Come on BigBull, how is this an answer to what I said. I read the article and it is mostly bogus. It sets the stage with this:
The edict, or fatwa, issued on April 8 by , an Iraqi-born cleric based in the Iranian holy city of Qum, suggests that Shiite clerics in Iraq are receiving significant direction from Iran
This is an absolute load of crock! Here you have an Iraqi giving orders to other Iraqis and just because it so happens he found refuge among Saddam's enemies across the border, the author is jumping to the conclusion that Iran is pulling his strings.
Let's look at this for what it is: Iran is host to almost all anti-Saddam forces, including the Kurds. The current Kurdish leadership which US is so friendly with got a fair amount of help from Iran. The flag of Kurdistan which they held is almost identical to the traditional flag of Iran. Why is it that the Kurds are not accused of being Iranian stooges?
Did you know that Khoi, the same person that Ledeen praised as the greatest threat to the mullahs was also Iranian? And did you know that he too has an office in Qum just like Sadr? So why is it that nobody complained here is an Iranian with an office and organization in Iran who is coming to power? And how come nobody said here you have an Iranian cleric with offices in Iran and he is helping us out therefore Iran is a good guy now? The door swings both ways.
And did you know that Sistani, the same Ayatollah whom we are supporting was born and raised in Iran? Why isn't he being accused of anything?
Try to see this for what it is: Iran helped anyone who was against Saddam, including PUK and KDP (Talibani and Barizani Kurdish groups). What is more most of Shia leadership everywhere in the world are of Iranian decent. So you can weave whatever connection you want, but that does not make them any more "real".
Try to put yourself in shoes of a political anti-Saddam fighter. How would you do it? You would find a base as close to Saddam that you could find safety in, i.e. Iran. Who would you get help from? Just about anyone who'd be willing to help you, but that could only be Saddam's enemies and in this case only Iran (there is no way Saudis would help a Shia, and Kuwaities are not into this kind of thing). What would you do when Saddam was gone? You would come back and try to seize power because that is what political leaders want. None of these makes these people puppets of Iran. Find me a logical reason why any of them would want to be puppet of Iran. There are political considerations and self-interest reasons that would bring some groups closer to Iran than others. But that is still motivated by self interest and not because they are puppets of Iran...and Sadr is on the more outer rings of such alliances. Sadr would only be appealing to Iran in contrast to a pro-American regime. But he would not be even the first, second, or third choice. I'd wager that Iran will even prefer a neutral regime over one headed by Sadr.
Like I said, articles like this and Ledeen's, are full of it.
Sun Tzu |
