Would 30 January Elections Make or Break Iraq?

Shiites` Power Raises Iraq Concerns

By PAUL GARWOOD
The Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A resounding Shiite victory in next month`s elections will bring Iraq closer to Tehran, forming a ``Super Iran`` that could change the face of the Middle East, critics say.

Views vary dramatically over what shape Iraq`s political future will take following nationwide elections scheduled for Jan. 30, but few dispute that this Shiite-majority country`s relations with its eastern neighbor - which is ruled by Shiite ayatollahs - will grow closer.

Jordan`s King Abdullah, a pro-U.S. Sunni Muslim, this month said Iraq`s elections could lead to the establishment of a hard-line Shiite regime based on the model in Iran, a country the United States accuses of sponsoring terrorism and trying to build nuclear weapons.

This dichotomy is fueling election campaigns of various parties, which began Wednesday, including the United Iraqi Alliance, a coalition of independents and political parties dominated by Shiites - both pro-Iranian and nationalists - along with Sunnis, Kurds and other minorities.

Key among its parties is the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, a group closely allied to Iran and led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, the alliance`s top candidate whose comments about Iraq being responsible for compensating Iran for their war in the 1980s angered many Iraqis. Al-Hakim had lived in exile in Iran, where he led SCIRI`s armed wing, the Iran-based Badr Brigade, during Saddam`s rule.

Al-Hakim`s prominence on the list and his close relations with Iran give ammunition to many secular and non-Shiites to attack his coalition, saying Iraq`s political future will mirror Iran`s Shiite-run establishment if he and his supporters gain power in Iraq`s 275-member National Assembly.

Such a scenario worries people like Iraqi-born Mustafa Alani, director of national security at the Dubai-based regional think-tank the Gulf Research Center.

``The nightmare scenario in the region is the election of an Iranian-influenced Shiite government in Iraq will lead to the creation of a `Super Iran` emerging as a regional superpower`` says Alani. ``We are talking about a huge shift in the region`s power balance.``

Such a development will force Arab Gulf states, like Sunni Muslim-ruled Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain, to ``move closer together and with the United States to guarantee their own protection,`` he says.

---

Exactly what we planned -- ``Such a development will force Arab Gulf states, like Sunni Muslim-ruled Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain, to ``move closer together and with the United States to guarantee their own protection,`

.......come on Sunni babies -- come to Daddy Dubyani .....He will protect you all `democratic` Bedouin SHeeks, , Sultans, Amirs, Kings and their Harems -- from Al Khameini Al Sistani.........

``President Bush has been vigorously advocating the Jan. 30 election in war-ravaged Iraq, but is he ready for the consequences?

Should Bush`s wish come true, the new Iraqi government that will rise to power probably will bear little resemblance to the Washington-friendly, pro- Western leadership of secular interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, analysts say.

``They will have a Shia-dominated, Islamic-oriented government in Iraq,`` said Rashid Khalidi, director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University. ``Is the United States ready for that?``

Iraq`s Shiites make up 60 percent of the country`s nearly 26 million people and are more likely to vote in January`s election than Sunni Muslims, who represent 20 percent of Iraqis. Most Sunnis live in central Iraq, where raging violence threatens to prevent voters from going to the polls, and leading Sunni clerics have called for a boycott of the election.

In this situation, a powerful alliance of Shiite groups, formed at the initiative of Iraq`s most revered spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani, is poised to win a dominant share of the 275-seat National Assembly, which will elect a prime minister and Cabinet from within its ranks.

Alliance leaders have said they consider negotiating a date for the withdrawal of America`s troops one of their main orders of business.

Firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who has instigated two violent uprisings against U.S.- led forces and vehemently opposes the U.S. occupation, called Tuesday for a guarantee of immediate departure of foreign troops after the elections.

While not an official member of the Shiite coalition, he has endorsed several candidates on the coalition`s list who describe themselves as independents. On Wednesday, the first day of the election campaign, Hazem Shaalan, the defense minister in Allawi`s interim Cabinet, called the alliance ``an Iranian list`` that wants Iraq to be run by Shiite clerics.

Shaalan`s comment reflected concerns that leading figures in a new government, notably Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the first name on the Shiite coalition`s list, have close ties to Iran.

All this would seem to be a far cry from the Bush administration`s vision of a secular, democratic Iraq that would become America`s crucial ally in the Middle East, one that would even establish diplomatic relations with Israel.

