Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

Chicago Tribune

Cliffs notes: Shiite militia leader Moqtada al Sadr has ordered his militia not to fight the Americans arriving in Baghdad as part of the Presidents "surge".

Analysis: Short term this is obviously good news. Sadr is the major player among the Shiite camp in Iraq. His order will help us to keep Baghdad calm and reduce the US body count.

The problem is that this doesn't represent a huge change for Sadr. He has always preferred to keep his attacks confined to Iraqi Sunnis. Also, he still enjoys the protection of the Shiite dominated Iraqi government. I suspect that Sadr is just trying to lay low while he continues to kill Sunnis in anticipation of a Shiite dominated government after the US leaves.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

All,

Here's the deal w/ politics and other opinion-themed discussions in this forum.

I'm all for them.

However, I'm not for circular, repetitive arguments. And I'm not for stupid bickering.

So, offer your thoughts and rebuttals to points people make. But do one round of that. Don't respond back with the same point you already made. If three people have made the point already, don't pile on repeating the same thing.

Don't make snarky, trolling posts. An occassional witty rip on someone is of course fine. And, yes, I'll make arbitrary judgements about what falls into each category.

I'm happy to have discussions about anything, just don't want them to erupt into long bitchfests.

Having said that, carry on.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

iron,

One thing that sorta troubles me is the fact that Iraq has been something that I almost tune out now. Part of me feels like this is one of the most important things our country is involved in, both from a geopolitical perspective and from an internal "impact on American sentiment" perspective, and because of that I should have an awareness of the issue. However, what I find myself doing is being pretty keenly aware of high-level American involvement and the reactions of the general populace towards them, but with little real knowledge of the political situation over there, factions involved, etc. I suspect that many people are just like me and pretty much ignore much of what really goes on over there.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

the country should be split in three, is anyone really against that? some people just hate other people and that's the way it's going to be.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on what seems like the most likely scenario for how all this is going to play out, devoid of partisan rancor.

What frustrates me is people who seem to be hoping for disaster simply because their hatred of Gearge Bush supersedes all. Although no one will admit that of course. For the sake of the Iraqi people and world stability I'd really like to think there's some ray of hope.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
the country should be split in three, is anyone really against that? some people just hate other people and that's the way it's going to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mostly just the people who live in the part of the country that doesn't have oil, which is of course, most of the country. I don't think splitting the country into 3 will actually prevent a "civil war" over borders between the parts that are split off.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

I think that it as apparent that Sadr will do whatever is necessary to maintain his position and levels of violence until we leave at which time he will unleash genocide and revolution. Of course it's in his best interest for his troops not to fight American troops, that's not the battle he wants. iron81 is exactly correct.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

Turkey has big big problems with an indpendent Kurdish state and has come out that they would put up a fight to that.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
the country should be split in three, is anyone really against that? some people just hate other people and that's the way it's going to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Daryn,

the problem is that the 3 groups are not separated along geographical lines many areas are mixed. The fear is that if you divide the country into thirds each group will then want to "purify" their part which could result in the killing of innocent people. Additionally there is a very large problem of how the oil resources would be divided, as well as concerns of Turkey of what affects having a neighboring Kurdish country would have on its stability.

Is it worth considering? yes but it is far from black and white like Joe Biden and some others would have us believe.

All of that being said. I agree with you and think that is what will end up happening one way or the other

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

For those who haven't been keeping track, here's an update on whats happening with regard to Iraq:

The new Democratic Congress has been making noise opposing the President's "Surge" plan to deploy 20,000 new troops to secure Baghdad. Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are currently negotiating a non-binding resolution opposing the plan.

The reason Bush is doing this is that infighting between Shiite elements backed by Iran and Sunni elements backed by Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda have been killing each other in Baghdad to the tune of about 100 casualties a day. Formerly mixed neighborhoods are becoming Sunni and Shiite dominated.

A big reason it has got to this point is that Al-Sadr is closely aligned with the Shiite dominated Iraqi Government headed by Prime Minister Ayman Al-Alawi (sp?). In addition to his militia, Sadr has become a kingmaker in Shiite politics. As a result, Alawi has taken no steps to rein him in and in fact has thwarted limited US efforts to fight him.

Of course, US efforts at fighting the Shiites are on the backburner because we have our hands full with the Sunni insurgency. The US toll passed 3,000 a month ago.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

El D, the reason I chose Iraq as the topic is because I share your concern that people around here aren't giving the war enough attention. There was recently a protest in Washington with 30-70k people that didn't raise a peep in here. I wanted to do this thread because most people don't come into my forum.

Suzzer, I think the most likely outcome is that Iraq will remain unified. The Democracy will continue, but in an autocratic fashion similar to Egypt: technically a democracy, but with little actual freedom. The Democracy will be ruled by Sadr or another Shiite religious figure. The country will not be divided because of US and Turkish pressure and the Kurds are pretty happy with their current autonomy, even though they are the only faction that truly desires independence.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
the country should be split in three, is anyone really against that? some people just hate other people and that's the way it's going to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking the other day about how after WW2 they chopped up Germany but good and Berlin why something like that wouldn't work there too. I admit I haven't looked at all the sides nor care enough to but it seems "logical"

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

A big opponent to the split is Turkey. The Kurdish region of Iraq is in the north, near Turkey. Turkey's south east also has a large Kurdish population. Turkey, a US ally and NATO member, fears that if northern Iraq was made into Kurdistan, then the Kurdish part of Turkey would want to secede and join it. Turkey doesn't want a civil war, and they don't want to give up their land freely if their Kurdish citizens ask nicely instead, so they're quite opposed to it. It's too much of a risk to their stability.

Iron,

I think that this is a pretty reasonable political thread for EDGD. It's not as disgustingly partisan as many, and it's more informative than argumentative.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

Germany got chopped because the allies let the Soviets take Berlin. We had to airlift food there in what, '47? Patton saw the cold war coming and maybe if we had more foresight the Berlin Wall and subsequent oppression of eastern Europe wouldn't have happened.

Iraq can't really be divided because the only ethnic group with a strong regional presence is the Kurds in the north, and they have been autonomous for years. Baghdad cannot be divided amongst Sunnis and Shiites and that is where the violence is taking place. I don't know the solution but I agree that too few people seem to care about what is happening. Sound bites won't result in a victory or even a net positive outcome for the U.S. yet that seems to be the primary weapon of the left and right regarding Iraq.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

The Economist discussed this development last week, and brought out two important points:
1. The execution of Saddam did a lot to make the Shiites feel secure in their position in post-war Iraq. At least some of the violence against Sunnis must have been driven by a desire to protect against them returning to power.
2. Sadr himself is a politician, not a frothing-at-the-mouth genocidaire. Supporting atrocities against Shiites was once a profitable position, but both the Iraqi government and Bush have signaled their intention to crack down on this sort of behavior. So it makes sense for him to realign, not ruffle any feathers, and allow the fringe elements of his organization take the fall.

Bottom line I think this is a very good step. Even if Sadr intends to bide his time and start up again later, if this lull is combined with strong law enforcemen operations against his troops and a decrease in the level of violence in this country, he may find it impossible to drum up support for a revival of his war against the US and the Iraqi government.

The big downside is that this does nothing to protect the Shiite population from Sunni attacks. In fact, it will likely make them more vulnerable. If something can't be done there, then this will all be for naught.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

Partitioning Iraq is more complicated than it seems. Iraq is a country with artificial borders. In fact, nearly every country in the mideast has extremely artificial borders. There is a reason why a lot of those countries are referred to as "tribes with flags.
If they split up Iraq based on the idea that the borders are artificial and people don't get along, it will open a pandora's box. Those two problems exist in every country in the region. This line of thinking will probably encourage secession in other places.
In addition, we already know that Iran is becoming a player and Saudi Arabia said it would step in to protect Sunni interests. Any fighting during or after a partition will thus involve Iraq's neighbors. There is also the problem of who gets the oil.
It may be that there will not be peace in the Middle East until we have organic and tenable borders. But to solve that problem is to upend the whole foundation of the region.
An ironic note to this is that the British created Iraq from 3 distinc provinces and chose the name "Iraq" because it means "well-rooted country" in Arabic. Incidentally the main person in charge of drawing the borders for Iraq and every other country was the Colonial Secretary post WWI, Winston Churchill

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

Haven't you guys read the story of the new american embassy in bagdad? (1 billion dollar embassy). The usa ain't going nowhere for a long, long time.

For your history buffs, correct me if im wrong but advisors to the american president during ww2 suggested 3 million troops to occupy germany. It doesn't take a genius to see that Rumsfeld left out a couple of 0's in terms of how many troops where needed for the Iraq war.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

Iron81,

Do you feel comfortable doing an 'ask me' thread about the situation in Iraq?

I feel the same way as El Diablo. Basically I know enough to know it's a terrible spot we've put ourselves in and that something needs to be done. With some more specific knowledge I would feel more comfortable discussing the subject.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
For your history buffs, correct me if im wrong but advisors to the american president during ww2 suggested 3 million troops to occupy germany. It doesn't take a genius to see that Rumsfeld left out a couple of 0's in terms of how many troops where needed for the Iraq war.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've heard multiple local politicians (e.g. Senator Jon Kyl among them) bemoan the half-assed effort regarding Iraq, i.e. doing enough to placate the American public, not enough to get the job done. Akin to dipping a foot into the pool without jumping in - how much difference could it make?

FWIW I'm glad this thread hasn't devolved into total partisan stupidity yet, I've enjoyed it, but it seems that if it goes on long enough something like that is inevitable.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
the country should be split in three, is anyone really against that? some people just hate other people and that's the way it's going to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple posters have touched on why the country will not be split up but no one has mentioned the worst case scenario:

A Sunni state will become a safe-haven for Al-Qaeda.

A Shia state will be nothing more than a puppet for Iran.

A Kurd state might have the same outcome as a Shia state.

This situation is extremely complicated and there is no easy way out. Slate did a multi-piece set on Dubai a couple weeks ago and a Palestenian who lives there now and lived in the U.S. before said that Dubai is what the Middle East could have been if all the colonialism and intervention didnt happen; Great Britain left Dubai in 1922 I believe.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

There are some interesting documentaries about the Werewolves in Germany, who were basically the true beleiver nazis-for-life. They caused a decent amount of havoc for about 3 years after the end of the war, then finally faded away.

Interesting thing is the Japanese were probably more brainwashed than the Germans, but once they were told to lay down by their Emperor, they pretty much all did as a society. Very different approaches to authority between cultures.

These guys in Iraq are scarier because they're made up of (a) Al Queda who seem to be even more hardcore in their beliefs, and (b) ex-Baathists and Sunnis for whom the worst-case scenrio if they lose could be annihilation of Sunni society. Also most of the Baathists have now been converted to fundamental Islam. Not sure how much that will take once their marriage of convenience with Al Queada is over.

Do people in the know generally think that the baathists could have somehow been kept in the power structure more, or was this inevitable?

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
A Shia state will be nothing more than a puppet for Iran.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't Iran and Al Sadr mortal enemies, or do I have that wrong? When everyone hates almost everyone else, it's so hard to keep track.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]

Bottom line I think this is a very good step. Even if Sadr intends to bide his time and start up again later, if this lull is combined with strong law enforcemen operations against his troops and a decrease in the level of violence in this country, he may find it impossible to drum up support for a revival of his war against the US and the Iraqi government.



[/ QUOTE ]

All bets are off as soon as israel tries to de-nuke iran.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

So why don't we just kill this guy? Are we trying?

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
So why don't we just kill this guy? Are we trying?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we don't even go into neighborhoods he controls.

The surge is designed to fix one problem in Baghdad. We go in and clear out insurgents..but we have no local presence in that area and thus once we leave the insurgents come back---same thing that is happening in Afgan.

So now we'll have boots in those areas to stay there and make sure they don't come back.

Two main problems
1. Baghdad is not Iraq...its just a city in Iraq.

2. This is most likly being done so that things will quiet down for a bit and hopefully the problem can be passed on to the next President and his/her administration.

We will know by probably mid summer whether Iraq is headed for consistent turmoil or full scale epic disaster civil war

Fingers
 

[ QUOTE ]
Part of me feels like this is one of the most important things our country is involved in, both from a geopolitical perspective and from an internal "impact on American sentiment" perspective, and because of that I should have an awareness of the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]What I have learned from studying the art of the pickpocket is that more important, much more important than having light fingers, is mastering misdirection. A person will not realize his pocket is being picked by the clumsiest of pickpockets if the latter is a master of misdirection.

I don't know why I suddenly remembered this.

Mickey Brausch

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]


A Sunni state will become a safe-haven for Al-Qaeda.

A Shia state will be nothing more than a puppet for Iran.

A Kurd state might have the same outcome as a Shia state.

[/ QUOTE ]You believe that an independent Kurdistan will become the puppet of ...Iran? And not be an ally of the United States, as loyal as currently are, for example, Albania and Poland?

Mickey Brausch

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

There will be no independent state because Turkey has already said they will intervene militarily if this happens. Then we will have to decide whether or not to fight a NATO ally.

My concern is that we have no morally reputable Iraqi ally to support in Iraq. The Mehdi Army (Al Sadr) and the Badr Brigade (SCIRI- an Iranian backed Shia group) are as blood thirsty and violent as the Sunnis. They are the major powers in the Interior Ministry, the Iraqi Army, and the Iraqi Police and they run the death squads. It's likely it was Iranian Shia groups that infiltrated the military base in Karbala(?) and killed numerous Americans and Iraqi civil servants, possibly with the help of the Iraqi Police.

I believe we are inadvertently carrying the water for Al-Sadr. The recent raid in Najaf killed several hundred fighters of a previously unknown, but ascendant, Shia splinter group that might have eventually threatened Al Sadr's power.

Is this what we should be doing in Iraq? I think not.

We should pull back into Kuwait and Turkey, and to the borders with Iran and Syria and try to seal off the country. Let the Iraqis sort out what's what. If we get intelligence of Iranian agitators or Al-Queda we should send in special forces or surgical air strikes. After the dust clears, if the winners are amenable, we can move in with reconstruction money, material, and manpower.

We really should have more troops in Waziristan in western Pakistan. The intelligence community sometimes refers to this region as "Jihadistan."

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

Iran won't stand for an independent Kurdistan either- they have a large Kurd population as well.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

Iron81,

Why would you not post this in your own forum?

Just curious.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A Shia state will be nothing more than a puppet for Iran.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't Iran and Al Sadr mortal enemies, or do I have that wrong? When everyone hates almost everyone else, it's so hard to keep track.

[/ QUOTE ]

The moslems don't have any pope, but there are constantly different religious leaders aiming to become one, at least a de facto one. There is such a conflict within the Shia branch as well, where the Irani clerics are fighting against Sadr.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
Iron81,

Why would you not post this in your own forum?

Just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]
Answer:

[ QUOTE ]
the reason I chose Iraq as the topic is because I share your concern that people around here aren't giving the war enough attention. There was recently a protest in Washington with 30-70k people that didn't raise a peep in here. I wanted to do this thread because most people don't come into my forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line I think this is a very good step. Even if Sadr intends to bide his time and start up again later, if this lull is combined with strong law enforcemen operations against his troops and a decrease in the level of violence in this country, he may find it impossible to drum up support for a revival of his war against the US and the Iraqi government.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bobman, I think Sadr has more flexibility than you give him credit for. He has been able to ratchet up and ratchet down the violence at will. Do you remember the uprising a year ago when several southern towns were captured? That was Sadr. On top of this, the type of violence plaguing Baghdad: small groups of men grabbing people on the street, is very hard to police. I'm not optimistic about the surge.

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't you guys read the story of the new american embassy in bagdad? (1 billion dollar embassy). The usa ain't going nowhere for a long, long time.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very good point. The US pulled all of its forces out of Saudi Arabia a couple years ago. They did this because previously, our major headache in the region was Iraq and we wanted to keep them contained. Now, our major headaches are Iran and Syria. Iraq is an excellent base to keep an eye on those two countries. When I say pull out, I mean to stop performing policing and counter-insurgency operations. The US will never completely leave unless an Iraqi government hostile to the US takes power. To be honest, I don't know if Sadr would lead such a government, but its possible.

[ QUOTE ]
Iron81,

Do you feel comfortable doing an 'ask me' thread about the situation in Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. I only know what I read in the Chicago Tribune, and I've been skipping reading that a couple times a week. Its been a while since I read an anything as in depth as that Economist article Bobman was talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
Also most of the Baathists have now been converted to fundamental Islam.

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't true. The Sunni insurgency has two main goals: drive the US out and enhance Sunni power within the eventual post US government. There are Al-Qaeda types who want the wider Jihad, but they are the vast minority. They are also fighting the Iraqi government because that group is controlled by Shiites and indeed, some of the death squads are composed of Iraqi Army soldiers. Its not uncommon to hear that the latest atrocity committed against Sunnis was done by people wearing Army uniforms.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

Iron81,

Thanks. Sorry I missed that earlier reply.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
There will be no independent state because Turkey has already said they will intervene militarily if this happens. Then we will have to decide whether or not to fight a NATO ally.
<font color="white"> .</font>
My concern is that we have no morally reputable Iraqi ally to support in Iraq. The Mehdi Army (Al Sadr) and the Badr Brigade (SCIRI- an Iranian backed Shia group) are as blood thirsty and violent as the Sunnis. They are the major powers in the Interior Ministry, the Iraqi Army, and the Iraqi Police and they run the death squads. It's likely it was Iranian Shia groups that infiltrated the military base in Karbala(?) and killed numerous Americans and Iraqi civil servants, possibly with the help of the Iraqi Police.
<font color="white">. </font>
I believe we are inadvertently carrying the water for Al-Sadr. The recent raid in Najaf killed several hundred fighters of a previously unknown, but ascendant, Shia splinter group that might have eventually threatened Al Sadr's power.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Is this what we should be doing in Iraq? I think not.

[/ QUOTE ]I think I realize what happened and Iraq is such a sad snafu.

The guy who was assigned the photo-copying of the plan for post-war Iraq tripped and fumbled in the corridor and the last 20 pages of the plan were lost somewhere in the Pentagon. The American forces had everything down correctly up until the moment where they have to bring the factions together.

Anybody looked in the doghouse?

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

This region of the world has been at war or in a near warlike state for over 2000 years. We are foolish to think that lasting peace is achievable in our or even our grandchildren's' life times.

I'm not placing blame with any one group because I think throughout history all the groups over there have switched between being the oppressor and the oppressed and the conqueror and the conquered.

I think the best interim solution (I don't believe there is a permanent one) is one that that manages to keep everyone in the region somewhat economically prosperous so that fighting over religious and ethic differences becomes less important that keeping the economy rolling. Of course, the countries that are run by despots and sharia probably do not share this view.

As for what the US will do, I am guessing that will left the next President as I see this President maintaining the status quo until 2008.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
Partitioning Iraq is more complicated than it seems. Iraq is a country with artificial borders. In fact, nearly every country in the mideast has extremely artificial borders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not a great analogy, because the two groups really were split along religious lines, but the India-Pakistan debacle provides some historical context.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
The moslems don't have any pope, but there are constantly different religious leaders aiming to become one, at least a de facto one. There is such a conflict within the Shia branch as well, where the Irani clerics are fighting against Sadr.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't know where or how you formulated this opinion, but it's simply not correct.

Sadr hasn't expressed any aspirations to leadership of a transnational Shi'a movement. He's a gangleader, a strongman, and a politician, empowered by the current relative anarchy and political/tribal connections to the new Iraqi government. He's much more Stalin than Lenin, let's put it that way.

Iran's leadership has paid lip service to the idea of regional and global Islamic revolution, but their dream scenario doesn't include splintering Shi'a and Sunni; the revolution's true believers see themselves as the vanguard of a new Islamic polity, not the leaders of the Shi'a world. And having said that, the clerical regime -- much like the Brezhnevian Soviet Union -- has mostly given up on this fantasy in light of crushing domestic reformist pressures.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
This region of the world has been at war or in a near warlike state for over 2000 years. We are foolish to think that lasting peace is achievable in our or even our grandchildren's' life times.

[/ QUOTE ]
The same thing could be said for Europe, at least until 1945. Were we foolish to think that lasting peace was possible there?
[ QUOTE ]
I think the best interim solution (I don't believe there is a permanent one) is one that that manages to keep everyone in the region somewhat economically prosperous so that fighting over religious and ethic differences becomes less important that keeping the economy rolling. Of course, the countries that are run by despots and sharia probably do not share this view.

[/ QUOTE ]How many states in the world are run by sharia law? Hint: approximately zero.

It would be absurd to suggest that everyone's on the same page and just trying to make a little cash, but most of the interested parties (with the exception of Wahhabi/fundamentalist revolutionary groups like al-Qaeda) in the region are pursuing courses of action based on interest, not ideology.

I think everyone agrees that the best solution would be one in which enough security is provided for the government to resume responsibility for its basic functions, namely the maintenance of infrastructure, efficient and fair exploitation of resource wealth, economic engagement with regional neighbors and the world at large, etc. The question is how we get from here to there.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Partitioning Iraq is more complicated than it seems. Iraq is a country with artificial borders. In fact, nearly every country in the mideast has extremely artificial borders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not a great analogy, because the two groups really were split along religious lines, but the India-Pakistan debacle provides some historical context.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't understand this analogy at all.

Pakistan was created out of thin air as the home to the subcontinent's Muslims. Entire populations relocated in order to populate the country. Then East Pakistan (Bangladesh) and West Pakistan broke in a bloody war of secession, with considerable Indian involvement.

How does this analogize with the situation in Iraq?

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The moslems don't have any pope, but there are constantly different religious leaders aiming to become one, at least a de facto one. There is such a conflict within the Shia branch as well, where the Irani clerics are fighting against Sadr.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't know where or how you formulated this opinion, but it's simply not correct.

Sadr hasn't expressed any aspirations to leadership of a transnational Shi'a movement. He's a gangleader, a strongman, and a politician, empowered by the current relative anarchy and political/tribal connections to the new Iraqi government. He's much more Stalin than Lenin, let's put it that way.

Iran's leadership has paid lip service to the idea of regional and global Islamic revolution, but their dream scenario doesn't include splintering Shi'a and Sunni; the revolution's true believers see themselves as the vanguard of a new Islamic polity, not the leaders of the Shi'a world. And having said that, the clerical regime -- much like the Brezhnevian Soviet Union -- has mostly given up on this fantasy in light of crushing domestic reformist pressures.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are both correct, I just worded myself a bit unclearly maybe, at least you misunderstood me. I meant that the Irani clerics seek to have this role and he is an obstacle, not that he wants power in Iran.