Following a bloody Palm Sunday weekend in Iraq that left scores killed, including nine American soldiers, the country finds itself in its most politically precarious situation since the fall of Baghdad a year ago this Friday.
When U.S. troops supported by battle tanks toppled Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad’s Firdous Square last April 9, heralding the end of the Ba’ath regime’s dictatorship, the Pentagon planners of the Iraq war believed the worst was over. But little did they know what would come next.
The sudden flare-up of fighting over the last few days has produced some of the worst violence yet, and all indications are the situation can only get worse. The announcement by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority on Monday of an arrest warrant for Sheik Moqtada al-Sadr, who they say is wanted for murder, will undoubtedly feed the current unrest, giving the Iraq conflict a new — and precarious — dimension.
The violent clashes in Baghdad, Najaf, Fallujah and other parts of Iraq as of Monday left at least 13 American troops dead and many more wounded; additionally, a Salvadoran soldier killed when a mob forced a live grenade into his mouth; scores of Iraqi Shi’ites have been killed and hundreds more wounded.
The Shi’ites are mostly followers of the firebrand, staunchly anti-American cleric Sadr, whom the Coalition now accuses of killing Ayatollah Abdel Majid al-Khoi, shortly after the latter’s return from his London exile last April. Sheik al-Sadr now is on the run from the law, but whether U.S. troops can actually move in and arrest the rebellious imam remains to be seen.
The flint that sparked this latest round of violence was the closing by the U.S. civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer of Sadr’s publication, al-Hawza, accused of inciting violence and printing inflammatory and false articles. This led to demonstrations by Sadr’s supporters and eventually to clashes with U.S. soldiers. The situation quickly spiraled downward.
There is, however, more to the story first appears, and many questions arise. First, besides being Sheik al-Sadr’s “testing” of American resolve and might, fewer than 90 days before the United States takes a backseat in running the country, what is now transpiring also is a battle for controlling the Shi’ite street, to see who will lead Iraq’s largest ethno-religious group.
These latest events are also a clash of leadership between Aytollah Sadr, who demands immediate withdrawal of U.S. and other coalition troops from Iraq, and the milder and more moderate stance of the older Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who favors a quieter transition and more caution.
Sheik al-Sadr, on the other hand, opposes waiting for the June 30 handover, demanding the U.S.-led coalition leave immediately. With Shi’ites forming about 60 percent of Iraq’s population, Sheik al-Sadr believes his coreligionists should assume immediate control of their destiny.
Sheik al-Sadr is relatively young and inexperienced but nevertheless commands a following strong enough to stir trouble, as became evident this past weekend. He rules much of the Baghdad slum of Sadr City, named for his father who was killed by Saddam, and has an estimated 5,000 armed followers.
The development to watch for is whether the mainstream Shi’ite movement falls in behind Sheik al-Sadr and joins the anti-U.S. movement or waits instead on the sidelines for the U.S. to remove him from the political scene.
Allowing the Americans to take out Sheik al-Sadr would be politically most advantageous for Ayatollah Sistani. That would leave him a clear political field as he then would be the one remaining Shi’ite leader. Since Saddam’s downfall last spring, a number of prominent Shi’ite leaders have been killed.
However, if Ayatollah Sistani — or the Iranian-backed al-Badr Brigade, with more than 10,000 armed supporters — jumps into the fray, it could spell real trouble for the United States. Iran must be interested in the outcome in neighboring Iraq. Tehran’s ayatollahs undoubtedly would relish seeing the U.S. embroiled in war in the Baghdad slums.
On Monday, there already was talk of sending more troops to Iraq to help quell the troubles. In its last rotation, the United States reduced American troops in Iraq from 130,000 to about 100,000. But if the violence continues, additional forces would certainly be needed.
Another danger not to be discounted is that Sheik al-Sadr would attempt a “hostile takeover” of the Shi’ite leadership by physically eliminating Ayatollah Sistani. If that were successful, it could gain the militant ayatollah unprecedented power and give the U.S.-led coalition genuine cause for concern. On the other hand, an attempt on Ayatollah Sistani also could pit Shi’ite against Shi’ite. This would render very questionable the June 30 deadline for handing over sovereignty to Iraqis, despite President Bush’s Monday reaffirmation that the date was not subject to revision.
Regardless of the outcome, there is one Shi’ite who stands to gain by the removal of either ayatollah — Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, who is on the fast track to become the next nexus of power in Iraq.
Second, these events are unsettling because, until now at least, most of the violence came from the Sunni population and was limited to the so-called Sunni Triangle. For example, last week’s horrendous killing and mutilation of four civilian contractors occurred in Fallujah, in the heart of Sunni territory.
But this recent outbreak involving the Shi’ite community sets a dangerous precedent and has moved the conflict to previously quieter areas of the country. If not intelligently addressed, it could rapidly broaden into a quagmire and draw the United States into a vicious version of an Iraqi intifada, and a conflict without a foreseeable end.
Claude Salhani is international editor of United Press International.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.