Sistani: A beard full of “hell, no!” on U.S. bases?
After seemingly disappearing from the scene for several months, Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani may have decided it’s time to assert himself again. Days after an apparent leak to the Associated Press that the aging cleric was expressing private approval of armed resistance to the U.S. occupation, the Iranian Press TV network reports:
Iraq’s most revered Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has strongly objected to a ‘security accord’ between the US and Iraq.
The Grand Ayatollah has reiterated that he would not allow Iraq to sign such a deal with “the US occupiers” as long as he was alive, a source close to Ayatollah Sistani said.
The source added the Grand Ayatollah had voiced his strong objection to the deal during a meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the holy city of Najaf on Thursday.
The remarks were made amid reports that the Iraqi government might sign a long-term framework agreement with the United States, under which Washington would be allowed to set up permanent military bases in the country and US citizens would be granted immunity from legal prosecution in the country.
So far the Iranian agency is the only media outlet reporting this, but since I anticipated the possibility of this development on Thursday ["It’s notable that Sistani’s allies made a concerted effort to leak this news the day after the grand ayatollah met with prime minister Maliki, during which he likely conveyed his thoughts on what kind of agreement with the U.S. (if any) would pass muster with the marjaiya"], I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out to be accurate.
As I wrote elsewhere yesterday, Sistani’s goal is that when the dust settles from the fall of Saddam, Iraq will be a Shiite-governed country — which includes not being under the thumb of the United States. But remembering that in 1920 the Shiites openly fought an occupation and wound up subjugated by the Sunnis who allied with it, he’s pursued a strategy of trying to outmaneuver and outlast the U.S. rather than rebelling directly.
Now, though, he’s faced with a Bush administration whose time is running out, and which is probably pulling out all the stops to browbeat the Maliki government into signing a long-term agreement. As a result, the grand ayatollah may have recognized that the time has come to take a firmer stand… or at least threaten to do so.
Hopefully, for the old man’s sake, Dubya/Cheney & Co. won’t view the “as long as I’m alive” part of Sistani’s alleged statement as a loophole to be exploited.
May 24th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Sistani wasn’t in-country when we arrived there, so could not award us sweets and flowers.
I’m cheering him on since his return… don’t know if he’s a good guy or not, but at least he seems consistant!
I support our troops by wanting them back in the US.
I’ll take his word that he wants that same goal.
May 25th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
njr >> I think Sistani was in Iraq when the US arrived, he was (and had been for a few years) under house arrest by Saddam. He left Iraq at some point in 2004 due to a heart condition (or something else cardiovascular) to receive treatment in London.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:03 am
[...] fatwa looks less like a sign of impending doom and more like an AP misreport. That said, Cernig, Swopa and Juan Cole point to an Iranian report that says the Grand Ayatollah forbids the Maliki [...]
June 11th, 2008 at 9:43 am
[...] that. Â I’ve written before about the ultimate eviction of U.S. troops being part of the long-term plan of the Shiite hierarchy, and the rhetoric the Shiite pols are ratcheting up at the moment seems [...]
July 9th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
[...] Ali Sistani. When the drumbeat of SOFA criticism began a month and a half ago, I think it was just yours truly who not only identified it but tied it to a similar conversation between Sistani and prime [...]