Christopher Hitchens asks whether recent unrest in Iran has been fueled, at least in part, by the fall of Saddam in 2003. He writes in Slate:
The most exciting and underreported news of the past few weeks in Iran has been that the emerging challenger to the increasingly frantic and isolated “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. And Rafsanjani has recently made a visit to the city of Najaf in Iraq to confer with Ayatollah Ali Husaini Sistani, a long-standing opponent of the Khamenei doctrines …
It is this dialectic between Iraqi and Iranian Shiites that underlies the flabbergasting statement issued from Qum last weekend to the effect that the Ahmadinejad government has no claim to be the representative of the Iranian people. One of the apparent paradoxes involved in visiting Iran is this: If you want to find deep-rooted opposition to the clerical autocracy, you must make a trip to the holy cities of Mashad and Qum.
Among the more surprising members of the anti-Khomeini opposition is the late ayatollah’s grandson Sayeed Khomeini, a relatively junior cleric in Qum about whom I have also written before. … Which brings me to a question that I think deserves to be asked: Did the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, and the subsequent holding of competitive elections in which many rival Iraqi Shiite parties took part, have any germinal influence on the astonishing events in Iran? Certainly when I interviewed Sayeed Khomeini in Qum some years ago, where he spoke openly about “the liberation of Iraq,” he seemed to hope and believe that the example would spread. One swallow does not make a summer. But consider this: Many Iranians go as religious pilgrims to the holy sites of Najaf and Kerbala in southern Iraq.
An Australian general officer who recently served in Iraq remarked at a dinner address I attended that all he expected OIF to achieve was to ‘restart the clock of history which had been stopped by Saddam Hussein’. He did not imagine that Iraq would automatically be pro-Western, but he did expect that it would find its own destiny. Certainly this implies, as Christopher Hitchen’s article suggested, that opposition to the current regime in Iran would not necessarily resemble an American political party. But to the question of whether OIF helped restart the clock of history in Iran, I think the probable answer is yes. The connections between the Iraq’s Shi’ite South and Iran run too strong and deep for there to have been no effect.
But there is an implicit tragedy in Hitchen’s analysis. His article does not follow the argument far enough. If he is right, the overriding goal of Iranian diplomacy must of necessity be the strangulation of a rival power center south of the border. If Hitchens is right about Iraq precipitating much of the unrest against Teheran, then it follows that Teheran will want to clamp down in Iraq. And it also follows that if Barack Obama is truly attempting a “grand bargain” with Iran in exchange for an “exit” from Iraq, then Teheran will surely want him to neuter Shi’ite dissidents in Iraq. Unless Iraq is dampened, then Teheran will fear regime change from that quarter and Obama has already forsworn that. Whether Obama will accede to the pressure remains to be seen. The clock of history may have restarted, but Iran will try to persuade Washington to let it wind down. It may however be the case that the Shi’ite resurgence in Iraq is already irreversible; in which case, as Michael Ledeen says, the storm is still ahead.
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
To what extent will Shia in Iran and Iraq be split by the ethnic difference between them (Arab vs Persian)?
There are other forces at work here besides religion.
In a newsletter about a week ago, Stratfor pointed out that a possible struggle for power in Iran would be for who runs the show internally. Externally, the interests would be the same and little change could be expected. IOW, they would still want to have The Bomb, etc.
shia control of iraq is unheard of in that neck of the desert. for iraqui shia to be neutered–they’d have to lose control to the sunnis.
what the US did there will ring not just in Iran but also syria where quid pro quo would call for the removal of the shia alawites from power.
W is spot on re: the pending implicit tragedy as beloved leader neuters and dampens the Iraqis in subservience to Iran. What a guy. The thought crosses my mind that Jesse Jackson was completely off the mark earlier when he spoke of “cutting his nuts off”. You can’t trim what ain’t there.
I believe it was Hitchens that dismissed the Iraqi elections as “Iran won.”
As I have said, I think that it is more likely that in Iraq the Sunni and Shia, tempered by the fire they have been through, will decide that the Mullahs in Iran and the Batthists in Syria and the Whabbists in the House of Saud sure do look a lot like the idiots that caused them their problems and all need to be taken out just like Saddam and Al Queda was.
What will we do when the Empire of Iraq rises?
I vote that we cheer.
Many folks have asserted that Obama is a Muslim. If he were in fact a Muslim and based on his actions to date, what sort of flavor – Shia or Sunni – does he prefer? At the moment he seems rather deferential towards Iran (Shia) and hasn’t stopped Predator strikes on AQ/Taliban (more or less Sunni). One could likewise inquire in regards to his Socialist/Marxist leanings: which strain (or strains) of Communism does he prefer? At first blush, our Messiah seems like bosom buddies with 3rd-world Marxists like Chavez and more polite and altar boy-like with guys like Medvedev, but perhaps the latter is merely due to Medvedev not being a person of color and a rather stiff one at that. Then again, Liberation Theology Marxism and “Classic” Marxism aren’t quite the same thing. Sadly, fred is no longer around to weigh in on this as I’m sure he’d have some interesting things to say.
4/10/2008 03:28:00 PM @ BC
Who is the most authoritative voice in Shi’ite Islam today?
is it the discreet, almost recluse Sistani in Najaf, Iraq who forced the American superpower to bow to his wishes? Or is it the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? Who has the upper hand, Najaf or Qom?
the u.s. favors the surrounding sunni countries, one only has to investigate recent surges in their weapons purchases
Anodyne said:
“Many folks have asserted that Obama is a Muslim.”
Obama is certainly a leftist and maybe even a crypto-communist. If one wants to better understand Obama’s behavior, one’s time is better spent by assuming he’s a hard core leftist (atheist dressed up as a Christian) and forgetting about the Muslim nonsense.
Like a chess master, “Chimpy” Bush deliberately caused a Shiite Islamic earthquake, despite the MSM pegging him as an unaccomplished Texas rube, the complete antithesis of the elegant President Nanny “the Juice” Obananarama.
Prior to GW Bush: all moderate and freedom-loving, democracy-tolerating Shiite Islamic clerics were imprisoned or suppressed or intimidated in both Iraq and Iran. The evil Grand Ayatollah Khameini reigned supreme in Iran, while dictator Saddam ruled Iraq.
Bush freed the moderate clerics in Iraq. A rival Grand Ayatollah has now risen to challenge Khameini from across the border: Grand Ayatollah Sistani of Iraq.
(From Steve Schippert) Sistani in 2007 made two statements: that “I am a servant of all Iraqis, there is no difference between a Sunni, a Shiite or a Kurd or a Christian,” and that Islam can exist within democracy.
No doubt the evil Khameini will try his best to have Sistani assassinated to try to “dampen” the opposition. That’s to be expected.
In the meantime, the freedom-loving Shiites oppressed in Iran look across the border at Grand Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq and say, “By Golly, Sistani’s right. Officials should be public servants, and Islam can be compatible with modernity. And by the way, Khameini is a fraud.”
Somewhere on Earth, a weary Texan is nodding his head. And there’s nothing Nanny “the Juice” Obananarama can do about it.
i personally have vague but pleasing visions of some combination of internal and external forces ripping off the Islamic Revolution, hanging its leaders, and then, in a glorious re-enactment of the ancient balance of power, the Persians flooding over the Islamic world and re-establishing the pleasaunte & delectable Persian Empire, taking revenge for the depredations of Islam and destroying the moon god’s rock once and for all.
Plus, Persian girls are Freaking Hot. We need them in our tv shows, our movies, and our porno.
The noble Hitchens wants to know
If events in Iraq
Could in their way effect to show
What seems to be the tack
Some certain circles in Iran
Have taken to of late
That caused the unrest in Teheran
That may have been…but wait!
Are not the same guys still in charge
Do not they want the bomb
Does not the whole wide world at large
Look on with pleased aplomb
When Ahmadinejad insists
That Israel must die
Which is the reason he persists
In giving it a try
Whatever stuff is going on
And this is just my take
Is like a child who’s blowing on
The candles on his cake
We clap and laugh and cheer out loud
We pat his little head
We make the toddler feel so proud
He made the candles dead
They aren’t dead and here is why
The bomb is coming soon
The IAF is set to fly
The first dark of the moon
It’s clear to rhymers like myself
The ticking clock’s in Qum
I don’t need words from off the shelf
They all rhyme with kaboom
Off Subject; Mark Levin is reporting that Buraq did not- repeat did not – get road access to Afghanistan through Russia controlled areas for our heavy mechanized units at his sit down with Vlady, but did apparently manage to give away the farm on our nuclear superiority. This will be claimed to be an amazing foreign policy coup for his Arrogance by the media, natch.
