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.
Not that it is a foregone conclusion that Sadr would oppose partnering with Maliki, their long-standing enmity notwithstanding. Ibrahim al-Jaafari, former prime minister and key member of Sadr’s alliance, is said to be meeting with Maliki about a possible government, and it seems that the cleric will keep his options open for the time being, looking for the best deal. Given their position as the only possible partner for a coalition, this could be a sweet deal indeed for their alliance.
Besides taking into account his base, it is possible Sadr also now – being Tehran based and all that – has to also take into account Iran. I think Iran would not be happy about Allawi's Shia-Sunni coalition forming the government. But it remains to be seen how big their influence on Sadr really is.
Long before the second US attack and occupation of Iraq, one noted that through a recorded history of roughly five millennia, there is a huge sign written beside what is marked "Mesopotamia" on the map, to wit: "Easy to get in, hard to get out."
The "hard to get out" is easily expandable as well–to: "Hard to get out in one piece."
The peoples and tribes in this area are very ancient and have been playing their game their way for thousands of years.
In fact, even the ancient Hebrews were relative newcomers at one time. So were the desert "Arabs", though in their case it was more a matter of imposing a religion and common language.
That the US, misreading all previous history (as the US invariably does) invades and occupies from thousands of miles away (supposedly by "Shock and Awe–read "Blitzkrieg") and then imposes, at a vast distance, what it considers a manipulatable polity on what it looks upon as backward tribes and sects, is no guarantee that they will behave according to American models.
In fact, in the area, the American barbarians are more and more compared to the Mongols, who were Excedrin Headache No. 1 while they lasted, but who didn't last very long at all.
From the point of view of Sadr there is likely one overriding enlightenment, whatever his group does tactically–either way it spells, "US out."
And depending on what you count—including US financial collapse and bankruptcy–it is likely not in one piece.
A pity those who know their Sumerians or Assyrians or their Xenophon or their Shapur or their Trajan and Julian or their Saladin (a Kurd by the way) are not taken more seriously.
Ironically not even the more recent British experience is understood.