Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Saturday, May 12, 2007

SCIRI Adopts Sistani, emphasizes Iraqiness
Bombings kill 26, wound 60


The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq held its annual party convention on Thursday and Friday and, according to Mariam Karouny of Reuters has decided to make some significant changes. They will drop the part of their party platform where they say that they take guidance from Iran's Supreme Jurisprudent, Ali Khamenei. Instead, they say they will be guided by the fatwas of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani of Najaf, the spiritual leader of Iraq's Shiites.

This change has ideological consequences. Allegiance to Khamenei implies acceptance of the Khomeinist doctrine of Vilayat-i Faqih or the Guardianship of the Jurisprudent. It holds that political power should be held by a top theocrat. SCIRI's links to Khamenei also implied that the Jurisprudent's authority is transnational, reaching from Iran to Shiites in other countries, such as Iraq. But most Iraqi Shiites reject the Guardianship of the Jurisprudent, and even those who accept some version of it for the most part reject the idea that Khamenei has authority outside Iran.

Sistani rejects the Guardianship of the Jurisprudent in politics and government, but accepts it with regard to what he calls "the structure of society." That is why he intervened on matters such as whether Iraq would have one person, one vote elections, who would write its constitution, and whether the constitution would uphold Islamic law. But unlike Khamenei, Sistani has not the slightest interest in holding an official government position, much less ultimately being in charge of trash collection.

SCIRI will also change their name to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, dropping the "revolution" element, they say, because that was a reference to their struggle against Saddam.

The changes clearly are aimed at Iraqizing the party, which was formed in 1982 at the suggestion of Ayatollah Khomeini in Tehran. It has all along been very close to the ayatollahs in Tehran, and is viewed by nativist Iraqi Shiite parties such as the Sadrists and the Da'wa as having a strong Iranian tinge.

It should be remembered that the American public went wild with enthusiasm when the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq more or less won the January, 2005, parliamentary elections and 9 of 11 provinces where there are substantial Shiite populations-- including Baghdad. I just never could understand why the American Republican Party was so happy about a party loyal to Khamenei taking over Iraq. And they were snippy about it, too.

Al-Zaman adds its own analysis. Ahmad al-Musawi says that his sources in SCIRI told him that the changes made at the party convention look forward toward the next election. The United Iraqi Alliance, a coalition of 17 Shiite religious parties that is led by SCIRI, has been falling apart. The Islamic Virtue Party or Fadhila pulled out its 15 MPs, and the Sadrists (32 seats) keep going in and out. It is also possible that SCIRI's remaining ally, the Da'wa Party, led by PM Nuri al-Maliki, will fall out with them.

The implication is that in the next elections, the Supreme Council may run as a list rather than under the rubric of the United Iraqi Alliance. There are two important elections on the horizon. One is the provincial elections, which were never held again after January 2005 (the Sunni Arabs did not participate in that round). The other is the next elections for the federal parliament, in fall of 2009 (not that far away). In fact, the US will probably be getting out of Iraq in 2009, and SCIRI may be positioning itself to take over decisively.

The party convention also confirmed Shiite cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim as party leader, and added 50 new members to the party politburo (Shura), replacing those who retired or had died.

Their party platform will henceforth make reference to principles such as democracy and elections. (Initially, SCIRI had been a clerical vanguard party closer to Leninism than Jeffersonian democracy).

In other news, Reuters reports that


' Suicide truck bombers struck Iraqi police checkpoints on two bridges in a Shi'ite area south of Baghdad, killing [26] people and badly damaging one of the bridges. Police said 60 people were wounded.

* TAIJI - A truck bomb hit a bridge near the town of Taji on the main highway connecting the capital with cities in the north, an Iraqi army source said, adding the attack was followed by a car bomb that killed four Iraqi army soldiers there. '


Sawt al-Iraq reports in Arabic that 7 bodies were found in Falluja.

Extensive petroleum smuggling may be depriving the Iraqi government of revenues and providing them to insurgents.

The southern city of Basra is at the meeting place of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, but its inhabitants have to line up to buy unsanitary water and to transport it in plastic bottles to their homes.

