From this article at Breitbart, there are some disturbing signs that the Iranian influence over the Iraqi government is going to take root even deeper as a coalition of Shiite powers is forming and it does NOT include Prime Minister Maliki. From the article:
I will make this statement now as well: If the Iranians are successful in coopting control in Iraq, the world will see a genocide against Sunni muslims in Iraq like the world has never witnessed before.
Major Shiite groups have formed a new alliance that will exclude the Iraqi prime minister, lawmakers said Monday, a move likely to stoke fears of increasing Iranian influence and set back efforts to end sectarian politics ahead of January parliamentary elections.Now, look at this part of the article that explains the absence of two powers in the alliance - look at where the two missing kingpins actually are:
The announcement was a new blow to al-Maliki, whose efforts to portray himself as a champion of security has been battered by a series of devastating bombings in Baghdad and in northern Iraq in recent weeks. The most recent of these struck the foreign and finance ministries on Wednesday, killing about a 100 people and wounding about 500.
Former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari read a statement, noting that the ailing leader of the Supreme Council, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, was absent because he has been hospitalized in Iran.I've said it many times before that Iraq could very well become a bloody powder keg down the line if American troops are withdrawn too soon - I've put forth that al Qaeda would flood back into Iraq once the Americans are gone and at the same time, we are already seeing the Iranians eyeing the prize of Iraq. Let's be real here...Iran is in an economic mess and the bounty of Iraq is almost too much for them to not want. All along the Iranians have kept their filthy fingers in the pot in Iraq and while Maliki once welcomed the Iranian influence, he now is finding out you can't trust a Persian as far as you can throw them.
"We wished that al-Hakim could be with us, but he is sick," al-Jaafari said. "We pray he will feel better soon but he will be with us spiritually," al-Jaafari said. Al-Hakim was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2007.
He said the new alliance would be focused on establishing economic health and security in Iraq.
Also absent was al-Sadr, who is believed to be in Iran. His bloc was represented by lawmakers and officials.
I will make this statement now as well: If the Iranians are successful in coopting control in Iraq, the world will see a genocide against Sunni muslims in Iraq like the world has never witnessed before.
Shiite groups announce new alliance minus Iraqi PM
BAGHDAD (AP) - Major Shiite groups have formed a new alliance that will exclude the Iraqi prime minister, lawmakers said Monday, a move likely to stoke fears of increasing Iranian influence and set back efforts to end sectarian politics ahead of January parliamentary elections.
The alliance will include the largest Shiite party, the Iranian-backed Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's bloc and some Sunni and secular independents.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party won't be included because of disagreement over who would lead the alliance, Shiite lawmaker Reda Jawad Taqi told The Associated Press. He said a last-minute meeting held Sunday in a bid to bring al-Maliki's Dawa party into the coalition had failed to overcome the differences.
The coalition will likely be led by the Supreme Council if Dawa stays out, something that would likely deepen Iranian influence in Iraq just as U.S. forces begin to withdraw. The last American soldier is scheduled to leave Iraq by the end of 2011.
The announcement was a new blow to al-Maliki, whose efforts to portray himself as a champion of security has been battered by a series of devastating bombings in Baghdad and in northern Iraq in recent weeks. The most recent of these struck the foreign and finance ministries on Wednesday, killing about a 100 people and wounding about 500.
The uptick in violence has heightened fears that Iraqi security forces aren't ready to protect the people nearly two months after most U.S. troops pulled back from urban areas.
Monday's announcement also was a major shakeup in Shiite politics, which have long been dominated by the Supreme Council and al-Maliki's party.
The coalition will replace the United Iraqi Alliance, which won control of parliament in the December 2005 elections but began to unravel later with the withdrawal of two major factions and bitter rivalry between al-Maliki and the Supreme Council.
Members of the groups joining the list stood one-by-one at a press conference to announce the new list.
Former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari read a statement, noting that the ailing leader of the Supreme Council, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, was absent because he has been hospitalized in Iran.
"We wished that al-Hakim could be with us, but he is sick," al-Jaafari said. "We pray he will feel better soon but he will be with us spiritually," al-Jaafari said. Al-Hakim was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2007.
