Iraqi Shiite party steps back from Iran

LATimes ^ | May 12, 2007 | Garrett Therolf

[CutePuppy]

BAGHDAD — Iraq's largest Shiite Muslim party pledged its allegiance Saturday to the country's top cleric in a move apparently aimed at establishing its distance from Iran, where it formed and grew for decades before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion here.

The announcement by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq did not signal a sudden shift. The party has sought to align itself with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani since it came out of exile in Iran. It won a quarter of the seats in Iraq's parliament and control of the southern provinces. The party's power is centered in Najaf, where its Badr Organization militia is based.

But the group, which leads the ruling Shiite bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance, did seem to be making an effort to build a stronger image of Iraqi sovereignty, and it pledged to oppose "terrorists" and cooperate with Sunni Arabs, commitments sought by the United States.

Party leader Abdelaziz Hakim said the changes were a reflection of "the new equilibrium ruling Iraq." The party dropped "revolution" to rename itself the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council.

.....

Sistani rarely makes public statements from his Najaf headquarters or becomes directly involved in politics, stepping in only on major issues. Early on he insisted on direct elections and urged Shiites to vote in the January 2005 balloting. He also insisted that the constitution could be written only by a body directly elected by Iraqis.

The platform of the Supreme Council, which was formed in the 1980s in Iran to oppose Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his Sunni-dominated Baath Party, had said that it took its guidance from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

That sort of Iranian involvement is now proving to be a liability in the party's relationship with the United States.

.....

[CutePuppy]

More good news that seldom find their way into major media.

[SolidWood]

Hey it’s in the LA Times after all! Another indication hell had frozen.

That’s a mighty good development.
Although Hakim and the SCIRI, now SIIC are foxes, and not to be trusted...this is an indication that their Iraqi followers and constituents are wary of Iranian dominance.

[CutePuppy]

Vice President Dick Cheney used the hangar deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf about 150 miles off Iran's coast as the setting Friday to reiterate concern that Tehran is seeking to dominate the region by obtaining nuclear weapons. The administration has also alleged that Iran has been providing weaponry used to attack American troops.

The party's leadership is "clearly trying to sanitize their image to something that would be much more acceptable to Washington," said Vali Nasr of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.

The party's main political rival in the southern region is radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr, whose Al Mahdi militia has clashed repeatedly with the group's Badr Organization.

With passing of enough time and enough dead bodies Iraq's democracy will look downright civil compared to our current "uncivil war" between two parties.

[CutePuppy]

Good development, indeed. Looks like some Sunni groups are getting tired of al-Qaeda tactics, and this maybe an indication that some Shiites think that close ties with Iran are not in their long-term interests.

Also this comes just days after Cheney’s visit to Iraq... hmm...

Regarding trust - “trust but verify” is about as good as we can get there and in many other places including some of our fair-weather nominal allies.

[joseph20]

Amazing that it’s considered good news that a major political party in Iraq pledges allegiance to a religious figure...

[SolidWood]

They were a “religous” party from the beginning. The good news is they obviously see a need to distance themselves from Iran.
I can’t see how this is bad.

[do the dhue]

bookmark

[avacado]

"Amazing that it’s considered good news that a major political party in Iraq pledges allegiance to a religious figure..."

It is good news because Sistani believes that religion and politics should not mix. Sistani, through his words and efforts from day one, has saved the lives of American troops.

[humint]

More good news that seldom find their way into major media.

I'm not looking forward to day that this line of thinking comes back and bites us in the ass. Yeah, SCIRI, oops, SCII, is breaking away from Iran... The mirror of time shows how ugly this analysis is. They're going to marry Americans the same way Americans married the French after the American Revolution. England's monarchy evolved, while France's monarchy dissolved. How many decades before we seriously consider a United Islamic States of America?

[CutePuppy]

Despite my initial concerns about Sistani, he was consistent throughout and a positive and stabilizing influence against Sadr and his ilk. What’s more not considered to be and he’s not a “stooge” of US, he has integrity and is doing the right things for the future of Iraq. He has been a great help in Iraq, while many here at home have been exactly the opposite.

I was concerned about the news of his health recently, he would not be an easy man to replace.