Patrick Cockburn at Tomdispatch.com on "Iraq Dismantled."

Some Dems in Congress are concerned that the Iraq supplemental does not recognize Iraq's sovereignty over its own petroleum.

I don't think these Dems understand why W. is in Iraq.

Labels:

12 Comments:

At 11:58 AM, Anonymous anand said...

Regarding "Some Dems in Congress are concerned that the Iraq supplemental does not recognize Iraq's sovereignty over its own petroleum."

Iraq has sovereignty over its petroleum because of Iraq's ratified constitution and UN Security Council Resolutions.

Perhaps these Dems are arguing a different point. Currently the Iraqi government has no substantial income except from oil and grants from US tax payers. The Iraqi government has little ability to borrow from the rest of the world or its own people.

Therefore, the only way for the Iraqi government to spend more money is to sell more oil to the international markets, or receive more grants from American taxpayers.

Most (US) Congress members in both parties want to the Iraqi government to increase spending on Iraq’s reconstruction, social services, and Iraq’s security forces. At the same time, most Congress members across the political spectrum want to significantly reduce US aid to Iraq.

The only way to do this is for Iraq’s government to sell more oil, hence immense pressure from Congress for Iraqis to increase oil production.

Is it possible that some Dems oppose pressuring Iraq to increase oil production? Perhaps these members of Congress are true believers in Jeffersonian smaller government . . . thinking that the government that governs least governs best. Therefore, by de-facto opposing higher Iraqi oil production . . . they are encouraging Iraqi government spending cuts and limited government.

I think that this way of thinking is dangerous. I don’t see how Iraq solves its current problems without much greater government spending in the short run. To fund this, Congress should greatly increase grants for Iraq “and” encourage the Iraqi government to increase oil production. We should use our moral suasion and influence to encourage transparent competitive bidding for Iraqi energy contracts. There is a good chance that Iraq’s parliament won’t listen to us, and try to split the oil wealth and contracts as a form of political patronage, power and wealth sharing.

I think its abominable that Congress has cut off funding for training the 33,000 Iraqi Army support troops that are needed to allow US logistics and support troops to leave Iraq.

It is FAR FAR cheaper to build up the Iraqi Security Forces than to deploy GIs to Iraq (Iraqi soldiers make a few dollars a day). Yet there appears to be little support in Congress for contributing to the Iraqi Security Forces. [The Iraqi government plans to spend about 9 ½ billion on the Iraqi Security Forces this year, in addition to what Congress appropriates for them.]

Why are so many on the left vehemently opposed to foreign aid for Iraq, including aid for the Iraqi security forces? I am asking the question in earnest. I don’t understand this.

 
At 12:55 PM, Anonymous rabee said...

The SCIRI has changed its name to

al-majlis al-islami al-`iraqi al-a`la

from

al-majlis al-a`la lil-thawra al-islamiah fi al `iraq

They could have chosen

al-majlis al-a`la al-islami fi al`raq

which is a more parsimonious change.

There is a name change beyond dropping the word al-thawra and changing fil-`raq to al-`raqi:

al-majlis al-a`la al-islami fi al`raq

is unmistakably Shiite because of the position of al-a`la and it's use.

However,

al-majlis al-islami al-`iraqi al-a`la

while undoubtedly Shiite has al-a`la after iraqi, so poetically appeals to an Iraqi nationalism. al-a`la is now the last word after Iraq.

The English translation of the new name doesn't capture this other change.

 
At 3:54 PM, Blogger Vigilante said...

I don't understand, Prof. Cole, how you can place so much importance on electoral politics in Iraq, and then link to Patrick Colburn who seems to think that the Baghdad government elected by the purple thumbs has about as much significance as the island of kelp floating outside my window.

 
At 8:43 PM, Blogger Peter Attwood said...

Anand:

I don't know what left means, so I don't know that I'm on the left. I've never been able to get a coherent definition from anyone, so by now I think there probably isn't one. But I'll answer as an anti-imperialist Christian.

