Iraq Winners Allied With Iran Are the Opposite of U.S. Vision

The Washington Post ^ | Monday, February 14, 2005 | By Robin Wright

[F14 Pilot]

When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq two years ago, it envisioned a quick handover to handpicked allies in a secular government that would be the antithesis of Iran's theocracy -- potentially even a foil to Tehran's regional ambitions.

But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base -- and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy -- $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts say.

Yesterday, the White House heralded the election and credited the U.S. role. In a statement, President Bush praised Iraqis "for defying terrorist threats and setting their country on the path of democracy and freedom. And I congratulate every candidate who stood for election and those who will take office once the results are certified."

Yet the top two winning parties -- which together won more than 70 percent of the vote and are expected to name Iraq's new prime minister and president -- are Iran's closest allies in Iraq.

Thousands of members of the United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite-dominated slate that won almost half of the 8.5 million votes and will name the prime minister, spent decades in exile in Iran. Most of the militia members in its largest faction were trained in Shiite-dominated Iran.

And the winning Kurdish alliance, whose co-leader Jalal Talabani is the top nominee for president, has roots in a province abutting Iran, which long served as its economic and political lifeline.

"This is a government that will have very good relations with Iran. The Kurdish victory reinforces this conclusion. Talabani is very close to Tehran," said Juan Cole, a

[parisa]

Hi F14 Pilot. Thanks for all the pings. I'm trying to catchup.

I've learned to ALWAYS take note of who is giving me the news. Remember this is the notorious Robin Wright. Remember her? The promoter of reformer, smiling, Gorbechuv-mullah Khatami. Disregard everything she says. Time always proves these dimwits wrong.

[Angelus Errare]

Check out Juan Cole's looney lefty blog sometime. He was bemoaning the Iraqi elections until he figured out a way where he could make them look bad for Bush. It's really sad, because whatever other expertise the man has gets gobbled up in his utter hatred of the administration.

[geopyg]

"There will be no turbans in the government,"

I was "discussing" this with someone from my church at a party when he said "Now Bush just got us another ayatollah in Iraq".

I explained to the guy that Sistani is a religious leader, but is also into separation of the church and state. But, the new constitution will be put together in view of their faith - but not under "sharia law" (sp?). I said: much like our founder fathers - they want to base the rules of their country on the rules of their faith. And I think (hope) that because the various factions have to ratify the constitution, it will need to be a fair contract. It may not be easy - just like our Constitution wasn't easy with all of the various states, etc. (Wasn't it Thomas Paine who refused to go to the continental congress saying "I smell a rat"?)

[F14 Pilot]

Actually I have been following her books and articles on Iran and I know what she has done!

[John Lenin]

Would these be the same leaders who fought an 8 year war with Iran ? Someone at the post needs to do a little 80's history studying.

[F14 Pilot]

I doubt Iraqis ever want to invade another countries again

[R. Scott]

Well, the Post is verifying that we did not rig the election.

[R. Scott]

Some one called in sick?

[Allegra]

Of course, the Post isn't spinning anything or outright distorting facts in an attempt to make the U.S. efforst in Iraq look like a bad thing.

They would never do that, would they?

[R. Scott]

She should be sent to college again!

Would it do any good the next time around?

[John Lenin]

The Washington Post is turning into a grocery store rag. Didn't Rummy just nail them in a lie or exaggeration last Sunday ? I guess credibility means nothing to a newspaper anymore as long as you remain loyal to the RAT party.

[woofie]

Oh why didnt we just leave the noble savage Saddam alone ....Im sure after he had taken a few billion $ and helped Osama and his friends kill a mill people he would have listened to reason... now we have to deal with that horrid democracy stuff ...woe is me.

[cdrw]

Is it a quagmire yet? Is it a quagmire yet?

[optik_b]

"Author can not understand the basic values of freedom and democracy and freedom to choose. "

Democracy does not inherently lead to a positive outcome, Hitler was democratically elected for instance. Hugo Chavez was recently elected in Venezuala.

[optik_b]

This is what was most feared by Brent Scowcroft and other's who advised against the rush to war. Now that Iran is close to having nuclear weapons, I wonder where the new Shia dominated Iraq will position itself.

[inquest]

The Washington Post, as is its wont, has failed to inform you that a major tenet of the Shi'a faith is the separation of church and state. The spiritual leader of the Iraqi Shi'a, al-Sistani has made that very clear.

Doesn't seem to have stopped him from getting involved in politics, though.

[okie01]

Doesn't seem to have stopped him from getting involved in politics, though.

Well, yes, it has.

Unsurprisingly, he lent his support to the UIA ticket. But don't we have bishops and preachers freely expressing their political preferences in America, too.

And he himself is not running for office, nor has he expressed any interest in a government position. Plus, he has vocally promoted the concept of separation.

[inquest]

Unsurprisingly, he lent his support to the UIA ticket.

Which is now running the show, pretty much.

But don't we have bishops and preachers freely expressing their political preferences in America, too.

For the most part they confine themselves to particular moral issues, like abortion and same-sex "marriage". In any case, none of them have the influence that he has. Recall that the elections themselves were his idea. Our plan was to have their constitution drawn up by an appointed committee, but he issued a fatwa insisting that there should be elections, and got his way. He is definitely a big player.

And he himself is not running for office, nor has he expressed any interest in a government position. Plus, he has vocally promoted the concept of separation.

His concept of separation is very different from ours. It only means that religious leaders don't directly assume office. It does not mean that they don't get heavily involved, as his actions amply demonstrate.