``A stable, democratic country in the foreseeable future in Iraq is not probable,`` said Shibley Telhami, an expert on Iraq at the Brookings Institution. ``The next government ... is not likely to be as responsive to the U.S. as Allawi`s has been.`` (AP)

Welcome to the new Islamic Republic of Jihadic Iraq -- a personal gift from the born-again Christian Crusader Reverend Bush Dubyani-- to Ayatollah Sistani....

Former President Carter questions Iraqi elections


LOS ANGELES, Dec 15 (Reuters) - Nobel Peace Prize winner and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday expressed strong misgivings about Iraqi elections next month and said there was not enough security in the country for a free and safe vote.

Carter, whose nonpartisan Carter Center has monitored more than 50 elections around the world, told Reuters he would not be involved in observing the Jan. 30 vote and was not optimistic about the situation in Iraq.

``I think the whole Iraqi situation has been a debacle, a very costly one. I don`t see how all the rudimentary requirements for a free and safe election can be achieved in another month. How can anyone campaign? How can anyone go and vote without fear?,`` he said in an interview.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

now coming to the main question: ``Even if the elections were held as scheduled, would they solve Iraq’s problems and keep it a united country?``

January 30th Elections -- ``solving Iraq`s problems`` -- and `unite` the country!!!...

.....what a cruel joke....

the Ugly White American bull in the ancient China shop of Iraq -- has broken all the precious bonds between the diverse communties of a multi-ethnic society -- desecularized the once secular country -- pushed modern Iraq into middle ages of Islamic Shiite/Sunni fundmentalism -- has pitted one community against another -- deglued the whole fabric of this mosiac nation -- destroyed their heritage, their museums -- trashed their hospitals their their health care -- their water their elctricity -- and humiliated bashed and trashed everything that an average Iraqi of this cradle of civilization country -- can be proud of

except the OIL -- which it has usurped for its own use......

and then theese halfwit Mongoloid morons think they can glue back the shattered into thousand pieces country -- with the wave of just one magic wand -- of an illegitimate, illegal, unfair, unfree, manuipulated, controlled, coerced -- make believe -- ``ELECTION``....

only a truly weird Ugly American from Texas can be that naive and stupid -- to believe he can -- must have restarted smoking grass -- and sniffing coke again -- to dream -- such grandiose fairy-tale hallucinatory IMPOSSIBLE dreams....

today Pinochet at 90 was indicted to stand trial for his crime against Hunaity -- tomorrow at 70 George W. Bush jr will be dragged to stand trial for HIS war crimes -- committed against an innocent Iraqi people -- and for destroying a noncombatant historic sovereign country without rhyme reason -- or provocation.....

the parallels you make between the situation in iraq and that in pakistan have a few similarities. In both cases the minority didnt want to let go of power to the majority. but here in iraq the equations are a lot more weighted towards the shiites. but the parallel still is a stupid one. you dont back it up at all. your article, other than being very painful to the mind was also senseless.
in any case, i think the splitting up of east and west pakistan was a gift in disquise to west pakistan. bangladesh is a chronic ecological disaster. half our grain export revenue would have been going as aid to a `province` just to keep them afloat. it would have been an economic disaster for pakistan. a big thanks to everyone who made this break up possible.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

because most Secularist Shias were either -- Baathists or Bank robbers -- hiding abroad under the witness protection program paid by the CIA........

great piece -- the only place I disagree is that the Shias are rightfully going to be in power and there is nothing the Sunnis can do about it ....

now it is another matter that the Ugly white Americans will be handing the government on a platter to the religious Shias not to the secular anybody -- something they wanted or supposed to be avoiding -- at any cost!

but the Secularists from both Shias and the Sunnis sections have been deliberatey decimated -- it will be a government controlled by the Ayatollahs -- not unlike that of Iran -- and that born again Texas Mongoloid can`t do a thing about it....may be the stupid Christian Evangelical wanted it that way...who knows

...Islamic sectarian schism will be the order of the day in that region -- within a year or two the Alawis of Syria -- a minority Shia ruling the Sunni majority -- will fall -- the Sunni Mullahs will gain ascendancy in Damascus -- encouraged by the Americans...