[Thunder90]

Sistani doesn’t want Khanemi and iamanutjob telling him what to do and controlling him like a puppet (like Sadr is)

[humint]

CUTEPUPPY: Despite my initial concerns about Sistani, he was consistent throughout and a positive and stabilizing influence against Sadr and his ilk. What is more not considered to be and he is not a stooge of US, he has integrity and is doing the right things for the future of Iraq. He has been a great help in Iraq, while many here at home have been exactly the opposite. I was concerned about the news of his health recently, he would not be an easy man to replace.

HUMINT: In a democracy everyone can be and should be replaced by an elected successor. The idea that America has stooges is bogus. You should consider rethinking it.

[CutePuppy]

The idea that America has stooges is bogus. You should consider rethinking it.

Maybe if my fingers followed my brain when typing - "What’s more not considered to be and he’s not a “stooge” of US" should read "What’s more he's not considered to be and he’s not a “stooge” of US" - my intent would be clear and I would not have to reconsider it :~)

In a democracy everyone can be and should be replaced by an elected successor

Sistani is specifically not a political leader or part of the government, he's a religious leader and thus his selected successor will have nothing to do with democratic election process in Iraq, though his influence on political issues has been serious and very positive.

[humint]

Sistani is specifically not a political leader or part of the government, he's a religious leader and thus his selected successor will have nothing to do with democratic election process in Iraq, though his influence on political issues has been serious and very positive.

His influence on the democratic process is what concerns me. I don't think he is a voice for religious freedom in a region that desperately needs a chorus of such voices. I agree; when compared to negative alternatives, Sistani is angelic. However, I firmly believe there are more positive voices for liberty in Iraq that are not heard for fear of increased conflict. If I'm right, American and coalition forces in Iraq are sacrificing liberty for security and will earn neither.

Maybe if my fingers followed my brain when typing

I suffer a similar affliction. My first post to you should have read

I'm not looking forward to the day when this line of thinking comes back and bites us in the ass. Yeah right, SCIRI, oops, SCII, is breaking away from Iran...? The mirror of time shows how ugly this analysis is. SCII are going to marry Americans after the Iraq War the same way Americans married the French after the American Revolution. England's monarchy evolved, while France's monarchy dissolved. How many decades before we seriously consider a United Islamic States of America?

I'd like to add, Christianity posed a serious challenge to the Roman Empire's identity. The Jesus Movement at that time contained more true believers than Rome could oppose. Instead, the Roman Empire would absorb the spiritual wave to survive. I do not offer the concept of a United Islamic States of America factiously. I respect Islam in America and admire Muslims. The faith is welcomed to worship in the United States, and has always been. America's current identity is not the problem.

America's founding principle of religious freedom is in danger when the United States empowers Islamic theocracy abroad. When SCII turns to Iran for salvation, and they will, we will have empowered theocratic imperialists. That is what Iran's political philosophy is. Please read the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran if you have any doubt. In conclusion, empowering theocratic imperialists is an affront to America's true believers... The adverse symptoms of what is happening now will be felt for decades if no cure is found.

[listenhillary]

Could be a plan to speed the departure of US troops. Sounds encouraging, but I’m from Missouri. Show me.

[Mr_Tiki]

Interesting points.
But I believe that the current popularity of SIIC is just temporary. Iraqis showed in repeated polls that they don’t want an Islamic state. Most of them voted SIIC (or SCIRI) because of sectarian problems (ie they voted for those whom they think can best protect them from the violent opposition). Its not the right choice I have to say, but its not from a religious motive if you know what I mean.

By the way, the new name is SIIC and not SCII. They have already updated their website graphics :
http://www.almejlis.org/

Also notice that their Arabic slogan is “Freedom, Independence, Justice”!

[humint]

I believe that the current popularity of SIIC is just temporary. Iraqis showed in repeated polls that they don’t want an Islamic state. Most of them voted SIIC (or SCIRI) because of sectarian problems (ie they voted for those whom they think can best protect them from the violent opposition). Its not the right choice I have to say, but its not from a religious motive if you know what I mean.

Two thoughts came to me when I read your perception of events related to SIIC. I spent the evening toiling with them in hopes that I could articulate them effectively. The first was the concept of SIIC as politically temporary. Those who identify themselves with God do not conceive of themselves as temporary. The identity of SIIC seeks immortality through spiritual righteousness on earth. The name change was not a metamorphosis, rather it was a validation of their permanence.

