Skip to comments.Iran steps in to prop up Iraq's Maliki
Posted on 06/05/2012 11:27:04 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Amid a surge of bombings in Iraq, Iran appears to be getting concerned about growing efforts to unseat Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whom Tehran helped to power.
Even fellow Shiites are saying Maliki, who controls all Iraq's military, security and intelligence forces, should go.
At the same time, Tehran is seeking to ensure that Iraq's Shiites don't upstage Iran's long-held spiritual domination of the Shiite sect, a position that the Iranian clergy seized during Saddam Hussein's rule when he ruthlessly suppressed Iraq's Shiite majority.
The political and religious friction is being intensified by the campaign of bombings and assassinations carried out by remnants of al-Qaida and other militants from the Sunni minority, which many fear will reignite open sectarian warfare in Iraq.
The swelling political crisis that has engulfed the oil-rich state since U.S. forces completed their withdrawal in December 2011 came to a head last week when Maliki's coalition partners moved together to muster support for a no-confidence vote in Parliament.
One of the driving forces behind this campaign is Moqtada al-Sadr, scion of a prominent Shiite religious dynasty and long one of Maliki's rivals for the leadership even though he was persuaded to join the ruling coalition put together, with considerable Iranian effort, in 2011.
The Iranians have largely sat on the sidelines in recent months, discreetly using the immense influence they've built up in Iraq since the Americans conveniently got rid of Saddam for them.
But now they're concerned the opposition to Maliki is gaining too much strength amid the violence, political paralysis, worsening economic problems, intensifying squabbles over oil and revenue-sharing and the fear among Iraqis that Maliki's determined to become another Saddam Hussein.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
This is the way it was always going to be from the start... a shi’a puppet regime in Iraq that owes its continued existence to Iran.
It was a colossal mistake invading that country.
The mistake was allowing them to govern themselves, and not using the country as a stage to go after Iran like the hawks wanted to do. The “war on terror” went “liberal” from the start, especially by not acknowledging the enemy and naming it after a tactic used by the enemya “war on terror” would entail the US military going after Bill Ayers, the IRA, and every communist and Nazi that ever existed, ad nauseam, and everyone knew that wasn’t going to happen.
It was a bigger mistake (made by our naive, clueless, Compassionate Conservative, Boosh...notwithstanding the bad advice he received from pro-Islamic cabinet officers and advisers) to allow Iraq to form a new Constitution with Sharia being "controlling."
We should have done what we did with Japan after WWII (when we insisted their new government sever all ties to Shinto) and that their (Iraqi) citizens be guaranteed equal rights, liberties and freedoms absent any reference to Islam.
No matter how long we stay there, Iraq WILL end up an Iranian puppet state and you can take that to the bank.
It is very strange that Obama is supporting Maliki. Maliki has allowed Iran to infiltrate the Iraqi government. Is Sadr doing the right thing for Iraq this time?
The aide also said that both the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors in Iraq are in the unusual position of pushing the same agenda: Iraq cannot be allowed to fall back into political limbo. The aide said both diplomats reached out separately to Amar al-Hakim, head of the biggest Shiite political group in Iraq, with appeals to solve the political spat through dialogue.
Groups such as the Sunnis and Kurds have always been uneasy about the Iran-style blurring of Shiite politics and religions. And some Shiites, including al-Sadr, had gained followers by emphasizing their Arab identity and culture rather than a satellite of Persians.
Al-Maliki may ride out this crisis, said Mustafa Alani, an analyst at the Gulf Research Center based in Geneva. But there is a price to pay, and that price is more Iranian influence in Iraq. This may come back to bring other problems down the road.
The Iraqi Shi’ites always wanted a union with Iran. Mr. Islamic Dawa Party (al-Maliki) actively promoted joint military operations with Iran ever since his ascent to power in the new “free(ly), fair(ly), democratic(ally) elected” Iraqi government with its Islamic constitution that retains Saddam-era laws, cites Shari’a law as its primary basis for jurisprudence, and names Israel as their number-one enemy in the region.
“The Iraqi Shiites always wanted a union with Iran.”
No, the majority of them, as well as the Iranians, are opposed to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardianship_of_the_Islamic_Jurists that was promoted by Khomeini. Since Iran is run based on this principle the Iraqi Shi’ias are against a union with Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Sistani is a strong opponent of this Iranian interpretation.
Why are you citing Wikipedia as authoritative in any way? Never mind the highly-questionable sources of those articlesnews agencies biased towards the Mideast viewpoint and university papers mostly. If anything thus mentioned therein was in any way true, then people like al-Maliki and al-Sadr would be pariahs instead of the power brokers they actually are.
I agree with you that Wikipedia should not be used for making final decisions, but it is sufficiently good as an introduction. I, not Wikipedia, claimed something about the majority opinion in Iraq and Iran.
The prevalence of disinformation in articles about the Mideast is much higher than for other regions.
In my opinion al-Maliki should leave.
One final question remains and it was asked when Saddam was removed. Was he, Saddam, an anomaly or a product of his time and political culture? If he was an anomaly, then the chances of another era of repression under a patriarchal autocrat would be slim. But if he was a product of his political culture and history, then Maliki could represent the next Saddam. Let us hope this is not the case.
Bushs' war was just taking care of some old "family" business. So what if the war was not in the nations interests? "Family" comes first to the oligarchy.