He said the new alliance would be focused on establishing economic health and security in Iraq.
Also absent was al-Sadr, who is believed to be in Iran. His bloc was represented by lawmakers and officials.
6 comments:
This quite something about Maliki. You are exactly right, Holger, that there is too much bounty there for Iran not too want, plus the "control."
Very sad for the Iraqi people, and Americans. It is time for the Iraqi's to rid themselves of every single turncoat. Sigh! No way to do that I guess.
Interesting you should say that Maggie - there used to be someone in charge in Iraq who was very good at rounding up people suspected of working with Iran and getting "rid" of them. You call them "turncoats", he called them "traitors". He was our man in the Gulf until he got cocky and invaded Kuwait- then 12 years later he had to go.
With democracy in Iraq the Shia majority will have control. Yes, they will be closer allies with Iran than they will be with the US. Welcome to the world of unintended consequences brought to you by the Bush administration. Our government wanted democracy in Iraq and they got it, we won the Iran- Iraq War for Iran.
I predict Sadr's Mahdi militia will make short work of any Al- Qeada Sunni extremists slipping in after we leave. It will be ugly, I see Iraq dissolving into 3 nations, with the US keeping a military presence in Kurdistan.
Holger - since when are you bothered by the prospect of Sunnis and Shias killing each other? I thought that stuff made your day. Are you going soft?
;-)
Esquerita, the difference is, the Iraqi people have a chance for democracy unless they want to let their religion get in the way. Back during the Gulf War, not many realized that the religion and the government were one and the same, both were extraordinarily cruel. The people need to take out those that continue to sell them into slavery.
There was time before Hussein that the Iraqi people were the most progressive in the ME. Many, many were educated...It's their choice, and they have had an opportunity now. Assuming they will probably trash that opportunity - it is sad, really sad.
I don't believe the U.S. will ever fully leave Iraq unless Obama stays in charge. I believe we are there to stay in some fashion, and if we do not, we are idiots.
While I realize the reality of Islam, and admit that the people have little chance for life and opportunity, whether Sunni or Shia, I still maintain that if the people of any nation want to do something about it, they can.
Rita,
You know me well because yes, I'd just as soon seen a world war between Sunnis and Shia (that wouldn't affect any other people) and let them just destroy each other, but my concern here is not about internal warring in Iraq - the issue is Iran. Iranian missiles in Baghdad or Anbar is a hugely different scenario than missiles in Tehran when it comes to proximity to Israel. And since you know me well, rita, you should remember that Israel is the shining star and is what really matters in the Middle East.
I would think that you being a flaming lib Rita, that you'd be opposed to an Iranian takeover of the Iraqi government?
Finally, as for al Sadr's militia..they'd get their asses handed to them by any Sunni group in Iraq - they were trained by the Iranians and with that kind of training, they are guaranteed a loss. :)
:Holger Danske
I think I get the drift now Rita, Saddam was merely misguided while Bush was evil.
Shark - I've never said Bush was evil- but he was foolish. Iraq may prove to be a bigger foriegn policy blunder than Vietnam. Saddam Hussien was a bad man, but until 1991 he was OUR bad man- we sold him weapons which he used to kill Iranians and anyone he suspected of being pro- Iranian (the Shia majority). He had our blessing every step of the way.
Holger- Iran won't have to "take over" the Iraqi government, they already have what they wanted in Iraq- Sunnis relegated to a disgruntled minority and the Shia running the show. Increased Iranian influence in Iraq or a Sunni dictatorship in Iraq - thats the choice we made as a nation.
I'd say oil is what matters in the Middle East- Israel will be just fine (as long as they are in God's favor) but I need reasonably priced gas.
Who trains and supplies the Sunni militias? I say Al-Sadr's folks would eat their lunch but we'll see- we (the US) will not be able to stay forever.
Maggie - I too would love to see some separation of church and state in the Middle East - maybe one day. The Sunni/Shia divide is probably more about clan and tribe than just religion.
Post a Comment