Iraq: either the secular nationalists will win -- or Mookie (and Iran) will

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Monday, March 29, 2010 - 12:39 PM Share

There are bombs going off in Qaim and elsewhere. Here are two very different takes on what is going on in Iraq politics.

By Col. Gary Anderson (USMC, ret.)
Best Defense west Baghdad bureau chief

What is happening in Iraq is far from American style horse-trading. Nor is this about simple sectarianism. What we will see in Iraq in the immediate future will be a naked power struggle among the three main elements in the Shiite community:

Secular nationalists

Islamic nationalists

Islamic pro-Iranians

I'm betting that one of the nationalist groups will eventually win, but that it will not be without a good deal of bloodshed. The winning party will likely be the one that the army backs, which will be the secular side, as the Iraqi army doesn't like Sadr, who is the leading Islamic nationalist. I would also bet that Chalabi ends up in exile or worse.

The result will be a regime that is more authoritarian than we will like, but it is to be hoped, western leaning.

But wait a minute. Old Juan Cole has another take, less optimistic take. He reports that his readings tell him that last sentence of Gary's isn't likely to be realized: He says that al-Hayat is reporting:

... that a couple of days ago representatives of the Sadr Movement and of al-Maliki's State of Law met in Tehran in an Iranian-backed attempt quickly to form a new Shiite-dominated government. In Iran for the talks were President Jalal Talibani and his Shiite vice president, Adil Abdel Mahdi of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

This move underlines the way in which Iraq's election has geopolitical as well as local significance. Also that Iran is sitting pretty while the U.S. prepares to withdraw.

Wathiq Khuzaie/Getty Images

EXPLORE:ARAB WORLD, MIDDLE EAST, IRAN, IRAQ, POLITICS

(4)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

SMCI60652

5:45 PM ET

March 29, 2010

Doh!

Was there not a decent rec center in Iraq for the Sadr and Maliki delegates to meet in?

They just HAD to fly to Tehran?

What the hell are we doing there folks!?

Let's just bring our boys home, lick our wounds, and prepare for the next glorious debacle.

Amen.

JPWREL

6:05 PM ET

March 29, 2010

So what Anderson apparently

So what Anderson apparently is saying is that the Secular Nationalists in the end ally themselves with the Army and win with the Sadr ‘Islamic’ Nationalists coming in second and Chalabi’s head likely upon a spike? That sounds to me like Iraq would have come full circle back to Saddam’s Secular Nationalism based on Shiite power rather than the Sunni’? Well, that sounds just about right for the investment of tens of thousands of American killed and wounded and the trillion bucks we borrowed from the bank (China) – smart move America!

STEVE358

8:19 PM ET

March 29, 2010

Two spheres of gravity

First, the Iraqi military, as you indicated, will support a secular national position.

Second, if push comes to shove, Sistani, consistent in his Quietist efforts, will emerge to settle things down.

It's still spinning, but that's a good thing.

Almost smacks of Bush/Gore 2004. No?

STEVE C

11:56 PM ET

March 29, 2010

Sadr must be accommodated

What is probably best for Iraq is a coalition of Islamist Iraqi nationalists and secular Iraqi nationalists. That's what the Iraqis seem to have voted for. I see many western prejudices in play in the various analyses - not to mention the fruits of a multi-farious anti-Sadr propaganda campaigns - but the US and its regional and international allies are just going to have to take what comes out of this.

The Sadrists have, clearly, run a very clever campaign these past few months and are now in a position of considerable influence. I think everyone will be surprised by the results, not least the US and Iran.