Moqtada, Sistani & Hakim, the Future of Najaf

It's impossible to put a definitive number on Moqtada's supporters on the ground but a strong indication is the 650,000 votes his candidates managed to win in the national elections. If we take the 11.5 million voters as an indication of the representation of the population we can estimate the Sadrists represent 1.7 million people on the street. The mathematics is not fool-proof but if we use the same method with the 2.47 million Kurdish votes (KDP, PUK, Gorran and the Islamists) it gives the indication the Kurds account for 22% of the Iraqi population - not far from the real demographics.

The Sadrist 'victory' in the elections has been greatly over-emphasised and exaggerated by the mainstream media due to the disproportionate number of seats they won. Having said that the Sadrists still have the support of large swaths of uneducated, unemployed and impoverished Shia in the south who see them as their only hope and that is why they are still being taken seriously. People who have nothing to lose can become dangerous with a moments notice.

A vital ingredient in the toxic mix of Iraqi politics is still missing. It is extraordinary that the Sadrists have all this support and not even have a living Ayatollah to boast about. In Shia circles, it’s important to emulate one because it justifies day-to-day actions. Your Ayatollah says you can smoke whilst fasting in Ramadhan. His Ayatollah says I can eat gelatin. My Ayatollah says I can't play poker. Religious edicts that are binding on a personal level but hardly matters of consequence in the dynamic and fast-paced world of international politics. The nitty-gritty fatwas become matters of life and death when it comes to the subject of war, and crucially, a dead Ayatollah cannot declare war.

On the scale of religious credentials Moqtada cannot compare to the Grand Ayatollahs Sistani and Hakim. On the scale of influence Moqtada can compare with both. Followers of Sistani and Hakim play the credentials trump card when debating any Sadrist but the Sadrists are undoubtedly more loyal to their leader. When Ayatollah Sistani says stop looting, no museums or government offices are spared. When non-Ayatollah Moqtada says stop fighting, most drop their guns. That is the difference.

Moqtada has been studying in the Iranian city of Qum for a couple of years now and sooner or later is going to officially attain the rank of Ayatollah. The paperwork involved is a lot less complicated than in Western academia and generally there is more room for flexibility. His followers regularly spread rumours of his imminent return probably to gauge how absurd the Iraqi people find the concept. The more times you hear it, the more normal it becomes.

Moqtada for now has the power to declare war de facto, but when that power becomes de jure thanks to his new credentials, the fatwas will have an added punch and become legally binding to all his followers.

To the elite scholars in Najaf and intellectuals in Baghdad, a huge distinction is going to made between Sistani, who has been studying for over half a century in Najaf, and Moqtada, who besides having blood on his hands has just only received his Made-In-Iran certificate.

To the large masses of Iraqi Shia in Baghdad and the south, the lines are going to be blurred. Both Sistani and Moqtada have black turbans, they both have white beards and they are both 'Sayyids' – direct descendants of the Prophet Mohammed through his daughter Fatima and her husband Imam Ali.

The key element is going to be the relationship that will develop between Moqtada and Sistani and due to the latter’s cautious policy it will most certainly be characterised by a fragile peace.

However, Moqtada’s honeymoon will be over after Sistani’s death and matters are going to be greatly complicated in Najaf. People are already talking about a smooth transition in the marja’iya and the most likely successor is Ayatollah Hakim. Hakim has been openly hostile to Moqtada in the past and its unlikely he will suddenly have a change of heart when he becomes the spiritual leader in Iraq. Hakim once called Moqtada ‘a messed up child’, and that’s just about the worst insult a Grand Ayatollah can ever dish out.

Not before long, Ayatollah Moqtada will become Grand Ayatollah Moqtada, an untouchable who is going to enjoy unrivalled support and a degree of influence and privilege that is going to make many American officials in the previous administration regret not dealing with him when he was just a nuisance in 2004 and Moqtada is going to be a legacy of one of the biggest failures of the Iraq war. Have the Americans accidently paved the way for theocracy through democracy? Maybe not, but brace yourselves for his return and be prepared to witness what is going to be a defining chapter in Iraqi modern history.

Double Standard Double Standards

Make no mistake about it, had a ship been attacked by the Iranian navy 40 miles out at sea the international community would have been up in arms about the blatant disregard for international law and the United States would have been the first to condemn the act of needless aggression against innocent civilians. Israel would have called Iran 'a nation of pirates' and God forbid if a rival nation's flag was hoisted it could even have been a legitimate reason to declare war.

But then, what do the Turks know about international law and sovereignty? They are constantly shelling Iraqi villages in territory that does not belong to them and they deny even the most basic human rights to a significant proportion of their own population. How would they have reacted if a wave of incoming aid had been sent to the Kurds in the south-east and the convoy openly refused to cooperate with officials?

The murder of 10 'peace' activists was unjustified regardless of how hard they beat up the soldiers and also raised a few questions about the Israeli operation. The commandos are supposed to be professional soldiers who should be used to dealing with pressure instead of losing control and ending up with killing 10 people. Maybe I am watching too many Hollywood movies, but aren't several helicopters supposed to be utilised at once in order to get as many men on the ground, roof, or deck as possible at the same time as apposed to sending in one soldier at a time amidst a crowd calling for their blood. Surely the world-renowned experts in counter-terrorism would have assumed sending one at a time would have been asking for trouble.

The response to this mess has been just as baffling to me as the incident itself. 10 people are killed and instantly I receive messages from people I don't even know telling me to march outside the Israeli Embassy to protest this heinous crime. Yet when hundreds at a time get blown up to pieces at mosques and markets across the Islamic world, all in the name of 'Allah' of course, the response is a lot less dramatic. On Friday almost 100 innocent people were slaughtered whilst worshipping in a mosque in Lahore and no one sent me a text asking me to protest outside the Pakistani Embassy. Muslims on Friday killed roughly 10 innocent civilians for every activist killed by Jews on Monday.

The Israelis are even more confusing, because they apparently knew from Day 1 the flotilla was a convoy of hate filled with terrorists with links to Bin Laden and Hamas who were probably using this is a front for delivering weapons, but then they decide to issue the commandos raiding the ship with paintball guns?