Commentary By Ron Beasley
The man who has been a constant pain in the ass to both the United States and Iran, Moqtada al-Sadr, is in a position to decide who will head up the next Iraqi government. You might think his logical choice would be would be fellow Shi�ite Malaki over the more secular and US friendly Allawi. But it may not be that simple. There is little love lost between Malaki and Sadr. In spite of his alleged ties to Iran Sadr is very nationalistic and must know that a Malaki government would mean that Iraq would become a virtual Iranian state. So are Sadr and his party looking at a potential deal with Allawi? Perhaps.
...........
Sadr Bloc to Hold �Binding� Referendum on Next Iraq PM
As it becomes more and more clear that the next Iraqi government will have to go through Tehran-based cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, his political bloc is seeming increasingly indecisive and looking for some input into which of the two major factions they should support.
Yesterday�s call by Sadr for a national referendum on Prime Minister Maliki seemed a bit far-fetched, but today his bloc is openly talking about organizing a private referendum, possibly one giving extra credence to the bloc�s loyalists, to decide on who will be the next prime minister. The referendum would be �binding� on the bloc according to its leadership.
The move could provide valuable cover for Sadr should his bloc ultimately decide to partner with Ayad Allawi over Maliki. Allawi has accused Iran of meddling in the coalition process, and it is no secret Iran would prefer a Shi�ite religious government in Iraq (though they deny direct interference). A referendum backing Allawi would provide Sadr with an excuse for backing a secularist.
The good news is that regardless of who he chooses he will insist that the US leave on schedule.
No way is Sadr going to side with Allawi, not after what Allawi - in active partnership with U.S. military forces - did back in 2004, when Sadr's people occupied the Imam Ali Mosque. Not to mention that secular Allawi represents everything antithetical to the Sadr trend.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, Sadr's referendum idea would be to re-affirm his own relationship with Maliki, to his own people.
I still don't understand why all this fuss over Allawi. Of course Allawi did better than expected in the elections, what other choices were left to the Sunni community after practically all their candidates were disqualified, especially Salil al-Mutlak. In no way does any of this this represent some rising tide of secularism in Iraq, and no way is Sadr going to suddenly drop his dream of a cleric run Iraq and embrace CIA agent Allawi. What the hell is everyone smokin' anyway?
ReplyDeleteAnna
ReplyDeleteI think you are underestimating Mookie. He's a chess player who is looking for a move that will get him the most power and that could be with Allawi. A Malakii government means Iran is in charge and that's not what he wants. He might well have more power in a secular/Sunni coalition thab=n he would under a Maliki/Iran government.
Ron's right, Anna. Mookie has, as Ron writes, proven time and again that he's a chess player and a survivor. Remember too that Sadr's militiamen ran up against Maliki's troops and the SCIIRI/Badr Brigade - in Basra - far more recently than they fought Allawi. Yet he's made common cause with SCIIRI before the elections. I think the likelihood is his people will go with Maliki but it's not an open-and-shut case.
ReplyDeleteGood post, Ron.
Regards, Steve
Well, I don't want to belabor the point, but the differences between secular Shiite Allawi and non secular Maliki are like the the difference between an outside enemy and an internal family feud. For example, and to use Steve's point of Basra (and the other Maliki - apparent - crackdowns on on the Sadr trend at the time), one would think that Sadr would have an axe to grind against Maliki in the run-up and aftermath of the last provincial elections. But, that wasn't the case, as immediately after the results of that election were tabulated, a spokesman for the Sadr Trend announced that Maliki and Sadr had in fact formed a political alliance. Not exactly a sign of bad blood, and in comparison I've never heard anything (ever) remotely similar regarding sympathies with Allawi or Sadr endorsing a secular trajectory for Iraq's future.
ReplyDeleteWhile it's true that Sadr's relationship with Iran would appear somewhat less devotional than either SIIC/Badr or Maliki, it should also be acknowledged that Sadr's teacher in Qom (forget his name) advocates the same "active clerical" theocratic model as is used in Iran. So while he may (or WAS) more independent/nationalist than other Shiite religious leaders, it also means that he plans on implementing a similar cleric directed government as Iran, in Iraq.
Irreconcilable differences that seem to make a Sadr alliance with Allawi counter intuitive if not hard to imagine.
Frankly, I think that any parliamentary combination that would bring Allawi to power would be the absolute worst thing for Iraq. And almost guarantee a restart of civil war.