Sooner or later, as the Iraqi Army is "stood up", and the US presence is "drawn down", there will come a day of reckoning, when the Iranians will be forced to show their hand. They may even attempt to assassinate Al Sistani, but if their fingerprints are on the attempt, they risk losing all support within the Iraqi Shia community. In any event, the Iranians will be forced to choose between the Iraqi Shia and the Sunni terrorists. At that point it will hardly matter whether Iraqi is nominally an "Islamic" country or not. Personally, I think there will be civil war, with a Shia and Kurdish alliance versus the Sunnis. Both Al Qaeda and the Iranians will be relatively minor players in that contest.
Sorry, you have set up a straw man. Looks like a lot of folks have fallen for the same thing, though. Not because you set it up...they fell for it independently of you. Islamofascist rule is not what is being haggled over for the Constitution. That is, unless country's like Turkey are also ruled by Islamofascists?
I have read and heard that this is a typical arrangement in Islamic countries...ie...where Islam is the majority religion. Islamic law is said to be the primary source of their laws. But in practice, it is not usually administered in such a severe fashion as in Iran or as under the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The true radicalism you fear is not to be found in this approach, but rather in countries like Iran where radical Islamic clerics rule the country. Literally, rule by clerics is the definition of such a to-be-feared Islamic state. Our side in Iraq has in no way signed off on such an Iranian/Taliban like state.
Learn it or leave it (this topic), please. You are just adding to the confusion that is already rampant on the subject.
Please forgive...I meant to post to thorlock.