Iraq has sovereignty over its petroleum because of its constitution and UN resolutions the same way that Soviet citizens had freedom of worship and the constituent republics had the right to secede under Stalin's 1936 constitution.

Why not spend money to build up Iraqi security forces?

That would be because it's just Vietnamization, trying to continue the imperial project with sepoys. And the sepoys so trained are just sectarian death squads anyway.

Also, as the British learned in 1857, sepoys are unreliable, and might turn their weapons on their masters at some point, which is why the Americans are being careful not to equip their Iraqi sepoys with heavy arms and good air capability. You'll remember that last week two American occupiers in Afghanistan were killed by an Afghan soldier, so the Americans are wise not to trust their militias.

Also, since large numbers of Iraqi soldiers have been poisoned twice, some fatally, by resistance men among their quartermasters, the Americans do well not to entrust such services to Iraqis either. Logistical support in fact affords much opportunity for mischief.

It sucks to occupy someone else's country and oversee their affairs. The locals get to feel about your presence just as you would if the Chinese army were in the States doing just as you want Americans to do in Iraq.

"Withdraw your foot from your neighbor's house, lest he grow weary of you and hate you." Now there's a biblical thought the Christoids of America and others in the States would do well to lay to heart! It might work better than all the schemes being devised to flout it more successfully.

 
At 10:31 PM, Anonymous tribalecho said...

"I just never could understand why the American Republican Party was so happy about a party loyal to Khamenei taking over Iraq. And they were snippy about it, too."

Have you ever read Kate Millet's Going To Iran?

I've never been able to forget what she said about the demonstrations that toppled the Shah.

They were lead by modern, secular women.

And men.

While she was there, and the western press was all about, hey, why are YOU here, the people who actually got the show started were being marginalized by gangs of thugs who suddenly showed up to attack them.

Since the US had been deeply involved in the country for many years, I had to wonder why we let that happen. And why was that crazy guy living in France? And allowed to step right into power?

 
At 11:01 PM, Blogger Arnold Evans said...

I'm happy to see the SIIC moving, in its platform towards the Shiite Iraqi-nationalist position previously represented by Sadr. Adding that they will accept fatwas from Sistani is another good thing, as Sistani has been relatively nationalistic - or at least cognizant and supportive of the need for the country to remain intact.

If SIIC calculates, as Juan Cole does, that the US is leaving in or before 2009 then SIIC is preparing for a time when it will have to depend on Iraq's voters, instead of the US embassy for legitimacy - and unlike the US embassy, Iraq's voters really would rather see the country intact than a divided civil war ground that hosts US bases.

Iran does not need SIIC to take orders from Khameini. Iran would do fine with an Iraq that shares its basic outlook about who are the good guys and who are the bad in the Zionism/Palestinian struggle, that has fairly open trade with Iran and is willing to give Iran's side consideration in Iran's disputes with the US. An SIIC that follows Sistani sharing power with Sadr, nationalist Sunnis and Kurds could provide that just fine.

Anand:
If, as has been reported, according to the new oil law disputes between Iraq and the oil companies are to be decided by arbitrators outside of Iraq then that means Iraq does not retain sovereign control of its oil.

The level of oil production is dependent on the end of fighting, which means it is dependent upon the current combatants believing they can accept a post-fighting outcome. Since the current combatants will not accept an outcome that includes a US occupation or hosting a US military presence, the best way to increase oil production is to say the US is going to be gone within a plausible timeframe. Bush does not want to commit to this. Bush is the major structural obstacle preventing the resumption of Iraqi oil production.

If by cutting the funding of the Iraqi army, you mean the democrats are ensuring the funding of the entire US occupation will come back under debate in a few months, the democrats are doing what most Iraqi voters and most US voters want them to do, signal that the US occupation of Iraq will come to an end.

Bush has said he will leave when the Iraqi government tells him to leave. That is not good enough when Bush has enough influence over the Iraqi government to veto a prospective Iraqi prime minister.

The Democrats are saying that it is not the case that the US will remain in Iraq indefinitely, or as long as the US believes its presence is menacing Iran and preventing Iraq from coming under the control of populists who share the general regional popular opposition to Israel.

That stance is good for Iraq and it is also the last hope to prevent the general Middle East revolt against US policies that we are now seeing the first hints of in Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

 
At 1:02 AM, Anonymous anand said...

Peter and Arnold,

We should have a little faith in Iraqis and the government they have elected.

"Bush has said he will leave when the Iraqi government tells him to leave." This has been US policy since the summer of 2004.

The major political parties in Iraq (excluding Talabani and Barzani) have been "VERY" clear that they do not favor a long term foreign presence in Iraq. What they all favor is significant US assistance to train and equip their security forces so that peace, security, stability and prosperity can return to Iraq. And so that foreign troops can leave their country.

"All" of Iraqi's political parties have expressed public frustration that America hasn't provided more help to the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF).

At the present time both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are blocking sufficient US tax-payer funding for the ISF.

As a friend of mine put it:

“On the subject of training:

- MNSTC-I ran out of money due to the failure to forward FY07sup before 1 Apr. MNSTC-I is the Coalition training command for the ISF. This has been mentioned by four different Generals since the beginning of the month. For Generals to make such statements mean that it is a serious problem. They try to avoid the politics. This was the first mention of that detail:
Apr05:

"At the current moment, because of this lack of funding, MNSTC-I is unable to continue at the pace they were in the developmental process of the Iraqi security forces," Caldwell said. "It is starting to have some impact today, and will only have more of an impact over time." http://www.defendamerica.mil/pdf/200704/20070404CALDWELL.pdf
- The FY07sup has funding for training and equipping 33,000 new IA support troops. That is in the Blue Book on the Feb submission to Congress. Current IA only has ~13,000 support personnel for a 138,000 man force-8%. US Army support normally runs 60%. Expansion by 33,000 by end-2007 would have brought them to the minimum 35% necessary for fully independent operations.
Feb07: Data from FY2007 supplemental. IA Force enhancements to incl 33,000 more pers for Log, Sust, Maint & Sup elements (Engr, EOD, MI, MP); Weapons including ARs, MGs, NVD, Howi, Mort, Airlift, AAslt, UAVs & OPV; Requirement to form a SOF Util Helo Sq for I SOF & a turboprob trainer (T6 like) with COIN cap. http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2007_supplemental/FY2007_Emergency_Supplemental_Request_for_the_GWOT.pdf

For the IA to be trained/equipped to be independent requires the politicians in Congress to quit sabotaging the formation of the Iraqi Army by playing with the budget. That would allow the US to turn over and go home. They are delaying the US drawdown by delaying our replacements..."

There are few issues as antagonizing to both Iraqis and US GIs in Iraq as the failure of Congress to sufficiently fund the ISF.

The ISF are loyal to an elected Iraqi government (77% of eligible Iraqi voters participated in the 12.15.05 Iraqi elections). They might not meet American expectations of human rights and excellence . . . but they are without question the highest quality security force Iraq has “EVER” fielded. Most Iraqis are very proud of them, and feel humiliated and insulted when foreigners, Americans included, denigrate them.

The ISF are rapidly improving in quality and performance and with US taxpayer funding will soon be far higher quality than any other military in the middle east excluding Israel, Turkey and maybe Jordon.

No one has ever suggested a strategy to bring stability to Iraq without creating quality Iraqi security forces. We owe the Iraqis that much.

Those who oppose funding for the ISF either believe that Iraqis do not deserve continued American sacrifice and treasure (many patriotic honorable Americans such as Rangel, Murtha, Hagel fall in this category), or aren’t on Iraq’s side. The former deserve our respect (if not our agreement), but the later reflect the worst demons of our nature—the stereotypical “UGLY AMERICAN” that dishonor our country.

The other reason to support the ISF is because it is the only thing preventing the Iraqi government from asking our troops to leave Iraq. It is much more honorable, consistent with our values, and good for our international image if US troops leave when asked, rather than leave against the wishes of the Iraqi government and people.