.....but these are the very same chickens that came to roost on those twin towers after the Afghanistan desecularization -- will probably again come to roost on the roof of Capitol building..... in the next decade ....

mR.Singh don`t confine yourself to Pakistan and its history we all know it better and there is no need to mention Pakistan with Iraq. clear your thoughts.

hamidm2 to certain extent your are right - only of you look at the externalities. But then consider that there appear to be wheels within wheels within wheels in Iraq. The article seems to be trying to figure out what wheels are there, what they are trying to achieve, etc etc - purely exploratory I guess. the parallels could be there.... nothing like a good conspiracy to while away the time on a foggy/misty miserable sunday morning now ;-)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Absurdity and Hope:

---

A survey by the Maryland`s Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm indicates how absurd the views of Bush supporters are on Iraq. However, luckily, it seems to indicate that the rest of the US population may be coming around to accepting reality:

http://scoop.agonist.org/story/2004/10/21/235929/98
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/press_12_03.pdf

The Absurd Part

---

-- ``Three out of four self-described supporters of President George W Bush still believe pre-war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or active programmes to produce them``

-- ``Three out of four self-described supporters of President George W Bush still believe ......Iraqi President Saddam Hussein gave ``substantial support`` to al-Qaeda terrorists``

-- ``Moreover, as many or more Bush supporters hold those beliefs today than they did several months ago, before the publication of a series of well-publicised official government reports that debunked both notions.`` (Truly amazing at how much brainwashing occurs in the USA, today)

-- ``Seventy-five percent of Bush supporters said they believed Iraq was providing ``substantial`` support to al-Qaeda,.......Sixty-three percent of Bush supporters even believed that clear evidence of such support has been found, and 60 percent believed ``most experts`` have reached the same conclusion.``

The above is probably why Bush is able to contiue in Iraq, and still win in elections.

Hope

---

- 70% of the total US population now says that the Iraq War has not reduced the threat of terrorism

- 71% of Americans say UN should take the lead in helping Iraq write its Constitution and build a new democratic government

- 78% of Americans are willing to accept an elected Iraqi leader who maybe unfriendly to the USA

- 71% of Americans are willing to accept an anti-USA leadership in Iraq, even if it institutes Islamic law

- ONly 34% agreed that the USA has a right or even responsibility to overthrow dictatorships

- Only 17% of the survey`s respondents said that Israel`s struggle with the Palestinians was best understood as a Mideast version of the war on terrorism

- Two-thirds of the survey`s respondents said the U.S. should not take sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict

- If the two sides still refused to end their fighting, 61% of the respondents said they would threaten to withhold aid to Israel and 64% said they would withhold some spare parts from Israel`s military. As for the Palestinians, 63% of those polled would threaten to stop some aid to them

- If the Palestinians ended the suicide bombings and used only nonviolent forms of protest, the number of Americans who favored putting more pressure on Israel would rise to 84%.

The above indicates that the US govts.` views are different from the views of most Americans. However, the neo-cons and the hard-core Bush supporters have skewed the USA policy (and elections, due to the Evangelists) in favor of a minority view.........which contradicts facts presented by US govt. agencies, themselves, about WMD, Al-Qaeda and Iraq etc...

If the USA really wanted to democraticize the Middle East and, ``liberate`` the people, it missed a golden chance during the First Gulf War. People talk about removing Saddam, at that point. There is one fact they forget:

The ruling dynasty of Kuwait (al-Sabah family??) had been removed by Saddam. It was actually living in a Sheraton in the USA. After kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, the USA was very popular in Kuwait. Kids were being named Bush. Nearly all the neighboring Muslim countries were on the side of the USA. There was a huge international coalition.

At that point, the USA could have easily held elections in Kuwait. There would have been no resistance and a lot of support from the Kuwaitis and the whole world. And Kuwait, a very pro-USA society at that time, could have been used as the catalyst for the, ``liberation`` of the Arabs.

Instead the Sabah family, after being given refuge in the USA, was specifically brought back and installed as the Amirs of Kuwait again, by the USA.

One gets the feeling that the Americans are genuinely afraid that any elections in the MIddle East oil states will throw up very very anti-USA govts., due to the US support of Israel. Specfically in Saudi Arab. And many of these will be religious (Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc.).

Yet at the same time, the USA allegedly invaded Iraq to democratize and liberate the area. Doesn`t make sense. Both of the above cannot be achieved. Why not get rid of the Sabah family again (shouldn`t be too hard, I doubt they will fight) and hold elections in Kuwait?

Other than the comparison to Bangladesh, the remaining points do represent the situation to some extent. Even if one is going to compare the situaiton to Bangladesh, then Mujib should be compared to Sistani. And the US Army to the Pakistani Army. And George Bush to Yahya Khan. And Allawi to Bhutto. Not the comparisons the author made.

