THEY'RE AFRAID OF THE SHI'A...CAN'T SLEEP AT NIGHT:

Fearing the Shia: Why the world of pseudo-realpolitik wants to postpone the Iraqi elections. (Tom Donnelly, 01/13/2005, Weekly Standard)

THE ESTABLISHMENTARIAN CRITIQUE of President Bush's policy in Iraq--and the scheming neocons for whom the president is supposed to be the Manchurian Candidate--is that they are blinded by ideology. There is, almost certainly, a grain of truth in this, but it comes from a profound belief in the American creed; it is the establishment that has the greatest difficulty in seeing reality in Iraq clearly.

It is, in fact, a near-ideological belief in conventional-wisdom circles that Iraq is poised on the edge of a civil war and that a truly representative government in Baghdad, reflecting the political will of Iraq's Shia majority, is a danger to the United States. One can almost hear the heavy sighs of regret at having deposed Saddam. Foggy Bottom in winter is a somber place. [...]

For a long time conventional wisdom about Iraq has insisted upon conflating the differences among Iraqi and Iranian Shia. This Shia-fear stems not only from the American experience of the Iranian Revolution but from many decades of propagandizing by the region's Sunni autocrats and monarchs. But a clear reading of Iraq today reveals not a lumpen Shiatariat but a pluralistic political community ranging from Abdel Aziz al-Hakim to Ahmed Chalabi. What brings them together, after generations of "estrangement" from Iraqi politics, is the chance at a decent life, a taste of liberty, and the pursuit of some happiness.

Ordinary Americans might be forgiven for wondering why it is that toppling a dangerous dictator, liberating a violently suppressed majority, and electing a representative government was a strategic mistake whose consequences should be postponed as long as possible. You have to be a member of the foreign-policy elite to understand these things.

Given the pro-American sentiment in Iran and the agitation for liberalization, just twenty-five years after the Revolution, it seems fair to ask why an Iraq that followed the Iranian model wouldn't ultimately be in our interest too, even if that's a less desirable path than skipping the Islamic Republic phase altogether.

MORE:
How Iran could help the US in Iraq: The traditional focus of the United States' enmity toward Iran - its support for anti-Israel groups and doubts about its nuclear ambitions - has been eclipsed by accusations of Tehran meddling in Iraq's affairs. Yet Iranian and US goals for Iraq are the same, if only Washington would listen. (Massoud Khodabandeh, 1/18/05, Asia Times)

Omar Musa, secretary general of the Arab League, speaking just before the occupation of Iraq, said the invasion would "open the gates of hell". Part of this hell for the US is the wide open opportunity afforded to its enemy to establish an Iranian-style Islamic republic in Iraq, or at the very least to engineer the election of an Iraqi government dominated by Shi'ites subject to Iranian influence.

Certainly, any gain Iran makes, especially as it would have been paid for by the US invasion of Iraq, is intolerable to Washington. And perhaps the Iranians know this better than anybody else. Given this mutual hostility and fear, it may be surprising to learn that what Iran actually wants is stability in Iraq rather than chaos and the disintegration of the country. There is no evidence either that Iran wants a rival Shi'ite Islamic republic on its doorstep. So in a sense, Iranian and US goals are the same. What separates them is the amount of influence each will have on the formation of the new government.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 18, 2005 1:20 PM