When Grand Ayatollah Sistani Speaks, Bush Listens

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040116/ts_nm/iraq_usa_sistani_dc&cid=564&ncid=1473

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In the tense showdown over Iraqis elections, all eyes are on Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani and when he speaks everyone, including President Bush (news - web sites), listens.

Right now, Sistani, Iraq (news - web sites)'s leading Shi'ite cleric, is saying he will not accept the U.S. plan for a partial handover of power in Iraq. That has placed Bush and his advisers in a difficult position. Whatever they decide to do, some Iraqis are going to be very unhappy, analysts say.

Sistani, who commands the loyalty of much of the Shi'ite community, which forms around 60 percent of the Iraqi population, has demanded free elections by June 30.

He has categorically rejecting the U.S. plan to hold a series of regional caucuses to select members of a new assembly, which in turn would appoint a new transitional national government.

more

[raifield]

1. Time for some "Saddam loyalists" to off the Grand Ayatollah...

*wink*

I've stopped putting anything past the Administration at this point. Nothing is going to be left standing between them and the election, peroid. Whatever it takes, they'll do it.

The fact that Bush can't talk without prompts leads me to think that something will occur to postpone/cancel the debates, at the very least.

[fishguy]

2. If the Grand Ayatollah gets offed, you can bet Iraq become Iran 1979 Pt. 2

It still might, but the offing would only expedite the process.

[raifield]

3. Well, why does THAT matter?

Sarcasm, of course. The Administration's current track record of domestic and foreign policies haven't really painted their collective foresight in a flattering color.

There really isn't a "solution" that I, a humble college student, can see. Figure you hold elections, anyone can win, the opposing factions might try to assassinate the elected, spiraling into a country of chaos not unlike Afghanistan, I imagine. Of course, the US will probably tip the votes to the favored as it is.

The other option is to not hold elections, keep the US in Iraqi, while the "homeland" dwindles and stagnates into nothing, all the time while troops and civilians are getting killed.

The third option, I suppose, would be for a UN involvement, but I can't really guess how that would pan out in the future, as far as Iraqi goes. That's a non-option for the Administration anyway. Can't give up now. Light at the end of the tunnel, etc.

What a mess :(

[Aidoneus]

5. eh

Sure, it would be a giant backlash, but I don't really see "Iran 1979 pt2" coming from specifically that any more than Ayatallah al-Uzhma al-Sayyid Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim before him (or any of the other half-dozen Grand Ayatallah's to be killed in Iraq in the last 3 decades). There are a great many flaws to the Iran comparison anyway, as "1979" was a broad-based revolution against the American dictator, with the Islamic Republican faction coming out on top later. The attempts to overthrow Iraq's "Shah" failed (the revolutionary campaign of Imam Shahid Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr being the first major attempted campaign--beyond spreading the daawa and organizing--having been put down by the fascist Baathi, the '91 intifada eventually put down with tacit US approval), and he was instead deposed by his former boss. An Islamic revolution against the occupation would be more like what happened in Lebanon (still a flawed analogy) than Iran. In this sense, Sayyid al-Sistani could play the role of Sheikh Fadlallah to the Islamic resistance to liberate Iraq from the US occupation.

Now to be sure, "offing" Ayatallah al-Uzhma al-Sayyid Ali Husayni al-Sistani would be a giant backlash short-term , but long-term basically just opening the way for other top figures (and would act as a demonstration against the so-called "quietist" approach of Sayyid al-Sistani) like Ayatallah al-Uzhma al-Sayyid Kazim al-Haeri in the hawza itself (he being the highest acheived Iraqi-born Ayatallah and is still in his place of exile in Qom, Iran--Sistani is Persian by birth, the other 3 top figures in the Najafi hawza are a Persian, an Afghan, and a Pakistani), and Muqtada al-Sadr and his allies on the social-political front (these being tacitly al-Haeri's representatives in Iraq, along with some other militant students of Muqtada's martyred father).

[leftchick]

4. he ain't listening...

and neither are the reat of the neocons in charge. There will be no compromise, the OIL belongs to the occupiers...

[Aidoneus]

6. Yes, Sistani's "focus group" is irrelevant

that he could put 50,000 on the streets of one city with a nod is irrelevant too.. that he could put 50,000 AK47s on the street if he shook off his passive tendencies is a bit less irrelevant. It's interesting that many of the al-Basrah demonstrators supporting Sistani's position were members of SAIRI & al-Daawa, whose political leaders cravenly serve on the puppet council of the occupation forces.

There's some sort of confrontation coming to a head soon (at least the first series from the notoriously passive Sistani camp), as Sistani's representatives in Karbala & al-Basrah are ramping up the "bite" in their rhetoric rather suddenly (al-Karbala'i mentioning days of strikes and demonstrations, or confrontations, if the "colonialist plot" continues). There also seems to be some common ground on this between Sistani's people and Sadr's supporters in agreement on Sistani's stance.. the Great Uniter strikes again. Internationally, the highest Shi'i authority in Lebanon (Ayatallah al-Uzhma al-Sayyid Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, whom the CIA tried to assassinate in a failure that massacred dozens of innocent people) backs Sistani's stance on this as well.

[leftchick]

7. Thank you for sharing your knowledge Aidoneus....

I have learned so much about this smoldering situation in Iraq from your posts. Keep them coming, I am afraid things are about to get really hot! Check out the thread I posted on smirk* sending the UN to "sweet-talk" Al-Sistani.

[0007]

8. How come we hear nary a word what Ahmed Chalabi thinks?

Chalabi is a Shi'ite and the U.S. put all their faith in this crook. Now the silence, Why?

Boy would junior love to see this creep installed, 'eh?