STRATFOR: Geopolitical Diary: Thursday, April 15, 2004

A significant portion of the current crisis in Iraq moved much closer to resolution today. Muqtada al-Sadr shifted his position as U.S. forces moved to jumping-off points for an attack on An Najaf. Al-Sadr was under pressure from two directions. Obviously, the prospect of being attacked by the United States was daunting, but the offer for a truce would not have come if Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani had not finally intervened. Whether this was preplanned or whether al-Sistani used al-Sadr for his own ends remains unclear to us. In either case, al-Sistani showed the United States what would happen if the Americans do not work with the Shia.

The Iranians chimed in, saying that Iran no longer thinks it can work with the United States in Iraq, thereby acknowledging that it has been working with the United States -- the least-well-kept secret in the world. The Iranians charged that the United States says one thing and does another. It all comes down to this: At the height of the Sunni insurrection last fall, the United States reached an agreement with the Shia that kept them quiet -- a guarantee that power would be transferred to them. After the December collapse of Sunni operations, the United States suffered buyer's remorse and started to pare down the commitment.

The heart of the matter was symbolized by elections. Would the Iraqi constitution be written by representatives selected by the United States, increasing Sunni and Kurd power, or by an elected body, increasing Shiite power? The United States went with the former. Al-Sistani and Iran regarded this as a double cross -- and the result was al-Sadr and his uprising. Al-Sistani repeated his call today for elections. He has not dropped the demand because it represents what he thinks is the U.S. commitment to him. Obviously, it is not about elections. It is about Shiite power. The United States has a core decision to make. It has had a taste of how bad things can become if al-Sistani does not cooperate. It also knows how bad things will become in the long run if the Shia take full power. The United States can pay now or it can pay later. But pay it will.

The past few weeks in Iraq appear to have toughened the U.S. view of the Islamic world in general -- or at least convinced the administration that it should signal a toughened view. President George W. Bush wrote a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon essentially moving the U.S. view closer to Israel's. The letter says in essence that the United States is prepared to live with Israeli settlements in occupied territories, and that it will oppose a right of return for Palestinians to Israel proper. It also strongly implies that the United States now shares Israel's views on a broader range of topics.

What the United States is trying to do is to turn the tables on the Islamic world. Moderate Islamic leaders have long-argued that U.S. behavior would radicalize the Muslim world, turning it against the United States. The United States is signaling that the behavior of the Muslim world will radicalize the United States. In other words, if the Islamic world's response to the United States in Iraq will be what was seen last week, then the United States has no reason not to side with Sharon. If the Muslims don't want this to happen, they had better change their behavior.

Obviously, the Islamist radicals are delighted with the American stance, since it traps the moderate leaders. From the U.S. point of view, the term moderate is meaningless if the moderates are unwilling or incapable of dealing with the radicals. The United States is signaling that if it is trapped in Iraq, the result will be increased -- not decreased -- alignment with Israel. If the moderate Muslim leadership doesn't want this, then it is up to them to take risks in controlling the radicals.

The United States has upped the ante strategically, but the Bush administration really has little choice. It cannot withdraw from Iraq, and its presence there has generated a confrontation with radicals. That is given, and there is nothing that can be done to change it. The issue is the behavior of the Islamic center. If those in the center won't -- or can't -- act, they are irrelevant. If all there are, from a practical point of view, are the radicals, then the United States has no reason not to throw in with Sharon.

There is a logic to this gamble, but it is a gamble nonetheless. It does do what the Americans want -- it puts the moderate Islamic leadership in a very tough spot. It says that the more the United States is pressed, the more it will align with Israel. No help in Iraq, no help on Israel.

My guess is that this is all part of a larger strategy.

Iran is isolated, Iraq is neutralized, and we are counting on Israel to kick the butts of Syria, Jordan and Egypt as well as take out the nuclear capability of Iran.

I think that was the plan from the get go.

this analysis is interesting but a little "over-thought". the reality is far simpler. there are no moderates in arabia. there are vested interests based upon shia/sunni interests with regional and family interests operating below the larger facade. essentially, these are semi-organized clans and tribes attempting to come to their own rough balance of power with the western influence of American and her allies impacting the equation. whether the impact works to the advantage of the US or any one of or group of or confederation of the various parties remains to be seen. it was naive in a good way for the US to try and re-build part of arabia in her own image. the best answer and still possible strategy is to work for a 3 way division of iraq into kurd, sunni and shia entities. by doing so we could achieve a quick victory to the north with the kurds, return the sunni middle to the shiekdoms that effectively run it anyway, and realize that we will be drawing in iran to the south but use this as a pretext for the upcoming attack on iran which i believe most of us here at FR know must happen.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.