One Utah

If you think things can’t get any worse in Iraq, think again. The Associated Press reports that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has issued fatwas encouraging armed resistance against the U.S. occupation. Assuming this is true (and it fits what we know of Sistani and the current situation), at the very least it ends the neocon fantasy of establishing permanent military bases.

Al-Sistani is often described as Iraq’s most influential Shiite cleric, but his influence also extends to Shiite believers everywhere in the world. Al-Sistani’s distaste for the U.S. presence is no secret, but he has previously avoided answering even abstract questions on whether fighting the U.S. presence in Iraq is allowed by Islam.

According to the AP article, al-Sistani may be expressing opposition to any agreement by Baghdad to allow a long-term U.S. military foothold in Iraq — part a deal that is currently under negotiation and could be signed as early as July. If so, he is likely to have the final word. The Iraqi parliament is unlikely to ratify any such deal over his opposition.

What has happened? The recent successes of the Mahdi Army in defending Basra and Sadr City from U.S., British and Maliki/Hakim forces may have made a difference. Writes Matt Duss on Think Progress:

I think it’s possible that Sistani is responding to pressure from Sadrists who condemned him for his silence during the U.S. and Iraqi army siege of Sadr City. It’s also striking how closely the language of these edicts appears to accord with what Muqtada al-Sadr himself has advocated and prohibited in terms of resistance to foreign occupiers. Contrary to some reports, Sistani did not advocate the disbanding of the Mahdi Army, but rather simply did not rule on the question, effectively leaving the Mahdi Army intact. While Sistani may regard Sadr as an unruly upstart, Sistani also recognizes that Sadr represents a massive constituency that cannot be ignored.

If there is indeed an unacknowledged U.S. strategy of trying to stay in Iraq by setting rival Shiite politicians and militias against one another, it appears to have failed.

UPDATE: Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum says, “this ranks fairly high on the worry meter.”

UPDATE: A source close to the office of al-Sistani in Najaf has offered a clarification: “Sistani supports resistance to the occupation, but not by military means, at the present time.”

UPDATE: Spencer Ackerman weighs in regarding Sistani’s opposition to the U.S.-Iraq long-term security agreement (aka permanent occupation).

This entry was posted Thursday, May 22nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm and is filed under Disaster, Iraq, Mahdi Army, National Politics, Religion, This Blog, War. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.