Anyone who believes that the Iraqi government wouldn’t ask foreign troops to leave after the ISF is sufficiently online is woefully uninformed about domestic Iraqi politics.

Regarding energy, as all of you no doubt know . . . it is much less expensive to extract hydrocarbons from the ground if international energy companies are allowed to bid for Iraqi contracts; which is why the Iraqi government wants foreign energy companies to bid for contracts. In return for neutral international arbitration on contract disputes between energy companies and the Iraqi government . . . international energy companies are willing to extract Iraqi hydrocarbons from the ground for much lower prices (because of lower risk). International energy companies are interested in risk-adjusted returns and would demand a much lower nominal return in return for international arbitration.

Some Iraqi elected officials believe that they should accept “less sovereignty” in return for lower energy extraction costs and higher net revenues for the Iraqi government. Other elected officials believe “greater sovereignty” is worth higher energy extraction costs and lower net revenues for the Iraqi government.

This is a legitimate debate within Iraq, and the international community including us Americans should respect the right of Iraqis to make their own decisions, creating their own successes and mistakes.

 
At 1:47 AM, Blogger Arnold Evans said...

Stratfor, a company whose Middle East analysis I often find mistaken but sometimes find insightful, believes the SCIRI-SIIC realignment is part of a deal between the US and Iran shepherding an orderly US retreat leaving an Iraq that is dominated by the Shiites and friendly with Iran. (And which benefits the Sunnis mostly at the expense of the Kurds.)

One data point in Stratfor's analysis is Abbas Araghchi's statement earlier this month that Iran was willing to help the US produce an honorable and face-saving retreat.

It is an interesting theory that may have some basis.

For the time being, it is possible to read the subscription-only article though an agreement stratfor apparently has with google news.

Here is a google link.
Here is a link direct to stratfor.

Summary

Iran's main Iraqi Shiite proxy announced May 11 it is about to undergo a process of "Iraqization." The move is part of Tehran's detailed offer to assist the United States in stabilizing Iraq. A fresh power-sharing agreement likely will emerge out of this process -- one that will lead to an increase in the Sunni share of the Iraqi political pie, but could upset the Kurds.

 
At 1:57 AM, Blogger MonsieurGonzo said...

imho, the dominant shi'ite party/militia assuming a "nationalist iraqi" posture is not a positive development. Rather, it is a conceit implicit : the secular state that is southern IRAQ/IRAN-ist, persists.

Forget the illusion of "nationalist IRAQ" meaning some kind of reconciliation with Sunnis, Kurds ~ if anything, their agenda here has probably more to do with the nationalist magnetism of al-SADR (not to mention that anything "IRANIAN" is now tainted radioactive = "URANIUM" in the newspeak of current geopolitik).

 
At 2:09 AM, Blogger ABHINAV AIMA said...

Dr. Cole said: "I just never could understand why the American Republican Party was so happy about a party loyal to Khamenei taking over Iraq. And they were snippy about it, too."

I think he is kidding - I'm sure he knows that the Republicans would have cheered a sweep by an ass-party of radical-rodents in Iraq if only to be able to boast that "democracy" had taken hold, a claim which was designed subjectively from day one to boost the Republican popularity... It had nothing to do with who won - just that people voted...

I also agree with Rabee - calling it the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Party definitely has a different ring to it...

And Anand - I don't speak for Democrats, but why should the US fund the training of Iraqi militias, when these 'police' and 'military' forces have been long suspected to holding loyalty to their clan and involved in sectarian attacks?

And regarding Iraq's oil - the objective all throughout has been to win concessions and guarantees of supply of Iraqi oil to the US, but no one wants a dumping of large supplies of Iraqi oil into the market, least of all America's allies in the Sunni Gulf...

 
At 4:09 AM, Blogger Azeem said...

Correction
Must read correction from Reidar Visser (http://historiae.org), at http://historiae.org/khamenei.asp on SCII adopting Sistani.

Azeem Abbas
Pakistan

 
At 1:23 AM, Anonymous Arabia Asseela said...

whether SCIRI changes its name , it will remain a traitor .

 

Post a Comment

<< Home