This is not quite correct. Sistani is not ( nor is any of the rest of Najaf hawza ) a secularist. Allawi is a secularist. Sistani is ‘quietist’. He believes the clergy should intervene in national politics at times of crisis ( as now ) and on moral issues to counsel and help guide the state. He believes in Islamic law ( at least for Muslims ). You might best call him a “moderate Islamist.”
Meanwhile the largest single block of the UIA, the SCIRI/Badr Organization group, with probably some factions of Hezbollah and al-Da’wa, represent the more Iranian-oriented velayat e-faqih section. Outside the formal UIA slate the Sadrists these days seem to fall into this category as well - the elder Sadr was a bit of a fence-sitter on the topic, but of late the younger Sadr seems to be in accord with currently Iranian-based Grand Ayatollah Kazem al-Haeri ( sometimes referred to as the ‘fifth Iraqi Grand Ayatollah’, to distinguish him from the four in-country GA’s - he was in Iraq until exiled in the 1970’s ), who appears to be something of a good ole’ firebreather in the Khomeini mold. Of course there isn’t much all the Sadrists and SCIRI agree on beyond that.
The big political debate in Iraq ( presuming current trends hold up, which isn’t certain ) is not likely to be secularism vs. Islamism. To quote from a recent SF Chronicle article:
*The clerics of Najaf who orchestrated the Shiite coalition say they expect a constitutional debate between hard-line Islamists, who want Quranic law to be the constitution’s primary source, and moderate Muslims who want a milder form of religious law. This debate, they say, will dwarf any challenge from secular parties. *
Oh, I should add that all thing being equal ( i.e. we don’t start seeing catastrophic collapse of one sort or another ), I would expect the moderates to “win” that fight as they pretty much hold the default compromise ground between the ( lagging )secularists and the more extremist Islamists.
I daydream of a grant program that would fund (not supply) computers for members of Iran’s police/security structures’ personel as well as college students, with a stipulation that the computers are purchased from an Iranian source.
Last I heard, Parsi was near number four on the list of internet common languages.
The Arena of Ideas is absolutely the most appropriate battleground for promoting Liberty and democratic reforms.
An influx of money for Iranian computer companies will boost that industry and it’s peripherial industries like ISPs. More Iranians talking to one another equals more opportunities for intelectual solidarity among reform minded people of all stripes. This allows for better organization which allows for increased political effectiveness.
Some call this sort of a thing ‘non-violent conflict.’ I prefer to think of it as ‘more efficient conflict.’
The police and military personel must be brought on board. Providing these folks w/ computers for their personal use is essential to creating an opening for them to compete in the Arena of Ideas. Who knows how many have refromist type sympathies?
Once the security structure has been removed from the tool belt of any who would wish to deny the Iranian electorate justice in their own country under their own laws the will of the electorate will be more free to seek its expression.
Of course, this doen’t really amount to political or economic collapse of Iran (which, IMHO, seems extremely and exceptionally counterproductive to international security) so much as it amounts to fertlizing the seeds of reform.
At first glance, working with a populace’s free will is cheaper and easier while yeilding far greater returns than trying to break it.
Of course, there’re some spendthrifts who will still find it more satisfying to advocate giving Iran all out heck. Perhaps they have a good point, but I’m not sure what it is exactly.
General Patton wanted to nuke north korea and china in the Korean war, that would’ve led to millions of deaths and probably a nuclear holocaust by the USSR. Luckily he was fired after he brought that up.
its not the people who make these decisions like using nuclear weapons, its the military leaders and politicians who decide if nukes are used. The public have no say other than an ability to vote in politicians once in a while.
General Patton wanted to nuke north korea and china in the Korean war, that would’ve led to millions of deaths and probably a nuclear holocaust by the USSR. Luckily he was fired after he brought that up.
its not the people who make these decisions like using nuclear weapons, its the military leaders and politicians who decide if nukes are used. The public have no say other than an ability to vote in politicians once in a while.
Yes, but there were educated polititians who made sure this never happened, theres more room for manovure in a democracy than a dictatorship, its easier to back down, because the people gave you a mandate to be in charge, and if you’re wrong then you have to take these people into account.
Given that self-denial & eschewing luxury is a major component of all of the monotheistic religions originating in the Middle East, cutting off the dough won’t stop the mullahs.
But shutting down the food, would.
Ban agricultural supplies & equipment, & things would change–fast!
And the world would, quite rightly, call us monsters.
So I agree, be patient. Change will come, in time. No quick fixes.
Are you completely stupid or just evil? We certainly don’t need to make Iran collapse economically! We want Iran’s political culture to get strong enough to throw off the mullahs!
Well moron, since Iran seems to employ state monopolies on the economy, it is a good idea to remove that tool which helps the Mullahs oppress Iranian citizens. Geez, yes I am evil :rolleyes:
:dubious: An interruption in Iran’s oil exports would do a lot more short-term damage to all the countries you named than it would do to Iran. I.e., we need the oil more than they need the money. In the long run it might be different – but I can’t see us sticking with an embargo long enough to find out.
I am not sure that that is true. I believe that there is a certain portion of the population beyond the mullahs willing to continue to support Hezbollah, but I have seen no indication that that is a general opinion of the public. On the other hand, there is very little popular support for the rhetoric of the “Great Satan” of Khomeini’s day. Through their (religiously constricted) elections, the Iranian voters have demonstrated a willingness to engage the West in open dialogue.
(This is one of my fears regarding the sabre rattling that Bush and Rice enjoy: the Iranian people may want to replace the religious oligarchy with more democratic processes, but they will close ranks and rally around the mullahs if they perceive that their nation is being attacked. The current administration seems to want to unify them against us.)