All seem to agree, at this point, that the Shi’ite-majority Iraqi Army did an, uh, less-than-adequate job defending Iraq’s Sunni-majority areas - Mosul, Anbar, etc. - from the Islamic State. The Shi’ites seem to know they’re not welcome around those parts, and they certainly don’t seem very interested in defending them.
So… How come we haven’t heard any calls for an independent “Shiastan,” an Iran-backed “Islamic Republic Of Iraq,” without all those troublesome Sunnis? After all, the Shi’ites have already all but cleansed Baghdad of Sunnis - stunning maps here - so there’s your capital right there. Such a state would have lots and lots of oil - IIRC, all major Iraqi oil fields are in the Shi’ite south (Basra, Amarah, Qurna, Rumalia and Sadr City). What’s more, “Shiastan” would naturally include most of the important Shi’ite shrines, in Kerbala, Najaf and Kufa (with Samarra’s Al-Askari Shrine as the only major exception I can think of).
And yet, I have heard no calls for such a state. Why? Is it religious reasons (“verily this ummah of yours is one ummah” - 23:52)? Lingering nationalism from the Saddam years? Some tricky political something-or-other I simply haven’t thought of?
I think there are oil fields in the North as well, and pipelines? In any case, why give up pieces when you can dominate the whole thing?
Major Shia clerics in Iraq do not really hold to Khomeini’s radical views about government (Even in Iran, many of the highest ranked clerics are not reliable supporters of his ideas). Grand Ayatollah Sistani gives a kind of wishy-washy answer on this question in his website.
That Question and Answer section, by the way, is lots of fun.
I wonder if the area would be better off becoming part of Iran. At least then they would have a competent government that could protect them against IS. The Kurds could then officially form their own state as well in Northern Iraq and Syria ( after some help kicking IS out of those areas).
But what about when you can’t dominate the whole thing?
The Kurds aren’t going to give up the Kirkuk oil fields anytime soon - I’m sure the Shi’ites know that better than anybody. And as for the Sunnis, well, maybe the Shi’ites are slowly beginning to realise that maybe, just maybe, they’re more trouble than they’re worth?
Excellent point. But I suppose such a country could still work without ye olde velayat e-faqih, no? Call it The Sumerian Republic, if you will. Free, open, one-man one-vote elections, of the kind Sistani likes. He himself gets to stay in the background, rolling his thumbs and mulling over metaphysics to his quietist heart’s content.
Very good point - I hadn’t thought about the dams.
Well, a smaller, more homogenous country would presumably be easier to run than a larger, more heterogeneous country. So incompetence would actually be a point in favour of independence, when you think about it.
Not like it would be good decision, or that anyone could impose it from the outside even if it were, but I also wonder why I hear fairly frequent calls for an independent Kurdish homeland but no corresponding calls for a Sunni or Shi’ite nation state. Especially since “Shi’ite vs. Sunni” seems to have been the major source of Iraqi tension and violence since before Saddam.
Isn’t this ISIS’s plan? Like, they take over the Sunni areas of Iraq, and leave the rump Iraqi government in charge of only the Shi’a areas.
This is already the de facto situation in Iraq. The national government of Iraq is run by the Shi’a. So what you’re proposing is not that the Shi’a form an independent state, but that they write off the Sunni areas to whatever government forms there. Which is, you know, ISIS.
Obviously they’ll have to fight a war to establish the exact boundaries of the two states. So we’re pretty lucky that the partition process is already so far along.
There’s actually a movement afoot that a Shia Pakistani-American friend told me about, to carve a Shia homeland out of Pakistan and name it Hussainistan. (Hussain, son of Ali, is an iconic figure for Shia Muslims). It seems super problematic logistically, largely because it would consist of three widely separated exclaves.
Iraq is not an Islamic Republic, plus why refer to it by a sect in the country’s name? Makes no sense, take “Catholic Irish Republic” or any such outlandish name? Iraq is not wholly Shia, and country’s that are almost one sect or religion, almost never mention it in their conventional long form name. Iraq is Iraq, always will be. Heck if the Kurds were to break away, Iraq would still be Iraq just as if Scotland were to break away, Britain would still be United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Or Quebec breaking, Canada would still be Canada?
Makes no sense, Shiastan is stupid, Iraq is no more the land of Shia as it is any other sect or religion.
Because forming a nation out of a sect is nonsensical, Kurds are an ethnic group. Arab Shias and Sunnis are both Arabs, why the split. I know about Ireland and Northern Ireland, but that is an exception.
Oh and joining Iran makes no sense, just because they have the same sect does not mean anything. Iraq is majority Arab, and has its culture and history, why join Iran?
