netWMD – Sistani An Iranian Plant?

Sistani An Iranian Plant? By Donnel Jones, January 16, 2004	Home Search Forum Terms

The demonstrations held in Iraq yesterday eerily remind one of the anti-American rallies held in Iran in the throes of its revolution. Crowds of Iraqis appeared in Basra chanting slogans such as "No, no USA. Yes, yes for elections" and "Yes, yes Islam. No, no occupation". They also held icons of their Shi'ite leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who is the highest ranking Shi'ite Muslim cleric in Iraq. Apparently, Ali Sistani has other plans for the American occupation and it doesn't look like democracy even though he calls for immediate and direct elections for the new Iraqi government.

But a call for immediate elections does not reflect a true understanding of democracy. After all, there are elections in Iran and Cuba as there were formerly in Saddam's Iraq. What we see here are the brewings of populism, always vehemently anti-democratic, in the demonstrations. The overly solicitous Europeans and American liberals will come to Sistani's side, believing that he represents the true spirit of democracy and that the American occupation is an iron hand trying to determine the course of Iraq's destiny.

Problem is, the U.S. has to be a strong presence in Iraq for any kind of law and order to be established. We are just beginning to fight with any kind of success the guerrilla insurgency that has killed so many of our soldiers. Now we have a new insurgency under the guise of a concern for democracy, calling for immediate elections. But elections do not a democracy make.

Just what do the Iraqis know of democracy, with all due respect? It is alien to their culture. If there is to be any kind of social engineering the Middle East it has to be done with an iron hand authority. To say so is not so much to comment on the Arab/Muslim mentality as on the vagaries of human nature. Show weakness when you are the one to be strong and in control and you will reap contempt and chaos.

How chaotic? This is positively alarming:

Sistani met with leading clerics Tuesday in Najaf, and one participant said afterward that jihad, or holy war, was "in the air." While Sistani made no move toward urging violence against occupation forces, the participant said, he did approve Thursday's large demonstration in Basra and smaller ones in several other cities.

It may be only a matter of time before violence is unleashed against the American occupation. Michael A. Ledeen, writing for National Review, sees in Sistani a possible ally to the Iranian mullahs who seek the "Islamization" of Iraq. Because we don't take seriously in acknowledging who the enemy is, we are seen as weak and without resolve in the governance of Iraq.

Yes, the number of lethal attacks by guerrillas against occupation forces in Iraq have gone down but our enemies are still in power: in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. In the absence of a powerful hand in Iraq, dissident, anti-American, and Islamist elements will gain the upper hand. It isn't clear to me whether Sistani is a symptom or a cause of the absence of American strong arming in Iraq. Is he trying to fill the vacuum or, perhaps just as likely, is he on the "payroll" of the Shi'ite mullocracy in Iran? Ledeen refers to:

. . . Ayatollah Sistani's recent catering to Iranian calls for the "Islamization" of Iraq, after devoting his life to the principle of separation of mosque and state . . . .

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein represents the first opportunity in centuries for the Shi'ites, who are a majority, to rule in Iraq. But, will that rule be Islamist in character and deed according to the designs of their Shi'ite "brothers" in Iran? Or, is Sistani a sincere leader who wants self-rule for the Iraqi (read, Shi'ite) people? Either way, Sistani represents the growing destabilization of the American occupation, something that would give the mullahs in Tehran real hope for staying in power.

The last thing the Iranian mullocracy wants is a democratic Iraq. To what degree are Iranian insurgents involved in these demonstrations? Whatever the cause, infiltration of Iranian fanatics and/or legitimate disaffection with failures and mistakes by the occupation, the outcome could be catastrophic. Will Iraq then break up into warring factions? Will an Islamist insurgency gain more ground under Sistani?

If that sounds far-fetched how about this?

[A] leading Shiite cleric told Abu Dhabi television that "if Bremer rejects the opinion of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, then he will issue a fatwa to deprive the elected council of its legitimacy."

Such fumings could be nothing more than the feared "Arab street" but who should be taking chances? The American occupation better spend less time wanting to be liked and "fair" and more time taking these rumblings seriously. Better it appear like the tiger it is, rather than some "council made of paper and a U.S.-elected council."