I think the Bangladesh comparison has been put in, since there is a tendency of Indians to compare everything that goes wrong with the world, within the context of Pakistan. Since they think there is a lot wrong with Pakistan......

America is in a huge mess in Iraq, even if we believe that the USA has noble intentions (which only the public of USA and Israel, amongst all nations of the world, believe, according to Newsweek polls). If it leaves, Iraq is screwed. If it stays, Iraq is screwed even more. They seem to be making plans as they go along. People tend to compare Iraq to current events in Afghanistan (or Bangladesh, as this article incorrectly does). A better comparison would be to Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded. Iraq seems to be passing through the same series of events:

- The Soviets invaded on false reasons. So di the USA.
- The Soviets said they were doing it for the benefit of the Afghans. USA eventually settled on the reasoning being the liberation of Iraq
- The Soviets won the initial war very quickly. So did the Americans
- The Soviets installed their own puppet regime. So did the Americans

This is where the things went haywire for the Americans. The Soviets seemed to have planned the after-war situation much better. The Americans, for some strange reason, assumed that the Iraqis would welcome them with open arms as, ``do-gooders,`` rather than, ``evil-doers.`` This was quite a bit of misguided arrogance on the USA`s part.

- A resistance movement started against the Soviet Union, led by a religious leadership. Same thing in Iraq
- The Soviets refused to leave and started massive bombings and killings. Killing around 1 million people around 10 years. The Americans have, according to Johns Hopkins, killed 100,000 so far in Iraq, in a year and a half or so. So similar ratios

This is where the current Iraq situation stands. Lets see what happens from here.

- The resistance spread and eventually the Soviets were driven out. Leaving behind a vacuum.
- The resistance split into pieces, with each piece being supported by Iran, India, Saudi Arabia, UAE, USSR and of course Pakistan
- These factions destroyed Afghanistan furthur

If the Americans hold elections (something the Soviets never did) and leave Iraq to the UN, there is some chance that Iraq could recover. A theocratic Shia govt. will be elected, with very close ties to Iran. With a theocrtic oppossition, with even closer ties to Iran. Sistani was born in Iran, and all the Iraqi religious leaders took refuge in Iran, when Saddam, who was very secular, went after them.

The elected govt., being personally close to Iran and Iraq being a Shia country, will probably sign defence pacts with Iran. And economic pacts. This will be exactly the opposite of the aim the USA had when it invaded Iraq. It will have essentially installed a very pro-Iran theocracy in Iraq. And this will never be acceptable to Israel either.

And how will the Shia theocracy satisfy the Kurds and Sunnis? In the worst case scenario, Saudis will support the Sunnis, Iran the Shias and Turkey will attack the Kurds. A civil war in a vaccuum, much like Afghanistan.

If the Americans don`t leave, there resistance could spread to the Shias also, since all Iraqis dislike the USA and do not want their oil privatized to US firms. At this stage, the Americans will eventually be forced out, since they cannot keep spending 85 billion dollars in Iraq to support their military every year. And their is a limit to how many casualities they can take.

If they are kicked out in this fashion, then it will be identical to the Afghan situation, when the Soviets were kicked out after ten years.

I wonder what the Americans have planned. According to Richard Perle`s quote, George Bush would have a square named after him in Iraq, one year after the invasion. Perle was one of the brains behind this invasion. If he was so clueless then, imagine how clueless they are now.

The elections will be interesting. Especially if a Shia theocracy is firmly elected, and it wants ties with Iran. And wants the USA out, and the oil nationalized. Exactly the opposite of the three things the USA invaded Iraq for......

Americans would be well-advised to get their facts correct. According to a Univ. of Marlyand survey recently, more than 50% of the Americans still believe that Iraq had something to do with WTC. And with Al-Qaeda. More than 50% still believe the WTC hijackers were Iraqi. And a similar number still believe that Iraq has WMD (even Bush keeps saying they may still find them).

This is worst than Arabs believing the Jews bombed the WTC. Decisions made in such a mindset, which is so far from reality, will obviously go wrong. I have a feeling a very high percentage who do not believe the above, since the US govt. has denied all of them (other than still hoping to find WMDs), still genuinely belive the latest reasonings, i.e. the USA is in Iraq to liberate the people. This really shows how out of touch everyone is with reality.......