The second has to do with Iraqi ballots. By my estimation, purple fingered Iraqis harbor political traditions and expectations that allow for economic and spiritual subversion of Iraqi democracy. As Iraqis navigate their future toward self determination, SIIC will assert its righteous permanence with support from like minded brethren in Iran. SIIC will not lose its seat of power under any circumstance, because that would be an affront to their spiritual identity as permanent. The only way to prevent SIIC from abusing their political power would be to limit means and motives to subvert Iraqi democracy. Instead, we are facilitating subversion of democracy by obfuscating Iran's role as a spoiler...

As I write, I pray you are correct on this subject and I am wrong. We are talking about the future so there's still time to make adjustments to analysis and policy. No one, more than I would like to see the United States and Iran cooperate to build a prosperous Iraq. In the mean time, I am unapologetic about my suspicions of Iran and her allies in Iraq. The Iranian government has committed unforgivable acts against the United States, Iraq and the International community. Sooner or latter Iran will pay for its sins - despite what the Department of State may think, the United States cannot afford to assume Iran's debt.

[Mr_Tiki]

The first was the concept of SIIC as politically temporary. Those who identify themselves with God do not conceive of themselves as temporary. The identity of SIIC seeks immortality through spiritual righteousness on earth.

Of course SIIC activists do not see themselves as temporary. But I was talking about the ordinary person in the street. I spoke to many Iraqis who voted SIIC (then SCIRI) after the last elections and their typical response is "we had to vote from among our lot (ie shia SIIC) as a vote for a secularist could be a wasted vote at this violent time"

The second has to do with Iraqi ballots. By my estimation, purple fingered Iraqis harbor political traditions and expectations that allow for economic and spiritual subversion of Iraqi democracy. As Iraqis navigate their future toward self determination, SIIC will assert its righteous permanence with support from like minded brethren in Iran. SIIC will not lose its seat of power under any circumstance, because that would be an affront to their spiritual identity as permanent. The only way to prevent SIIC from abusing their political power would be to limit means and motives to subvert Iraqi democracy. Instead, we are facilitating subversion of democracy by obfuscating Iran's role as a spoiler...

I have followed repeated polls among Iraqis in the past and they all indicate that most people do not wish to see an Islamic state in Iraq. So I think the support to SIIC is mostley sectarian at this stage. Also, please bear in mind that SIIC's strategy is a federal south. They have already gained this concession from the Iraqi parliament on condition that it would not be invoked until after 18 months from the agreed date (from late last summer I think). So in early 2008, they will act on this again. The question would then be whether they will be able to dominate the south and whether they would be able to provide an acceptable economic and political program. SIIC may be pro Iran, but not as pro as the Sadrists who will continue to be their arch rivals in the south. I believe that SIIC may make some initial gains, but would eventually diminish as Islamic religious parties are fundametally inadequate when it comes to the running a modern state.

[humint]

• The question would then be whether they will be able to dominate the south and whether they would be able to provide an acceptable economic and political program.

• I believe that SIIC may make some initial gains, but would eventually diminish as Islamic religious parties are fundamentally inadequate when it comes to the running a modern state.

I think you've described the two best case scenarios. Either SIIC responds to their constituents or they'll be booted out of office. While that works in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo and to a lesser extent Brussels - My concerns relate to how SIIC responds to legitimate political opponents:

• Will they take responsibility for legitimate criticisms or will they put a bullet in their critics head?
• Will they manipulate prospective candidates or their security services?
• Will they protect a critical press, or will they assassinate and jail reform minded journalists?
• Will they leverage Mosques to undermine the authority of Iraqi democracy?
• When their constituents lack loyalty will SIIC make unofficial deals with tribal leaders to circumvent uncooperative ones?
• Will SIIC use their provincial authority to smuggle oil to Iran so that they're able to fund Hizballah forces off the books?
• Will their AOR be sufficiently navigable by observers to guarantee none of the above are occurring?
• If any evidence of this is found, who will be responsible for investigating and administering justice?

We've seen these problems in recent history. No one should be caught off guard by these suspicions. Indeed, these are the most likely points of failure for democratic progress in Iraq.