Re: [Marxism] A Baathist-Bushist conspiracy?

["Pieinsky" <pieinsky@xxxxxxx>]

I ran this issue of the Baathist negotiations with the U.S., reported in
"Time Magazine" and elsewhere last week, through my friend Muhammad Abu Nasr
of "Iraqi Resistance Reports".  Below is what he had to say.  I should say
that I'm not necessarily against negotiations.  The NLF during the Vietnam
War followed a strategy of "fight, fight; talk, talk" which was very
effective, although it was denounced by some in the Movement (e.g., the
Progressive Labor Party) as a sign of selling out to the enemy.

jay
www.neravt.com/left/

2/23/05

"Actually on 21 February the Baath specifically issued a communique on those
claims that they and/or the Resistance were having secret talks or peace
feelers or whatever.  The Baath said that's a total lie.

The communique said that Bremer left Baghdad after the first US government
period ended and now Negroponte is leaving as the second US governing period
is ending.  Negroponte will present reports on his "successes" and claim to
have had talks with the Resistance but since those efforts to bring them in
failed, the US will have "no choice" but to build ties exclusively with
as-Sistani and the Shi'ah.

In other words, the Baath is saying, the talk about negotiations is just a
smoke screen for the US to go ahead forging its alliance with the Shi'ah so
that if and when their regime finally collapses they can opt for the 3-state
solution, counting on the Shi'i clergy to be on their side."

2/24/05

I then followed up with asking Muhammad if that Baath statement was
available in English.  This is what he replied.  Interesting!

"No, those frequent Baath party statements aren't in English.  I would think
about translating them, but somehow the way they use the language makes it
not particularly easy.

There's this website that seems to be doing some sort of translating into
English and French and I got the reference to them from a Baathi, so they're
probably authentic.

http://comitesirak.free.fr/present.htm

But I think it's more general stuff, not specific.

As to the rumors about talks with the Resistance, actually the first I heard
of them was in that Baathi statement, so I didn't think much of it, but then
you asked about it!  So that gave it more importance to me.

As to the Iraqi Shiites, I think the Iraqi Shii clerical establishment
basically cannot be separated from Iran, and their main problem is that htey
think in a sectarian manner, which is to say that they're looking out for
the "good" of the Shiah defined in that sectarian way.

I think Iran, and by extension then the Shii clerics in Iraq, such as Ali
as-Sistani, are looking to make Iran a major regional power while accepting
that the US is the world hegemon.  In other words, they're sort of easing
back into the position Iran wanted to play under the Shah - regional
policeman and power but tied to the US.  That's not entirely agreeable to
Washington and particularly Tel Aviv, but Iran has been very helpful to
Washington in Afghanistan and in Iraq, basically, which means that it's
trying to make itself useful.

The noise about Iran coming from Washington is really aimed at Hizballah
which is a problem for the Zionists and which is something they absolutely
must get rid of.  The pressure on Syria is about that too - plus all Syria's
other "sins" like supporting the Palestinian leadership in Damascus and
aiding the Iraqi Resistance under the table.  So the pressure on Syria is
much more serious than the threatst to Iran, which really are an effort to
get Iran to de-link from Hizballah.

Hizballah has been the one thing that has continued to give Iran some
credibility on the Arab street, so Iran isn't likely to want to get rid of
them lightly.  But it probably knows it holds a valuable card and it might
be willing to play it for the right price.

Meanwhile there have been very weird reports lately.  For example a court in
Yemen established that a Yemeni anti-government activist was receiving
support from as-Sistani.  Yemen is now a kind of US protectorate, so the
court probably wouldn't publish such a story - which is a little politically
ackward - lightly.  There are reports of similar Iranian or Shii Iraqi ties
with Shii minorities in the Arab Gulf too. (I should mention that there's a
Shii minority in Yemen, though I think they're Isma'ili, not Twelvers like
the Iranians.  Anyhow, the point is that for decades, Iran tried to avoid
exaccerbating the Sunni-Shii rift because even though there were Shii
minorities that they could play with, they were always  more interested in
winning the Arab masses which they could only do by being Islamic but
non-sectarian.

The fact that they seem to be playing the sectarian card now is disturbing,
and another sign that their strategies are changing."








_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism