I would love to know what the reaction was in Tehran when the big boys found out SCIRI formally decided to change their name to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council following a party conference that was held in Baghdad. 
The word “Revolution” in “Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq” referred to the struggle against Saddam, and one of their officials told me that according to SCIRI’s own constitution, the party should have ceased to exist the day Saddam was removed from power, because there is no longer a need for a “revolution” once he is gone. The phrase “In Iraq” was simply Iran’s way of reminding us all that there are many other “Islamic Revolutions” that need to take place all over the world.
Of course SCIRI did not disband when Saddam was toppled, and it did not even re-group and change its name, but now it has. By removing the word “Revolution” from their name they are perhaps trying to sound more moderate to the west, as they have relations with both the US and Iran, it is difficult if not impossible to keep both sides happy. This move however, has definitely angered more Iranian officials than it has American. The word “In Iraq” is now replaced with “Iraqi”. This is perhaps no longer Iran’s arm “in Iraq”.
With so much money at the hands of the Iraqi government, which SIIC plays a vital role in, it’s difficult to say whether they need funding or support from Iran (who btw also funded and supported a rival militia, the Mehdi Army...and I’m pretty certain that didn’t go down too well with the SIIC leaders). However, SIIC officials were quick to deny that the move is “against anybody” as reported by many Western media outlets, but what else could they have possibly done to convince them otherwise? They were once Iran’s best friend in Iraq...maybe they still are...but now they have publicly stated they will listen more to the “Marja’iya” in Najaf, and especially to Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani. Al-Sistani does not believe in the Islamic system of government that is currently in place in Iran, and that is yet another slap for Iran. Could this change in their party platform mark the end of the close relations Iran and SIIC have both benefited from for decades?
At the end of the day, what ever it is that SIIC want us to believe, it is obvious they are distancing, or at least trying to distance themselves from Iran, which is not an easy task considering they were founded in and supported by Iran and I think this is why they are trying to sugar-coat their moves to Tehran.
SIIC were so quick to deny that their move wasn’t against Iran it reminded me of children who cry out “it wasn’t me, it wasn’t me!” before anybody even asked them “who done it?”
The word “Revolution” in “Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq” referred to the struggle against Saddam, and one of their officials told me that according to SCIRI’s own constitution, the party should have ceased to exist the day Saddam was removed from power, because there is no longer a need for a “revolution” once he is gone. The phrase “In Iraq” was simply 
Of course SCIRI did not disband when Saddam was toppled, and it did not even re-group and change its name, but now it has. By removing the word “Revolution” from their name they are perhaps trying to sound more moderate to the west, as they have relations with both the US and Iran, it is difficult if not impossible to keep both sides happy. This move however, has definitely angered more Iranian officials than it has American. The word “In Iraq” is now replaced with “Iraqi”. This is perhaps no longer 
4 comments:
damn the quality of your articles have fallen recently
I do not think they are honestly trying to sound more Iraqi and distancing themselves from Iran the salaries r still bieng paid by Iran why would they want to bite the hand that feeds them? its only a political move and i think deep down they are still very close to Iran but just trying to show themselves as not my 2 cents.
Hi Eye Raki,
Very interesting blog post. IMHO, SIIC is trying to revamp itself so as to appear more "western-friendly," while not completely cutting ties off with Iran.
It looks like SIIC would like to see some sort of Iran-US resumption of relations so as to facilitate a US-Shia alliance, as the current US tension with Iran is harming Shia political entities within Iraq. This "remodeling" of SIIC may end up benefitting it in the long run, especially if a pragmatic leaderships within both the US and Iran prevail within the next couple of years.
However, my question for you is what you think SIIC's popularity within Iraq is relative to other Shia entities, namely the Sadrists. All reports indicate that the Sadr movement is dominant among Shia (in terms of popularity) within Baghdad, but this is more than likely due to the current sectarian violence and the ubiquity of the various disorganized Mahdi Army cells in Baghdad, which in itself lends to the perception of the Mahdi Army being the "protector" of Shia in Baghdad against Sunni Arab terrorists.
In other words, outside of Baghdad, how do you feel SIIC compares to the Sadr movement in terms of popularity in southern Iraq?
Before SCIRIs militia were, and i quote u, 'terrorists'!
Now they answer to the marja and break off ties with Iran?
Does sistani give advice to terrorists? give me a straight answer and screw diplomacy
Post a Comment