OUR AYATOLLAH ALLY:

In Iraq, Give Peace a Chance (YITZHAK NAKASH, 4/10/04, NY Times)

America's best bet is Grand Ayatollah Sistani. He is the pre-eminent religious leader and alone has the authority to rein in Mr. Sadr and steer Iraqi Shiites away from revolt. A compromise would be in America's interest as well as the ayatollah's: by taming Mr. Sadr, he would further consolidate his own power among the Shiites.

The two clerics represent different generations and sensibilities, as well as competing schools of thought within Shiism. Mr. Sadr derives his standing from the legacy of his father, Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, who was gunned down by the Baathists in 1999. He wants to establish an Islamic government throughout Iraq, using grass-roots mobilization. In his mind, politics should serve religion, so he does not accept any separation between church and state.

By contrast, the elderly and seasoned Ayatollah Sistani belongs to the quietist school within Shiism. Although he has a vision of what an Islamic government should be, he is not inspired by Iran. His emphasis is on ensuring government accountability and the protection of religion.

It is a mistake to think of the current crisis as simply an attack by Mr. Sadr on the occupation. In fact, a crucial struggle is under way for the leadership of the Shiite community, its loyalties and resources. Nevertheless, there is a real possibility that this struggle could end in compromise.

Ayatollah Sistani clearly has the clout and political acumen necessary to reason with Mr. Sadr. While the young firebrand has been unintimidated by the coalition authority, he has acknowledged Ayatollah Sistani's religious seniority and shown no interest in directly defying the elder cleric — an act that would cause a rupture within Shiism. Mr. Sadr probably also realizes that an all-out war between the Shiites and the coalition forces would end in defeat and tarnish Shiite dreams of leading the new Iraq. Thus he may well accept a compromise brokered by the ayatollah, provided it gave his movement a political future.

America's wisest move would be to urge Ayatollah Sistani to begin talks with Mr. Sadr at his home in Najaf. Such a meeting would signal Mr. Sadr's recognition of the grand ayatollah as the supreme Shiite leader. Any compromise would inevitably have to include a statement by Mr. Sadr renouncing violence and instructing his militiamen to return power in the cities under their control to the Iraqi police. In return, the coalition authority would agree not to attempt to arrest Mr. Sadr or to provoke him in the future. It would also permit Mr. Sadr to re-open his newspaper, Al Hawza, which was shut down last month, provided it stops inciting violence.

This is the one aspect of the war for which the Administration does deserve considerable criticism, but few in the west seem to grasp it. There was never going to be a unified tripartite Iraq--with Kurd, Sunni, & Shi'ite amicably sharing power--nor should that have been our goal. Kurdistan will be a sepoarate state eventually and the Shi'ites will dominate the affairs of the rest of the country. The only question is whether the Sunni choose to live in a Shi'ite state or whether they'll have to leave or be cleansed. Given the inevitable dominance of Ayatollah Sistani we should have been much more solicitous of his desires from the get go.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 10, 2004 9:13 AM