For what it’s worth I think the hold up right now on the NCV is Talabani and not Sadr….but…here is the angle….see- Moqtada went to Tehran and they pressed him very hard to change his mind BUT….I think what happened is that he told Sulaimani that he can’t change his mind cuz he will lose credibility and his “Nationalist” reputation and his popular support.and….and ……etc….so it may be that they all decided in Tehran-”ok Sayed- you keep your position -for now at least- but let’s let Talabani derail it instead…he’s flaky and weak anyway…..and if he fails in stopping this -then you Moqtada will have to wear the Superman cape and save the day for wilayet al faqih…..cuz Iran WILL go down the drain if they lose Iraq.

Just a hunch….

Nonetheless, seeing as I did not state so clearly, I’ll respond to you gentlemen’s citation of Iran and Syria as examples of continuing one-party rule.

Iran as you gentlemen point out had an uprising in 2009. The current Iranian regime is highly unlikely to remain in power for very much longer. It may be tomorrow or next year or in 2020; whenever it may be, it will happen relatively soon. The next Iranian presidential election is scheduled for June 2013 and is likely going to flare up.
Also, comparing states with one another can’t be done that simply, its not apples to apples. Iran to Iraq have very different circumstances. Firstly Iraq, unlike Iran, has recently ended one party rule from which it transitioned into a multi-party democracy (granted, dysfunctional, but multi-party democracy nonetheless). It is unlikely to revert to a one-party state, and even if it does, it is impossible that such a party will dominate Iraq to the degree Saddam’s Iraq did.
The Iraqi Government does not have as strong a grasp over security as does the Iranian regime. Iraq is vulnerable to external interference from Iran, Turkey, Israel, USA, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. due to the Government not having a strong grasp on security and having various sects and ethnicities. Iran has been ruled by the same regime for decades; they have an iron grip on the institutions of the state, unlike the Iraqi Government.
While the Iranian regime can use a measure of force to compel acquiescence to their rule, Maliki or any Shia party can’t use violence to force Arab Sunnis and Kurds to bend to their will; they must convince them. The Arab Sunnis and Kurds will only not use resist the government if they feel 1- they have an appropriate say in government 2- the powers of the more regional authorities on the provincial and local level have greater authority to respond to citizen’s needs.
The second point is something the Kurds already have and the Shia in the South are agitating for as well; even if there would be one party rule in the central government, it becomes less significant if the provincial and local authorities have more executive and legislative powers than they currently do.
Lastly, the West has little influence in Iran as it has historically been sanctioned, embargoed and sidelined. Maliki, or any Shia party, want to have good relations with the West and what is I think most relevant is they want US and Western weaponry like F-16 fighter jets and such arms; this means the West has strings it can dangle before Maliki or a Shia party to behave better; factors that were absent in the US bag of tricks it could use to influence Iran.

And Uncle Faisal yes; Iran’s government was able to crack down on the opposition in 2009-2010, but that story is not over yet.

You gentlemen also cite Syria; currently undergoing a mass uprising which will eventually at the very least depose the dictator Bashar, if not the entire upper echelon’s of Syria’s Ba’ath party.

Ya Ostath Observer, Bahrain is again a different matter; the only thing propping up the Khalifa regime is the continued use of force. The only reason it can continue to fund this security apparatus is Saudi Arabia; which is why Iraq needs to pump as much oil as possible, and why I’m furious at the Iranian regime in not letting in Western (or even non-Western) International Oil Companies to pump out Iranian oil and undermine the financial viability of the Saudi Salafi Wahhabi regime (and by extension Bahrain’s Al Khalifa one as well).
And fair enough, not politician; political party member. You are on this forum to advocate your partys’ position, narrative and perspective. I’d expect nothing less. I simply say the narrative is either misguided or exaggerated, that is all, Sir.
And of course it is in your interest, as a member of the Iraqiya party, that Iraqiya have a superior position in government. The role of any political party is to improve it’s standing in government (ideally after what should be it’s prime objective which is serving the public).
And sorry, I have not heard of Saraq; but again, it is invalid; we are in 2012, not 2006 when Iraqis were neck-deep in a river of blood.

So let me state clearly; in my humble opinion, I strongly feel that considering Iraq’s circumstances (the most essential of which I mentioned above) a reversion to one-party rule is extremely unlikely; and even IF it were to do so, the hold of that party on the organs of the state will be weak and it shall be unable to control Iraq as Saddam’s Ba’ath party did.

1. The American example doesn’t help your argument. Two completely different systems, histories and people.

2. We’ve addressed the “Maliki wants more power” issue already. I don’t think anyone is arguing with that. It’s the HOW not the WHY. The HOW is factual, the WHY will always remain debatable. You continue to debate around the possible emotions and intentions behind certain actions, thus providing legitimacy to the action itself.

3. I’m still “looking forward” to your replies to my previous points.

Pure speculation on my part but I have never been shy for sharing my 2 cents:

Regarding Maliki and Sadr:
1) Maliki fought them (with the aid of the americs) and the famous battle “Charge of the Knights”..of course the americans/brits did most of the work, but it was symbolic victory of Maliki (a PR ploy for Maliki as well)..over the sadrists in Basra, and broke Sadrists strangle hold on the city of Basra. Maliki put many sadrists in jail. Sadr fled to Iran, and hated Maliki since..Sadr was forced by Iran to support Maliki after 2010 elections after holding out for many months.

2) Maliki and Sadr compete for similar voters—Religious shiite base. Sadr has most of his support in the shiite underclass, poor. Maliki wants in on that support. If your Maliki, you ask yourself, why should Sadr hold 40 seats in parliament…those votes should be coming my way..after all, I am a religious shiite too..If your Sadr, you see an aggressive Maliki who may undermine your support in the future if he is left unchecked. If Sadr lost 10-20 seats in parliament to state of law, his influence as king-maker goes down the drain, costing him ministries and power. So if I was Iraqiya I would try to convince Sadr that he will have more power with a weaker Maliki…

regards,
M

‘he needs to be nationalistic, more secular, and less sectarian policies’.

More secular – huh? Have you read the doctrine of Da3wa? More secular means that he is semi secular now. Really? what evidence do you have of his current “secular” policies let alone “more secular”.

Nationalistic – oh you mean beat up on the Kurds some more? or reduce his dependence on Iran. What does “nationalistic” mean?

less sectarian – have you been reading the news for the last 6 years. You think Da3wa doctrine allows for less sectarianism?

Looking forward to your rebuttal.
Peace

PS – I left all the other fallacies in your post alone as it a side issue. You need to read more about the history of America though.

As an insider, you of course know more about “facts on the ground” than me, and it is my privilege to interact with you. Where you and I differ is on interpretation of SOME facts or key pieces of information (I by default accept your reports of fact as “truth” unless it directly conflicts with another data point that I know to be “true.”). I am sure that there are many insiders in Iraq who know just as much if not more than you about “facts on the ground,” and they reach different conclusions and opinions regarding policy-making. I have to follow what is in my heart and mind, and pray for guidance. Bottom line—I am not a blind follower when it comes to religion or politics.

You said: ” So let us follow your logic to its “logical end”. Because we want a strong Iraq, we should allow Maliki to become all powerful and thus (in accordance with your august theory), he will become independent of Iran. Right, or am I pushing words into your mouth? Guess what all powerful means?: New Saddam. Da3wa instead of Ba3th.”

My response: I think you logical end needs some work. Indeed Maliki wants more power. So do the democrats and Obama. It would be Obama’s dream if all 50 states had democratic governors, the senate and house were democrat majorities, and he got rid of the conservative supreme court justices through retirement and nominated liberals. Reality is America is not created that way (Americans in UTAH will never vote democrat, and Americans in northeast will always be liberals).

For Maliki to make gains in Mosul (he needs to be nationalistic, more secular, and less sectarian policies), it will cost him support in his shiite base. His hard-core sectarian religious base (ali al-adeebs (who also want power, after all, why should it just be Maliki?), badr guys who now support him) will pull him the other way. Maliki has tried being nationalist once in a while. The recent vote in parliament with Iraqiya against the idea of having the hawsa veto legislation is one example. His nationalistic chest-thumping in Kirkuk/Mosul as another example.

Iran’s influence on Maliki will largely depend on what groups Maliki can muster together in a coalition. Say he breaks up Iraqiya and creates a new coaltion with 30-40 ex-Iraqiya/secular people and boots out Sadrist from the national alliance. Iran may wind up with less influence, and pressure people within the islamist groups to pull Maliki back to the sectarian camp. Maybe some of the hard-core shiites will break-off to form their own party and call for a federal regions, and call Maliki a baathist traitor. The point is: I do not see a compelling pathway for unchallenged one party Da3wa rule in Iraq. If

Yes, there is always the army massacre approach, but that is too messy, and Maliki doesn’t need to do that if has enough political cunning. Killing sunnis into submission in Mosul is just an invitation for wahabi suicide bombers to come into Iraq and make it hell for everybody. He will lose whatever little hair he has left on his head and be left with just his 5 O’clock shadow.

Maliki wants more power, but he cannot be all-powerful.

regards,
M

So call me an old fart (which I am), but each one of us brings their life experience to the table. My life experience tells me not to trust words of assurance from you young people (expats at that) or trust Maliki’s smooth words.

As for me being a politician – hahahah. You think I am interested in positions!!!. Why is it that you people discount principals as a motivation? Cynical – aren’t you. I can throw it right back at you and say that you wanting Maliki to stay serves your interests? Would that be fair?

BTW, I have no shortage of offers to “take part”. My own interests would be better served by kissing ass to Da3wa (which is easy enough) and pay “tribute” be it words, or kick backs, but it is my damned conscious that prevents me from kissing ass, and the FCPA that prevents me from the latter.

On one party rule is over and no massacres can happen in the new iraq. Ever heard of Zarqa in 2006 in our own Iraq? I bet not. The easiest thing for Maliki is to declare a people “enemies of the state” or jihdists, and then let loose with the army. Yet that same Maliki that kileld 400 people in Sarqa, is now parading 3saab ahl Al Haq in Baghdad. Give me a break guys and wake up and smell the coffee.

We are at a cross roads. Iranian (and US) pressure is causing delays buying Maliki time to buy votes (it even happens in Italy, so do nto tell me it is not happening here). Those that are not bought are being intimidated but we are not standing ideal either. Decision time is upon us.
Peace

The future bodes even better as Iraq’s young population is influenced by external ideas of freedom and democracy from Egypt and the West. They will be impossible to control.

Everyone wants to be Prime Minister, not just members from other parties, but members from within his own party as well It is unlikely Maliki will be able to get a third premiership, and that’s assuming he will complete his second term, which you say is about to end.

Either you are too stuck in the past being and terrified of history repeating itself or you’re exaggerating to advance your own interests. As a politician, the latter is expected.