[Marxism] On Iraq and Iran again

[<g.maclennan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Fred wrote:

>Gary says only Saddam could have brought Sunni forces into line against the 
>Persians.  But all indications are that this attitude is fairly widespread in 
>the Sunni elite, and among some of the resistance fighters. And Saddam was no 
>longer in any position to negotiate for the Sunni fighters or political 
>figures.  He had long since lost any element of control. 

Hi Fred,

I am almost about to give up trying to make sense of what is going on in Iraq. 
My central problem has always been that it seems crazy to me to attack Iran 
without securing Iraq.  At the grave danger of repeating myself as I see it the 
present non-governing regime in Iraq is based around al-Hakim.  He is also the 
puppet of Iran or at least was.  Stan Goff points out that he is in favour of 
the privatisation of Iraqi Oil and that I suppose makes him a "good guy" to the 
Americans. I read though elsewhere that his popularity is declining among the 
Shia, and that would not surprise me at all.

In any case as Stan Goff tells it, al-Hakim and al-Maliki and presumably the 
Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani have agreed to what amounts to something like a 
replay of 2004, when the Sadrists were attacked by the Americans.  Then Sistani 
conveniently took himself off to a hospital in London and the Badr militia 
reportedly aided the Americans in the assault on the Sadrists holed up on Najaf.

Juan Cole reported at the time how the goodly folk of Najaf despised the sans 
culottes from Sadr city that made up the rank and file of the Sadr militia. The 
Sadrists took a terrible pounding but Sistani was forced to leave his hospital 
bed to lead a peace cavalcade to Najaf. The subsequent settlement left al-Sadr 
at large or as the Americans would have it as unfinished business.

Now as goff tells it just like the second assault on Fallujah we are about to 
see a renewed attempt to finish al-Sadr off this time. What has changed though 
would appear to be that al-Sadr's influence has grown throughout Iraq.

All this is supposed to be combined with an attack on the Sunni neighbourhoods 
of Baghdad. Following these attacks on al-Sadr and the Sunnis, the US will then 
launch its long awaited assault on Iran.  As I understand it Fred seems to 
argue that some Sunni leader will emerge to endorse this assault on Iran or, as 
the late unmournable Saddam put it, on the âPersiansâ.

Now of course there are lots of Sunnis who would love to play the role of 
pro-American strongman.  Perhaps there is even one with a sufficient base in 
the Sunni community to pull off that role.  I personally doubt it very much. 
But I could be very wrong here. The Sunni-Shia divide has seemingly grown to 
such an extent that it is conceivable that some Sunni leader could emerge with 
the line that the Shias are now the main enemy and that the Sunnis should enter 
into an alliance with the colonial power.  That would take us back to the tried 
and true formula of a pro-American strong man in charge of Iraq. But the 
strength of the resistance in the last four years has been such that I do not 
think that a pro-American Sunni could succeed in grabbing power.

So what do I think will happen to the surge?  I think Petraeus will attempt to 
create mini- Green zones throughout Baghdad.  If he confines himself to 
attacking the Sunni he may well have some success. He may however even try to 
place a âGreen Zoneâ in Sadr City. If he does that and al-Sadr fights back 
then Petraeus will surely fail.

What of the Iranians?  I think they are trying to placate the Americans through 
al-Hakim.  They are making the mistake of endorsing the creation of a Shiite 
state.  Instead of reaching out to the resistance and attempting to create 
Sunni-Shia unity, they are flirting with the Kurds and other pro-American 
elements. The Iranians seemed to think that the Americans were delivering them 
an easy victory in Iraq. They envisaged a Badr led govt which would owe Iran 
from the days when the al-Hakim clan took refuge in Iran.

Yet the truth is that only principled anti-Imperialism will save the Iranians. 
However that is very unlikely to come from the bunch of bazaari-millionaires 
and religious charlatans that hold power in Iran.

Nevertheless it is not impossible that in the chaos created by the Americans in 
the Middle East, the blows that do not break the backs of the Arabs and the 
Iranians may strengthen them and revolutionary unity might be achieved.  Should 
that happen the Iraqi-Iranians adventure that Bush has set his heart on could 
turn out to be a terminal one for his class.

regards

Gary
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism