News,
Views, &
Analysis Governments,
Lobbies, & the
Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know
IT'S NOW ABOUT IRAN more than IRAQ
Who really bombed the Golden Dome is in much doubt
"The bombing was technically well
conceived and could only
have been carried out by specialists."
"The belief that the attack was the work of American and Israeli
covert-
operations (Black-ops) is widespread throughout the region."
MER - MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 26 February:
Just who really bombed the Golden Dome in Samarra a few days ago? Just
who really benefits the most from this historic act that may have
reshuffled the political geostrategic deck in Iraq and in the region?
There's a long history now in the Middle East of covert operations
blamed on others in order to justify actions the powers that be are
determined to pursue. There's a long history now of both European and
American subterfuge, deception, secret agreements, and 'black ops',
throughout the Middle East region by different powerful countries at
different times. There's a long history now of Israeli Mossad
operations of various kinds for various reasons in Arab countries and
beyond - in recent years more and more coordinated with the Americans.
And in the U.S. there is now considerable evidence of government
deception, lies, and manipulations of its own citizens as well as the
world at large in order to pursue imperialistic policies that have in
the end often resulted in such terrible bloodshed and hatred. Friday
President Bush again loudly fingered Iran as behind the 'terrorism'
taking place throughout the Middle East, further trying to establish in
the public mind justification for what the U.S. and Israel are doing
and planning vis-a-vis Iran. And when it comes to the
much-in-the-news U.A.E. these days the underlying reality is that the
largest U.S. military port and base in the region, and one
strategically placed at such a crucial geopolitical location near Iran
and the oil shipping lanes of the Persian Gulf, is the U.A.E. And
so....taken all together...what is really going on these days in the
Middle East is really more about the future and Iran now than it is
about Iraq and in a sense the past there.
Iraq shrine bombing was specialist job: minister
By Agence France Presse
02/25/06 "AFP" -- -- The bombing of a revered Shiite shrine which
sparked a wave of violence in Iraq was the work of specialists,
Construction Minister Jassem Mohammed Jaafar said Friday, adding that
the placing of the explosives must have taken at least 12 hours.
"According to initial reports, the bombing was technically well
conceived and could only have been carried out by specialists," the
minister told Iraqia state television.
Jaafar, who toured the devastated thousand-year-old shrine on
Thursday a day after the bombing which brought down its golden dome,
said "holes were dug into the mausoleum's four main pillars and packed
with explosives."
"Then the charges were connected together and linked to another
charge placed just under the dome. The wires were then linked to a
detonator which was triggered at a distance," the minister added.
To drill into the pillars would have taken at least four hours per pillar, he also estimated.
Damage to the mausoleum, holding the tombs of the 10th and 11th Shiite Imams, was extensive.
"The dome was completely wrecked and collapsed on the tombs which
were covered over by debris. The shrine's foundations were also
affected as 40 percent of the power of the blast was directed inwards,"
he added.
"It's a historic site, a symbol of Iraqi culture and must be
treated as such," he said, adding that he would call on Iraqi officials
and on UNESCO to help rebuilt the golden mosque.
Jaafar said he survived a double bomb attack while returning from
Samarra when blasts went off in front of his convoy and behind it.
Whose Bombs were they? By Mike Whitney
02/25/06 "ICH"
-- -- “We should stand hand in hand to prevent the danger of a
civil war. We are facing a major conspiracy that is targeting Iraq’s
unity.” Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.
There’s no telling who was behind the bombing of the al-Askariya
Mosque. There were no security cameras at the site and it’s doubtful
that the police will be able to perform a thorough forensic
investigation.
That’s too bad; the bomb-residue would probably provide clear
evidence of who engineered the attack. So far, there’s little more
to go on than the early reports of four men (three who were dressed
in black, one in a police uniform) who overtook security guards at
the mosque and placed the bombs in broad daylight.
It was a bold assault that strongly suggests the involvement of
highly-trained paramilitaries conducting a well-rehearsed plan.
Still, that doesn’t give us any solid proof of what groups may have
been involved.
The destruction of the Samarra shrine, also known as the Golden
Mosque, has unleashed a wave of retaliatory attacks against the
Sunnis. More than 110 people were reported killed by the
rampaging Shia. More than 90 Sunni mosques have been either
destroyed or badly damaged. In Baghdad alone, 47 men have been found
scattered throughout the city after being killed execution-style
with a bullet to the back of the head. The chaos ends a week of
increased violence following two major suicide bombings directed
against Shia civilians that resulted in the deaths of 36 people.
The public outrage over the desecration of one of the country’s
holiest sights has reached fever-pitch and it’s doubtful that the
flimsy American-backed regime will be able to head-off a civil war.
It is difficult to imagine that the perpetrators of this heinous
attack didn’t anticipate its disastrous effects. Certainly, the
Sunni-led resistance does not benefit from alienating the very
people it is trying to enlist in its fight against the American
occupation. Accordingly, most of the prominent Sunni groups have
denied involvement in the attack and dismissed it as collaboration
between American and Iranian intelligence agencies.
A communiqué from “The Foreign Relations Department of the Arab
Ba’ath Socialist Party” denounced the attack pointing the finger at
the Interior Ministry’s Badr Brigade and American paramilitaries.
The Ba’ath statement explains:
“America is the main party responsible for the crime of attacking
the tomb of Ali al-Hadi…because it is the power that occupies Iraq
and has a basic interest in committing it.”
“The escalation of differences between America and Iran has found
their main political arena in Iraq, because the most important group
of agents of Iran is there and are able to use the blood of Iraqis
and the future of Iraq to exert pressure on America. Iran has laid
out a plan to embroil America in the Iraqi morass to prevent it from
obstructing Iran’s nuclear plans. Particularly since America is
eager to move on to completing arrangements for a withdrawal from
Iraq, after signing binding agreements on oil and strategy. America
believes that without the participation of “Sunni” parties in the
regime those arrangements will fail. For that reason ‘cutting Iran’s
claws’ has become one of the important requirements for American
plans. This is what Ambassador Zalmay spoke of recently when he
declared that no sectarian would take control of the Ministries of
the Interior or Defense. Similarly, America has begun to publish
information that it formally kept hidden regarding the crimes of the
Badr Brigade and the Interior Ministry.”
Whether the communiqué is authentic is irrelevant; the point is well
taken. The escalating violence may prevent Iraq from forming a
power-sharing government which would greatly benefit the Shia
majority and their Iranian allies. Many critics agree that what is
taking place Iraq represents a larger struggle between the United
States and Iran for regional domination.
This theory, however, is at odds with the response of Iran’s Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei following the bombing. Khamenei said,
“The occupation forces and Zionism, which seeing their plans
dissolve, have planned this atrocity to sew hate between Muslims and
fuel divisions between Sunnis and Shiites….Do not fall into the
enemy trap by attacking mosques and sacred places of your Sunni
brothers….The enemy wants nothing more than weakening of the Islamis
front right as Muslims with a single voice have been protesting
against the continual provocations of their enemies.”
The belief that the attack was the work of American and Israeli
covert-operations (Black-ops) is widespread throughout the region as
well as among leftist political-analysts in the United States.
Journalist Kurt Nimmo sees the bombing as a means of realizing “a
plan sketched out in Oded Yinon’s “A
Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” (the balkanization of Arab and Muslim society and
culture.) Nimmo suggests that the plan may have been carried out by
“American, British or Israeli Intelligence operatives or their
double-agent Arab lunatics, or crazies incited by Rumsfeld’s
Proactive Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG) designed to ‘stimulate’
terrorist reaction.”
Nimmo is not alone in his judgment. Other prominent analysts
including, Pepe Escobar, Ghali Hassan, AK Gupta, Dahr Jamail, and
Christian Parenti all agree that the Bush administration appears to
be inciting civil war as part of an exit strategy. Certainly, the
Pentagon is running out of options as well as time. Numerous leaked
documents have confirmed that significant numbers of troops will
have to be rotated out of the theatre by summer. A strategy to
foment sectarian hostilities may be the last desperate attempt to
divert the nearly 100 attacks per day away from coalition troops and
finalize plans to divide Iraq into more manageable statlets.
The division of Iraq has been recommended in a number of
policy-documents that were prepared for the Defense Department. The
Rand Corporation suggested that “Sunni, Shiite and Arab, non-Arab
divides should be exploited to exploit the US policy objectives in
the Muslim world.” The 2004 study titled “US Strategy in the Muslim
World” was to identify key cleavages and fault-lines among
sectarian, ethnic, regional, and national lines to assess how these
cleavages generate challenges and opportunities for the United
States.” (Abdus Sattar Ghazali; thanks Liz Burbank)
This verifies that the strategy to split up Iraq has been
circulating at the top levels of government from the very beginning
of the occupation. A similar report was produced by David Philip for
the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) financed by the Lynde and
Harry Bradley Foundation a conservative think-tank with connections
to the Bush administration and the American Enterprise Institute.
According to Pepe Escobar:
“The plan would be ‘sold’ under the admission that the recently
elected, Shi’ite dominated Jaafari government is incapable of
controlling Iraq and bringing the Sunni-Arab guerillas to the
negotiating table. More significantly, the plan is an exact replica
of an extreme right-wing Israeli plan to balkanize Iraq—an essential
part of the balkanization of the whole Middle East.”
Is the bombing of the Golden Mosque the final phase of a much
broader strategy to inflame sectarian hatred and provoke civil war?
Clearly, many Sunnis, Iranians, and political analysts seem to
believe so. Even the Bush administration’s own documents support the
general theory that Iraq should be broken up into three separate
pieces. But, is this proof that the impending civil war is the work
of foreign provocateurs?
The final confirmation of Washington’s sinister plan was issued by
Leslie Gelb, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a New
York Times editorial on 11-25-03. The CFR is the ideological
headquarters for America’s imperial interventions providing the
meager rationale that papers-over the massive bloodletting that
inevitably follow. Gelb stated:
“For decades, the United States has worshipped at the altar of a
unified Iraqi state. Allowing all three communities within that
false state to emerge at least as self-governing regions would be
both difficult and dangerous. Washington would have to be very
hard-headed and hard-hearted, to engineer this breakup. But such a
course is manageable, even necessary, because it would allow us to
find Iraq’s future in its denied but natural past.”
There you have it; the United States is only pursuing this genocidal
policy for ‘Iraq’s own good’. We should remember Gelb’s
statesman-like pronouncements in the years to come as Iraq slips
further into the morass of social-disintegration and unfathomable
human suffering.
Shrine attack deals blow to anti-US
unity
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
Asia Times KARACHI - Spring is only a month away, and
preparations for Nauroz (the Persian new year) are
well under way. In Iran this year, however, Nauroz
was due to come with a deadly dimension: the start
of a new phase of a broad-based anti-US resistance
movement stretching from Afghanistan to Jerusalem.
Wednesday's attack on a revered shrine in
Iraq could change all this.
The presence
in Iran of the Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic
Jihad,
as well as members of the Hizb-i-Islami
Afghanistan, is well known, as is the presence of
other controversial figures related to the "war on
terror", such as al-Qaeda members. Security
contacts have told Asia Times Online that several
al-Qaeda members have been moved from detention
centers to safe houses run by Iranian intelligence
near Tehran.
The aim of these people in
Iran is to establish a chain of anti-US resistance
groups that will take the offensive before the
West makes its expected move against Tehran.
Iran has been referred to the UN Security
Council over its nuclear program, which the US and
others say is geared towards developing nuclear
weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency is
due to present a final report to the Security
Council next month, after which the council will
consider imposing sanctions against Tehran. Many
believe that the US is planning preemptive
military action against Iran.
With
Wednesday's attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra
in Iraq, home to a revered Shi'ite shrine, the
dynamics have changed overnight.
Armed men
detonated explosives inside the mosque, blowing
off the domed roof of the building. Iraqi leaders
are trying to contain the angry reaction of
Shi'ites, amid rising fears that the country is on
the brink of civil war. At least 20 Sunnis have
been killed already in retaliatory attacks, and
nearly 30 Sunni mosques have been attacked across
the country.
The potentially bloody
polarization in the Shi'ite-Sunni world now
threatens to unravel the links that have been
established between Shi'ite-dominated Iran and
radical Sunni groups from Afghanistan and
elsewhere.
The blast in Samarra
Two of the 12 Shi'ite imams - Imam
Ali al-Hadi, who died in AD 868, and his son,
Imam Hasan al-Askari, who died in 874 - are buried
at the mosque. The complex also contains the
shrine of the 12th imam, Mohammed al-Mahdi, who is
said to have gone into hiding through a cellar in
the complex in 878, and is expected to return on
Judgment Day.
Nevertheless, the sanctity
of the tombs is of equal importance to Sunnis.
Like the tombs of the Prophet Mohammed, Imam Ali
and Imam Hussain, no self-respecting Muslim,
whether Shi'ite or Sunni, would ever think of
attacking such a place.
Further, the
custodians of the shrine in Samarra have for many
centuries been the descendants of Imam Naqi,
called Naqvis, and they believe in Sunni Islam, as
does the vast majority of the population of
Samarra.
The present custodian is Syed
Riyadh al-Kilidar, whom this correspondent met
before the US attacked Iraq. Riyadh was arrested
by US troops after Iraq was invaded, but released
after brief detention.
The same is true of
the Mosa Kazim Shrine in Baghdad, where the
custodians have for many centuries been
descendents of Imam Mosa Kazim. They are called
Mosavis, and are Sunni Muslim. The previous
custodian was Sayed Sabah bin Ibrahim al-Mosavi,
whom this correspondent also met before the US
invasion. He was a member of the Iraqi parliament
during Saddam Hussein's era. After the US invasion
he moved to Pakistan. Now the shrine is managed by
Najaf Ashraf (al-Hoza).
Impact of the
attack on the resistance
Both the Ansar
al-Sunnah Army and the Mujahideen Shura Council -
an alliance that includes Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's
al-Qaeda-affiliated group - are suspected of
perpetrating the attack. Both groups have
insurgents operating in Samarra, and have claimed
responsibility for attacks against US and Iraqi
forces there in recent weeks. No group has claimed
responsibility for the Samarra attack.
Given that the sensibilities of both
Shi'ites and Sunnis have been violated by the
attack, the foreign factor in the Iraqi resistance
could be curtailed.
At the same time,
escalating sectarian strife will hamper the
national resistance movement in cities such as
Basra in the south and Baghdad, which have strong
Shi'ite populations. People in these areas could
quickly turn against what is perceived as a
largely Sunni-led resistance, with a strong
al-Qaeda link.
Leaders have scrambled to
limit the damage. Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani immediately called for seven days of
mourning following the attack, and urged Shi'ites
to take to the streets in peaceful demonstrations.
The cleric, who rarely appears in public, could be
seen on Iraqi state television in a meeting with
other leading ayatollahs.
Shi'ite cleric
Muqtada al-Sadr, who was in Lebanon as part of a
regional tour, headed back to Iraq to join his
supporters, who were already out in full force.
Speaking to al-Jazeera television on Wednesday,
Muqtada blamed all parties in the ongoing Iraq
conflict for the attack. "It was not the Sunnis
who attacked the shrine of Imam al-Hadi ... but
rather the occupation; the Takfiris [those who
accuse other Muslims of being infidels],
al-Nawasib [a derogatory reference to those who
declare hostilities against others] ... and the
Ba'athists," he said. "We should not attack Sunni
mosques. I ordered the [Imam] al-Mehdi Army to
protect the Shi'ite and Sunni shrines and to show
a high sense of responsibility, something they
actually did."
The violence comes at a
time that Iraqi leaders are trying to form a new
coalition government that will bring Sunnis,
Shi'ites and Kurds together. This process, like
the resistance, is now also in jeopardy, as calls
for separate, quasi-independent regions are bound
to intensify.
The anti-US resistance
movement had wanted to use Shi'ite Iran as the
final base to link the resistance groups of this
whole region. If the current volatile situation
results in Shi'ites sitting on one side, and
Sunnis and al-Qaeda-linked groups on the other,
this is unlikely to happen.
Instead, Iraq
could become a new battlefield, not only against
US-led forces, but between different factions.
Iran, meanwhile, would be left to deal with the
West on its own.
Syed Saleem
Shahzad, Bureau Chief, Pakistan Asia Times
Payback time in
Iraq
By Sami Moubayed
Asia Times DAMASCUS - With violence escalating in the
wake of Wednesday's explosives attack on the
Shi'ite Golden Mosque in Samarra, the situation in
Iraq is as close to civil war as it has been since
the downfall of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003.
Even appeals by Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani, regarded as the wise man of Iraq, for
Shi'ites not to engage in retaliatory attacks
against Sunnis seem to have fallen on deaf ears.
Hundreds of
people have died in a wave of
bloodletting over the past few days, and a number
of Sunni mosques have been attacked.
All the usual suspects
No group
has claimed responsibility for the attack, which
has heightened the frenzy of finger-pointing.
Many in Iraq, and the Americans, would
like to believe that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's
al-Qaeda and former Ba'athists are behind all evil
in Iraq. US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad
has openly accused Zarqawi of the attack, saying
that no one but the al-Qaeda leader would benefit
from seeing Iraq crumble into sectarian violence.
After all, the Iraqi Ba'athists and
al-Qaeda perfectly fit "criminal" descriptions.
Both are "terrorist" as they are a part of the
Iraqi resistance, both hate the Americans, and
both are opposed to the post-Saddam order. And as
important, the Ba'athists and al-Qaeda happen to
be Sunnis, making them a suitable enemy, in the US
world view, of the Iraqi Shi'ites.
It is
highly doubtful, however, that Zarqawi or the
Ba'athists would commit such a crime against such
a holy place. First, al-Qaeda attacks are usually
deadly. Bombs go off and hundreds are killed. Had
al-Qaeda wanted to inflict pain, it would have
detonated the bombs in broad daylight, during
prayer time on a Friday. It is clear that this
attack was intended to ignite tension, not to kill
- nobody was in the initial attack.
Al-Qaeda certainly is capable of
terrorism, but what would its Iraqi branch or the
Ba'athists achieve by destroying parts of the Imam
Hasan al-Askari shrine? It is not a political
symbol of the post-Saddam era, such as the
National Assembly, or the office of the Iraqi
president.
Nor was it occupied by a
prominent Shi'ite cleric, such as Sistani, who has
to some extent been cooperating with the
Americans. Al-Qaeda and the Ba'athists do not want
Iraq to settle and democratize, especially not
under Shi'ite control, but they also do not want
to endanger Sunnis, many of whom have been giving
them money, arms and sanctuary, since 2003.
The leaders of al-Qaeda would realize that
an attack of this kind would automatically be
blamed on the Sunnis. It would be like shooting
oneself in the foot. If the Sunnis are
collectively punished and terrorized into
abandoning the insurgency, out of fear for their
lives and property, then they would turn their
backs on Zarqawi and the resistance.
It is
very likely that this crime was committed
specifically to be blamed on Zarqawi and the Iraqi
branch of al-Qaeda. Many would gain from
incriminating the Sunni insurgency, including the
United States and Prime Minister Ibrahim
al-Jaafari.
Accused of having been too
soft on the insurgency since 2005, Jaafari could
use such an inflamed atmosphere to crack down with
unprecedented force on rebels in the Sunni
Triangle.
Another party that could benefit
from the unrest that has been created is Shi'ite
Iran, the ally of Iraq's Shi'ites. Tehran could
use the event to enflame Shi'ite emotions in Iraq,
and in the meantime let the US drag on with its
war on the Sunnis. Already, a number of moderate
Sunnis have accused Iran of sending arms to the
Sunni insurgency. This would escalate the war with
US-led forces, thereby weakening both the Sunni
militias and the Americans, strengthening nobody
but the Iraqi Shi'ites and pleasing nobody but the
mullahs of Tehran.
Another suspect is
Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the Iran-backed leader of the
powerful Supreme Council for the Islamic
Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
At first
glance it would seem absurd for someone as devout
as Hakim to commit such a crime on one of the
holiest shrines in Shi'ite Islam. A closer look,
however, would show that the attack very carefully
inflicted minimal damage on Shi'ites. Not a single
Shi'ite was killed in the bombing. Yet it gave the
Shi'ites reason to take to the streets,
demonstrate and terrorize the Sunni community, in
supposed retaliation.
It gave them the
justification to strike at a traditional enemy.
The Iran-backed Shi'ites are not pleased at the
new honeymoon between the US and the Iraqi Sunni
community because it threatens to curb the
influence that the Shi'ites achieved for
themselves after Saddam's downfall in 2003.
Already, the Americans have talked the
Sunnis into running for the Iraqi assembly. and
they won a total of 59 votes. Thus the Shi'ites
don't have a majority to form a cabinet without
support from the Sunnis. Also, the Americans
reason that once the Sunnis are in government,
they will share the responsibility of
reconstruction and in bringing security to Iraq.
They would influence the Sunni community into
abandoning the insurgency waged by al-Qaeda and
ex-Ba'athists in exchange for guaranteed posts in
the new Iraq.
The SCIRI sees the Sunni
danger on the immediate horizon. The attack on the
Golden Mosque would give them enough reason to
argue against working with the Sunnis. This single
event is enough to be used by Shi'ite leaders to
play the permanent victim and demand that they
maintain control of the ministries of Defense and
the Interior, arguing that if they go to Sunnis,
or a secular Shi'ite, similar attacks could occur
on the symbols of their faith.
An alarming
announcement was made by Vice President Adel
Abdul-Mehdi, a ranking leader in the SCIRI, who
said that religious militias should be given a
bigger security role if the government was not
capable of maintaining security. Abdul-Mehdi would
also gain from the bombing, to discredit Jaafari,
who defeated him by one vote in inter-Shi'ite
elections for the premiership.
Jaafari's
many enemies say he has failed to bring security
to Iraq. "Black Wednesday" only proves the
accusations made against the prime minister. "If
its security agencies are not able to guarantee
the needed security, then the believers are able
to do that with God's help," were the words used.
This would mean, in effect, that the
SCIRI's Badr Organization be used to complement
the Iraqi army. It would mean that the Shi'ites
get to keep an armed militia, in effect a state
within a state, to avoid persecution as had been
done to them under Saddam.
Speaking on
state-run al-Iraqiyya television, Abdul-Mehdi
said, "The government should give a bigger role to
the people." He was talking about the Shi'ite
people of Iraq. And he was specifically talking
about the SCIRI.
Political
stalemate
All of this violence comes as
Iraq stands in political paralysis over the
formation of a new cabinet. The Shi'ites are
bitter that they have to share power with the
Sunnis and the Kurds and cannot rule Iraq on their
own with a parliamentary majority, as they did in
2005.
They are angry that the Americans
have abandoned them in fear of bringing a
religion-driven Shi'ite administration to power
that would want to create an Iran-style theocracy
in Iraq.
Although Shi'ite cleric Muqtada
al-Sadr helped Jaafari win the Shi'ite elections
by persuading his followers to back Jaafari, the
Shi'ite community remains divided because the
SCIRI is not satisfied with the Muqtada-Jaafari
alliance.
The seculars are also not
pleased, and the bloc of former premier Iyad
Allawi has demanded that it be given the portfolio
of Defense or Interior in the new Jaafari cabinet,
something that Muqtada, a declared opponent of
Allawi, will clearly veto.
The bombing of
the Shi'ite shrine temporarily unites the Shi'ite
community, but this solidarity will fall apart
within days as domestic issues surface in
inter-Shi'ite rivalries.
Certainly, more
endangered than the Shi'ites from the events of
"Black Wednesday" are the Sunnis. They are
(justifiably) blamed for many of the crimes
committed under Saddam, although not all of them
benefited from his rule. Millions of Sunnis were
persecuted under Saddam in a manner no less brutal
than the dictator's dealings with the Kurds and
the Shi'ites.
After paying the price in
2003-05, the Sunnis realized that refusing to
cooperate with the post-Saddam order would not
make it go away, nor would it restore the status
the Sunni community had enjoyed since the creation
of Iraq in the 1920s.
They thus wisely
entered politics, insisting on keeping Iraq united
and on liberating it from the US Army. They
obstructed the SCIRI's demands to create an
autonomous Shi'ite state in southern Iraq, which
would have meant the Shi'ites would be given oil
in the south, the Kurds would have had oil in the
north, and the Sunnis would be left with nothing
in the middle.
With the latest events, the
SCIRI has gotten back at the Sunnis. On Thursday,
the Sunni bloc announced that it would suspend its
talks on cabinet formation. Its leaders blamed the
United Iraqi Alliance (the Shi'ite bloc that won
the most seats in December's polls) for sectarian
violence and for deliberately failing to protect
Sunnis and their mosques.
Tarek al-Hashemi
of the Iraqi Accordance Front said, "We are
suspending our participation in negotiations on
the government with the Shi'ite alliance." The
Front won 44 of the 275 seats in the assembly,
much to the displeasure of the Shi'ites.
"If the price of participating in the
political process is the blood of our people, then
we are not willing to go back on this. This
atmosphere does not help the resumption of
negotiations," said a Front spokesman. This is
exactly what the SCIRI wanted. It wanted the
Sunnis to walk away.
At this point it
really is not very important to know who planted
the explosives in the Shi'ite shrine. It is also
very unlikely that any group will claim
responsibility, or that the authorities will
capture the real culprits.
What matters is
that parts of the Golden Mosque were destroyed,
igniting Shi'ite hatred against the Sunni
community. They almost saw it as a blessing in
disguise as justification to strike back at
Sunnis.
The Sunnis are paying the price
for refusing to carve up Iraq. They are paying the
price for refusing Iranian intervention in Iraqi
affairs. And they are paying the price for ending
their boycott of the Iraqi elections and taking
their place in Iraqi politics. If matters are not
immediately controlled, Iraq might never be the
same after "Black Wednesday".
The most honest, most
comprehensive, and most
mobilizing news and
analysis on the Middle
East always comes from
MER. It is
indispensable!" Robert
Silverman - Salamanca, Spain