Gerard Warner of the Telegraph apparently has an article up.
Obama has great muslim sympathies; he was raised one. But he is a marxist first and foremost as were his mother, his father and his stepfather. He has a deep girlieman crush for any leftwing dictator, whether muslim or not.
Grand Ayatollah Sistani is an Iranian, not an Iraqi, even though he resides in Najaf.
For many years prior to the rise of the Islamic Republic, Sistani and Khomeini both resided together in Najaf (Khomeini in exile because of the Shah). As the late ’70′s progressed, and Khomeini started to encourage his followers to stir up trouble, the Shah demanded that Khomeini be exiled. And so he was, to Paris; for a while.
After the Shah was deposed, like Lenin returning to Russia, Khomeini and his statist Islamic philosphy returned to Iran. After his rise to power, he vowed revenge on Iraq (Saddam Hussein); and exhorted the Shia in Iraq to rise to overthrow Saddam Hussein and the Sunni Baathists, and threatened war on Iraq besides.
Saddam launched a pre-emptive war on Iran and was intially successful, but his Army started to falter after they got a certain distance from home, and the Iranian Army stiffened.
Eight years of stalemate and over a million casualties later, they called the whole thing off.
Fast forward to today.
Short version: These two countries are tied together in many and subtle ways, in war and peace. It would not be surprising at all if the Iranians came to throw off the ways of Khomeini and embrace Sistani.
If he lives long enough. Indeed, a tragic counterblow could be in the offing. That would be the modus operandi of the Quds Force; I’m sure the Iraqis are aware of the possibility too.
Agreed. I don’t think he’s a Muslim but he is a collectivist and internationalist, which are perhaps not coincidentally characteristics of Islam.
“If he were in fact a Muslim and based on his actions to date, what sort of flavor – Shia or Sunni – does he prefer?”
I’d say he’s the flavor of Muslim who’s in it for the power, who stabs everyone around him to be the last one left standing, and then proclaims himself to be the boss because “I said so … I won.” You know, the guy who gets up in the morning and issues a fatwah just because he can.
Belmont Club
April 28th, 2009 3:14 pm
The wizard war
In Athena’s Camp
and there are also kinetic options if need be
The problem with an amateur Prez
Is that his actions are not what he says
By sowing some doubt
He hopes to creep out
But he’s burning his boats like Cortez.
— —
Whether Hashemite, Sunni, or Shia
Fine diplomacy’s no panacea
Despite what they assure
The one thing we’ll secure
Is a market for Kim’s North Korea.
— —
L3
Hi all,
The political dynamic created by the influence Iraq’s political evolution is having on the balance of power in Iran is a crucially important topic, but I am also interested in hearing more about how current events in Iran are affecting the overall Iraqi mood, both in terms of politics and in terms of popular nationalistic sentiment. If (after the dust has settled) the strategic interests of Iran do remain more or less the same, as was suggested upthread, the Iraqi internal reaction may in the long run prove to be more important.
On balance, will the ongoing unrest help consolidate secular power in Iraq, or will it accelerate fragmentation along religious fault lines?
I haven’t seen anyone writing from this angle, but maybe I am just not looking in the right places. Any suggestions?
Piercello
Speaking as someone who has known several ex-patriate Iraqis, they fear Iran, whether Arab, Kurd, Sunni or Shia. The Sunnis think the Shia will become ‘traitors’ to Iraq and call them ‘Iranians’ when they want to be insulting, but most Arab (and Kurdish) Shia are also fearful of Iran.
Moqtaqda al-Sadr took Iran’s money because he had other ambitions. He is probably still alive only because Sistani urged restraint on the part of MNF-Iraq, which probably can give some and insight into just how influential Sistani is. There were and are still a bunch of people in MNF-I and the Iraqi government that want al-Sadr dead. If Sistani would be assasinated, al-Sadr might be at room temperature within hours; or in some stockade being aggressively questioned, at the least.
The Shah was much more restrained than the present government of Iran, as some of his generals urged him to invade Iraq and displace the Baathists after they rose to power in 1968; he demurred, of course.
If anything, the unrest in Iran may make people in Iraq feel safer. It’s when Iran is internally unified (or tightly controlled) that it becomes a danger to its neighbors.
Babylonia and Persia, Nebuchadnezzar versus Cyrus. This stuff goes way back. Sunni vs. Shia is relatively young compared to the other but they all do coalesce don’t they.
Sykes and Picot certainly made things difficult for the past 90 years.
On his recent trip to Iraq, Joe Biden told the Iraqi’s that if sectarian violence were to break out again, the U.S. would not wait until 2011 to remove our forces. I would bet that people in Damascus, Riyadh, Qum, and Pashtunistan understood that as an invitation to ramp up the violence. A power vacuum in Iraq could play well for some of the interested parties in the region.
Of course Obama is a Muslim. Of course he hates America in part because of racism, but also because he was born, raised, and is now a Muslim.
But both Hitchens and Wretchard get it wrong — because it’s so obvious.
Removing Saddam removed the dangerous enemy to Iran. Allowing the internal strife and struggles between the average people and the IRGC. Guaranteed if Saddam was still in power, threatening to send Scud missiles into Tehran, or fighter bombers, there would be no appetite for reform or revolution. Removing Saddam did not suddenly lift the lamp of freedom into Tehran’s heart of darkness. All it did was remove an existential threat to Iran and Iranians.
But it was enough.
Saddam killed a around a million Iranians or so. He had their attention. With him gone, what Maliki will order tanks to roll into Iran? Please. Whoever rules onwards will be constrained, in a way that Saddam never could be, from launching any aggressive move.
I certainly can’t see Obama being a Muslim in any religious sense. The only time he sees God is when he looks in the mirror. He’s about the least spiritual person I’ve ever seen in politics.
However, as a well-conditioned member of the Academic Left, Obama has an obsession with “the other.” Put into layman’s terms, the less male, white and Judeo-Christian someone is, the more O is drawn to them. He is entirely sympathetic with Islam. Not I think from any religious impulse, but simply because Islam is “the Other” in a very big way, and Islam is the enemy of the West. That’s more than enough to get O’s attention and sympathy.
Putting it another way, he doesn’t bow towards Mecca. He bows towards Mordor.
Remember those questions about why Invade Iraq? Well, it truly wasn’t about the WMD. Whether intentional or accidental, and I don’t care which is ascribed to, President George W Bush chose wisely.
This is very strange. You don’t see this,” he said. “Having something 100 percent down for a 24-hour-plus period is a pretty significant event.
Elijah, wow. that’s just sinister as hell, with the prez out of the country and all.
***
Piercello/18;
A Christian Martyr in Iran? [Mark Krikorian]
It looks like Neda Agha-Soltan, the young woman killed during the protests in Iran, may have been a Christian. If true, I’m not sure what, if any implications there might be — some have said, implausibly, that it would undermine the idea that the reformers don’t represent a real challenge to the Islamist ideology, that Mousavi is just another flavor of theocratic tyrant. I think the significance would depend on what kind of Christian she was (if any) — if she was Assyrian, say, and thus a member of a pre-Islamic Christian community, then it probably doesn’t mean much. But if she was from a Muslim ethnic group but converted to Christianity, then she might well represent the early stages of the unraveling of Islam itself in Iran.
***
Batman/20; before Cyrus, it was the Medes vs the Persians. Someone said, ‘one man’s Mede is another man’s Persian.
imho Kissinger has some interesting things to say about real politic vs idealism, the treaty of versailles, Iran in this der spiegal interview
Kissinger: ‘Obama Is Like a Chess Player’
Not at all unlikely that Neda was a Christian; haven’t we all heard reports about large numbers of conversions about the young? However, if she really was just an innocent bystander, or even anything but a leader of the protests, I’m not sure what significance this would have.
Does anybody remember the religious affiliation (if any) of the students killed at Kent State? Me neither.
Oops, make that “large numbers of conversions among the young”.
Horse Sense, or What We Can Learn from a British Cavalry Officer of the 1830s
“One of my favorite writers, Patrick Devenny, wrote an article recently for Foreign Policy that’s not only fascinating and fun, but also has much to teach us about, in Mr. Devenny’s words, “one of the most complicated problems in Afghanistan today:
the training and oversight of local defense forces.
This five-part series is about war in Afghanistan, ancient and modern. I’m not doing this for money or politics. I’m a Marine and I don’t want young Marines and soldiers going into harm’s way without the full arsenal of history and context.
What’s my thesis? That the key to understanding Afghanistan today is not Islamism or jihadism. It’s tribalism. The tribal mind-set (warrior pride, hostility to outsiders, codes of honor and resistance to change) permeates everything. Think of these videos as a mini-course in tribalism. I invite discussion. Tell me I’m crazy, tell me I’m wrong. If you agree, tell me too.”
– Steven Pressfield (Gates of Fire, among others)
Patrick Devenny,
Steven Pressfield also wrote, “The Afghan Campaign”, the story of Alexander the Great’s war, as told first person by a young Macedonian soldier, in “Afghanistan”.
A great read, with a very somber and depressing ending.
Islam is but an overlay to a very old, tribal way of life in that harsh country. We chased out the Taliban and Al Qaeda (for now), but we can’t chase out the tribalism that was the host and fostered that sort of thing. Lower your expectations.
+1 on The Afghan Campaign by Steven Pressfield.
Anodyne, #6: Many folks have asserted that Obama is a Muslim. If he were in fact a Muslim and based on his actions to date, what sort of flavor – Shia or Sunni – does he prefer?
Given his past associations and his family’s conduct (read: Michelle and the girls going burqa-free), the Nation of Islam seems much more likely to me than either of the above. The thing is though, NoI’s specific beliefs and practices are considered MINO by Islamic supremacists, much like fundamentalist (and many other) Christians tend to regard the Mormons, only with the antipathy amped up by an order of magnitude or two. (Daniel Pipes’ book Militant Islam Reaches America has an entire chapter devoted to this subject. See also Keith Ellison, who is touted as the first Muslim U.S. congressman, but is actually NoI and doesn’t exactly adhere to many customs we associate with conventional Islam.)
So even if Obama were NoI, that wouldn’t necessarily translate to any great affinity with Tehran or the Taliban, and certainly not vice versa.
Obama throws Israel under the bus
Jew haters (especially those in San Francisco) and Iranians rejoice! There are growing indications that the US has come to terms with a nuclear-armed Teheran, two analysts told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.
“The Americans are in a state of mind according to which Iran has already gone nuclear,” said Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan’s Begin Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.
Kedar, who served in Military Intelligence for 25 years, said US President Barack Obama was “at peace” with the idea of a nuclear Iran.
“You can tell from how the Americans talk. Look at how [US special envoy] George Mitchell talks, or how Obama talks. I don’t see them being pressured by this threat. They have shown no urgent desire to change this reality,” he added.
“Obama has given up,” Kedar said.
Ledeen:
UPDATE II: The 3-day strike. Apparently the regime was so worried about the strike that they shut down most factories, businesses and offices. This is another sign of regime insecurity. And Mousavi today (Monday) received several distinguished visitors, including Khomeini’s grandson.
—
Steve Schippert predicted this strike a week ago.
I made Hitchens’ points 2 weeks ago. The democratic spillover from Iraq to Iran is so blindingly obvious that only “smart” people don’t get it: the MSM, academia, and of course the POTUS.
The rest of y’all are correct to note that this is an old rivalry, that there’s a mixture of religious & political motives. This is also blindingly obvious.
The subtlety is in what kind of “storm” awaits, as Wretchard mentions in his last sentence. Given that Iraq has been exposed to all sorts of chaos, I believe they can handle it. It’s Iran that is untested and once the grip starts loosening in an authoritarian regime, it’s tough to know who to trust. After all, your rule is mainly based on fear. Those who respond to this motivation will quickly change sides if they can cut a deal for more power and less fear. Thus old hands like Mousavi and Rafsanjani know how to reassert themselves. Much like Wretchard’s experience with the fall of Marcos in the Phillipines, key players see an opportunity and know how to change the balance of political power. Even if they fail, the inner struggle in Iran is a good thing.
The bottom line for the U.S. is an inward-looking, chaotic Iran should be less likely to project power elsewhere in the region.
“Putting it another way, he doesn’t bow towards Mecca. He bows towards Mordor.”
There’s a difference?
One Stone to rule them all, One Stone to find them,
One Stone to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Saudi where the Shadows lie.