| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Shiite cleric warns of popular uprising against Iraq-U.S long term agreement |
| 2008-06-09 |
| (VOI)-A renowned Iraqi Shiite cleric on Sunday warned that a popular uprising may erupt if Iraq signs the long-term agreement with the U.S . The proposed security agreement would cover the status of U.S troops in Iraq, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity for security contractors after United Nations resolution governing U.S forces in Iraq expires in December. Speaking to reporters and clerics in Karbala, grand ayatollah Mohammed Taqqi al-Mudaressi said “the proposed security agreement between Iraq and the U.S lacks the overall and in-depth vision of Iraq’s general affairs”. The cleric expected “the agreement would fail if the details of the deal remained as they are in the current draft”, adding “ signing the agreement came while Iraq is deprived of sovereignty under chapter seven of (the Security Council charter). He branded the agreement as “ a sort of US blackmailimg and a sword strangling Iraqis”. “Infringing Iraq’s sovereignty would not be in the U.S interests as a superpower because the agreement humiliates people’s dignity, pushing them to uprise and to start a new cycle of violence”, he pointed out. Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. Iraq has been considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. Influential Shiite clerics in Iraq and neighbouring Iran oppose the deal and have called it a move against their religion. They have vowed to stage protests to force the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to roll back the deal which is expected to be concluded by the end of July. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #13 What I can't know but would love to get a sense for is if the local shiites see people like this cleric to be something of Shiite carpet-baggers who have shown up only recently after Saddam was knocked out. But Iran is apparently paying people good money ($300 a month?) to support their guys. That is going to get harder to do as the Iraqi economy takes off. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2008-06-09 17:18 |
| #12 Tater Tot was supposed to be Hezb'allah in Iraq for the Iranians - instead, he was shown to be impotent. This new group is the Hez in Iraq Mark II : the Iranians' bully boys that have not been stomped on YET. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2008-06-09 15:12 |
#11 Mohammed Taqqi al-Mudaressi lived for many years (34 years to be exact) in Iran and only came back to Iraq in 2003 in a convoy to Karbala. I would say that he is more loyal to Iran than Sistani is and he would be the one Iran would possibly attempt to leverage as "their guy" in Iraq. I would expect to see a power struggle at some point between him and Sistani.
The above from globalsecurity.org I am not familiar with the politics of the Islamic Action Organization but it would not surprise me to find some alignment with Iran since that is where most of its leadership lived for a good part of their adult life. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2008-06-09 13:01 |
| #10 I like the idea of sending them to Tehran. With Amer4ican air cover. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-06-09 10:30 |
| #9 Souk-style negotiations. They don't really want Coalition troops to leave -- that's all that's keeping them safe from the rampaging Medes and Persians, and they know it. Remember, we're still in South Korea, Germany, Japan, and a great many other places -- by continued invitation -- despite all the posturing by politicians and even student riots. Let the Iraqi politicians say what they must in public to satisfy their amour propre, then in private conclude the negotiation with a continuation of the status quo. McZoid, Der Spiegel lies. I'd look for a second, third and fourth source to confirm anything they say with regard to the U.S. Anonymoose, I don't like the idea of sending Iraqi troops abroad. For one thing, they will be busy enough cleaning up the mess at home for the next several years. For another, sending them off as a mercenary force will spark the idea back home of sending them off at the behest of the government. Saddam Hussein's little adventure in Kuwait was the execution of a common Iraqi (and elsewhere) idea of natural borders, which leads to all kinds of pernicious nonsense. Let them fight only defensive wars, but win those decisively... if that idea could filter out into the Muslim Middle East, the entire world would be safer, and our own entirely too busy troops would be able to take a bit of a break. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-06-09 10:16 |
| #8 Damn! The SOFA negotiations are leading to US recognition of an Iraq veto over US policy on Iran, and US troops would be confined to barracks, unless Maliki ordered their assistance. Juan Cole's leftist opinions are crap, but he posts verbatim material from the US government's Open Source Center, which outline the SOFA farce. On the weekend, Maliki was in Teheran promising that Iraq wouldn't be used as a staging post against Iran. I hope this sinks in with Senator McCain: religious based democracy, is dictatorship by other means. Four thousand US troops died for something in Iraq; was it for a burgeoning Iran-Iraq super state, subsidized by US tax payers? And Der Spiegel is quoting Afghan President Karzai praising Taleban for their morality. Americans will eventually add this all up. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-06-09 10:01 |
| #7 You have to read these kinds of articles with a Arab hyperbole filter. Some people don't like the idea of US bases, but its the same on any issue in a democracy. If the government has the numbers in parliament then its a done deal. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-06-09 09:50 |
| #6 I do think that we should sweeten the deal by encouraging the Iraqis to *use* their military outside of Iraq. That is, Iraq is uniquely situated and populated to provide military services throughout the Middle East, to other Muslim nations. For example, they are the one force that could deploy to Lebanon to keep Hezbollah under control, as they wouldn't threaten the local Shiites, Sunnis or even the Christians and Jews. I'm sure that there are lots of other situations where the Iraqis could work as both a US and UN proxy military, to great honor for Iraq. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-06-09 09:35 |
| #5 What did our leaders expect? Did they actually think their little experiment in regime change and democracy would change 1400 years of muslim indoctrination to kill, conquer and enslave the infidels? Did they expect anything but disdain, hate and spittle from those who are raised from birth to believe the kufr are worth less than barn animals, suitable only for extortion, slavery or the harem? Churchill had it right when he said muslims are either at your feet or at your throat. Better their throats be under our feet than our throats under their knives. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-06-09 09:09 |
| #4 However, as soon as the rumors of secret al-Sistani fatwahs against the SOFA arose, informants began directing Iraqi troops to arm caches. Someone is war weary. That is not to say that we have no cause for concern. Open war would really hurt Senator McCain. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-06-09 08:58 |
| #3 all this islamo-wusses show up to the party after coalition and Iraqi forces kick a**. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2008-06-09 05:03 |
| #2 Didn't young Mr. Muqtada al Sadr try that already, with rather embarrassing results? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-06-09 04:57 |
| #1 Looks like we missed a few. |
| Posted by: gorb 2008-06-09 02:45 |