Iraq is in a bad way at the moment, eight months out from an October 10 election and having exhausted the deadlines for forming a new government. There is an irrevocable impasse with no obvious end in sight.
That’s bad for many Iraqis, as economic strife and corruption are leading to calls for government action, and the remnants of the outgoing government lack a mandate to do anything. Iraqis were hoping the new government would do something about food prices, but if there is no new government, nothing gets done.
Moqtada al-Sadr, leader of the largest party in parliament, urged a new election, and now is calling on his 73 MPs to prepare resignation papers outright to try to force the issue.
Sadr’s plurality had the right to try to form the government, but has failed to do so. The only way he could’ve gotten the number of seats needed was unity with the rival Shi’ites, which he was unwilling to do.
The Sadrist Trend ran on an independent anti-corruption position, which made them unnatural allies for many of the longer-serving blocs. As it became clear a government wasn’t forthcoming, they also rejected the idea of abandoning their platform and just allying with anyone for a grand coalition.
By “The only way he could’ve gotten the number of seats needed was unity with the rival Shi’ites” do you mean Sunnis (Sadr is Shiite) or rival Shiites?
They do mean rival Shi’ites. Sunnis, excluding Kurds, are a small political faction in Iraq. Sadr’s main rivals are other Shi’ite factions allied to Iran.
Thanks. It would be good to know the basis of contention between Iraq-centered and Iran-allied Shiite groups, and why Sadr will not accept some influence of Iran. Is that simple rivalry, fear, or perhaps US/Israel/KSA influence upon Sadr?
The US mass media once portrayed Sadr as an undesirable, but seem to have shifted to a favorable view, suggesting influence.
It seems to be genuine national pride. Actual Iraqis don’t want to be used as a chess piece in another country’s power struggle. They don’t want to help America invade Iran – and nor do they want to be dragged into a with America on Iran’s side.
Good point!!!! I was wondering if my “worse by the day memory” failed me on Sadr’s religious confession. Thank You for this “catch” which surely must be an error.
I remember that Sadr was the most prominent and almost SOLE advocate for for Democratic self rule, not a form a government appointees of the coalition of liars who invaded. It is disheartening to hear that negotiations to form a gevernmnet have broken down along sectarian lines.
This isn’t exactly a sectarian breakdown – this is different groups of Shia Muslims not cooperating with each other
This is probably what would have happened to Nader if he had won. It’s impossible to be an honorable man in a dishonorable system. This may be politically incorrect to suggest but Sadr’s only hope may be going back to the drawing board and leading a popular uprising against the Iraqi government which, let’s face it, is an American construct forced upon these people by the barrel of a gun. Not much of a democracy.
“Honorable man?” Are you kidding? Nader is what would happen if Bernie Madoff made a baby with one of the congresscritters who trade on their inside information.