed the point directly, suggesting that some Sunni politicians were trying to sow antagonism toward Iraqi Shites by summoning the specter of an Iranian-dominated Shiite government.

"Some of our Arab leaders try to deceive their people, telling them that if these elections go ahead it will be a victory for Shiites, and that a Shiite victory will eventually mean a victory for Iran," Mr. Qabani said. "But Shiites aren't a threat to anybody. After decades of suppression, all they seek is a restoration of their rights."
All this to point out that there is one hell of a devil's brew at work within the country of Iraq as pertains to the upcoming elections. With no definative handle on how the electorate leans, we could see an outcome ranging from a moderate secular state influenced mildly by the religious establishment to a hard-core theocratic state aligned with Iran, and everything in between. January 30th could signal a new and promising beginning or it could be the prelude to a ghastly and horrendous civil war.

And we haven't even mentioned the Kurds and Turkey.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
As I wrote in my own post, Mission accomplished?, this morning I don't think we've been forthcoming enough about what the minimum acceptable result from upcoming Iraqi elections is. President Bush has repeatedly said that he'd be satisfied with whatever result the Iraqi people arrive at democratically.

In some sense that's just too arch. I believe that it would actually have strengthened our hand if we'd openly demanded rights for women and minorities, freedom of religion, and a permanent end to strong-man government.

Will we really be satisfied with Saddam-lite or Iran, Jr.?
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
What do you mean by quickly in and out?

Germany?

Japan?

South Korea?

If you judge by those cases 10 years would be quick.

--==--

BTW now is not the time to be making demands. The election will probably be minimally acceptable.

The time to put on the pressure is during the Constitutional convention.

 
Written By: M. Simon
URL: http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider