Al-Manar TV reports that while the Iraqi parliament was likely to approve a “suspicious” pact with the US occupation forces allowing them to stay in the country for another three years, Hezbollah finally broke its silence on Thursday and denounced the pact as harmful and called on all Iraqi MPs to assume their responsibilities and reject it as soon as possible.
In a statement it released, Hezbollah emphasized that the US occupation of Iraq actually represents a big crime and an international terrorism against the Iraqi people as well as the region’s people “who are still suffering from the occupation’s various repercussions at all levels.”
The Resistance movement, known to oppose the occupation and haughtiness policies, went on to affirm that all pressures the US was seeking to exert in order to “polish” its picture have actually failed in their mission. “All pressures would lead to more damages and disadvantages for the occupation,” Hezbollah’s statement read, adding that the security pact, in its actual form, will lead, in its turn, to additional negative impact on Iraq and its people.
Hezbollah pointed out that the pact under question would, if adopted, give the US occupation a supplementary opportunity to organize its domination and plunder the generous country’s fortunes.
“What’s required at this moment is not to reward the occupation and give it presents or legitimacy,” Hezbollah’s statement stressed, explaining that “regardless of all the justifications that anyone could give to legalize the occupation, the US withdrawal without conditions remains the major interest for the Iraqi people.”
“Iraqis have suffered a lot and paid big sacrifices, they fought against occupation at the most difficult circumstances and strived to achieve the sovereignty and independence of their country,” Hezbollah pointed out, recalling how Iraqis have also rejected foreign tutelage.
The Resistance group concluded its statement by calling on members of the Iraqi parliament to reject the pact, drawing their attention to its negative effects on the Iraqi sovereignty, unity as well as fate and future.
Hezbollah called upon the MPs to take such a “courageous” and “historic” position, assuring them of its positive effects on the country “that deserves stability, unity and honorable life.”
Excellent!
While Hezbollah doesn’t really have that much influence in Iraq, there’s a considerable amount of people that listen to them elsewhere. It is good that they are with the mainstream Arab opinion, clearly and unequivocally. It just shows yet again that the resistance to occupation is a trans sectarian stance, unlike the official CENTCOM propaganda that its the “evil sunnis” and a few “radical shia” that are against Occupation.
@Bruno: indeed, Hezbollah’s position is, a big deal, in particular considering that Hassan Nasrallah personally, and Hezbollah as a movement are spiritual followers of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. While the latter has not, at least to my knowledge, taken a public stance on this topic, and while being under his spiritual guidance does not entail always agreeing on everything, I think that it would be rather unlikely that Hezbollah would officially take a stance which would contradict his position. My best guess is, therefore, that Khamenei is not for the SOFA either.
@ALL MY SHIA READERS:
Is my conclusion above warranted, or am I missing something here?
You may want to check this out, it’s about the loss of US hegemony all over the world:
One major difference between the two projections is that the new report for the first time makes the “assumption” of a multipolar future.
(…)
The top U.S. intelligence panel this week is expected to issue a snapshot of the world in 2025, in a report that predicts fading American economic and military dominance and warns of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. […] “The United States will remain the single most powerful country, although less dominant,” according to a “working draft” of the document obtained by The Washington Times. “Shrinking economic and military capabilities may force the U.S. into a difficult set of tradeoffs between domestic and foreign-policy priorities.
(…)
A second major change from the previous report involves energy. The 2004 text predicts energy supplies “in the ground” are considered “sufficient to meet global demand.” In contrast, the latest NIC report “sees the world in the midst of a transition to cleaner fuels.”
»It says that an energy transition – from fossil fuels to alternative sources – is inevitable, and “the only questions are when and how abruptly or smoothly such a transition occurs.” “We believe the most likely occurrence by 2025 is a technological breakthrough that will provide an alternative to oil and natural gas, but with implementation lagging because of the necessary infrastructure costs and need for longer replacement time,” the draft says.»
(…)
The report envisions widespread appeal of “state capitalism, a loose term to describe a system of economic management that gives a prominent role of the state.” “Rather than emulate Western models of political and economic development, more countries may be attracted to Russia’s and China’s alternative development models,” it says.
»It warns that the U.S. dollar “could lose its status as an unparalleled global reserve currency and become a first among equals in a market basket of currencies, forcing the U.S. to consider more carefully how the conduct of its foreign policy affects the dollar.”»
(…)
Thomas Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence for analysis and chairman of the NIC, said Tuesday [18 november] that the report “should not be viewed as a prediction.” Even “projection” is not entirely correct, he said, though he used that word several times during a luncheon at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It’s a stimulative document,” he said, adding that its release was meant to coincide with the transition to the administration of President-elect [Barack Obama], before policymakers get “consumed by events.”
»Mr. Fingar declined to discuss details of the report until its official release, but he said its preparation took about 18 months and “engaged hundreds of people around the world in solicitation of ideas.”»
http://www.dedefensa.org/article-le_nouveau_monde_qui_attend_obama_21_11_2008.html
http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html
It took only 8 years to go from superpower to a regional actor, and I believe that the US will not be able to go back to the international scene as a heavy-weight for a while :S
Thank you Bush.
Ayatollah Khamenei is probably not in favor of the SOFA — but is constrained from making a public statement least he be accused of “interfering” …
I also think (speculate) that Iran may have made a strategic mistake by identifying Maliki’s regime as “popular” — and they may now be expected to support that puppet. And so are not as loudly condemning the SOFA, as they could have.
Kayhan’s editorial today — says, in part,:
“Firstly, the Sadr parliamentary bloc, with 29 seats, has dismissed out of hand any chance of agreeing to the deal.
Then come the Fadhila party and the Iraqi National Dialogue Front, also in full disagreement, with 26 parliamentary seats in total.
The Iraqi Accord Front is next with its no vote, and so on and so forth.
Beaten senseless by the chorus of disapproval, the Iraqi government has announced that it would seek a renewed UN mandate should the parliament return a no vote on Nov 24.
But observers believe the Iraqi government’s statement was solely designed to take the pressure of Maliki’s cabinet and any moves to renew a UN mandate would be fraught with other difficulties.
Besides why should the US seek a security deal if a UN mandate is so easy to come by?
The US insistence for staying in Iraq is the hardest of all to fathom.
———–
Very possibly; the US strategists have failed to keep pace with the tremendous speed with which events have unfolded affected by the US-led conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The US loss of the reins of global power is very visible. And all the while the US has been grappling with domestic difficulties. In short, America’s house is in total disarray at a crucial hour in history: the current world transformation would have been hard to harness for a superpower even if its house were in order.”
Hi Saker,
I think your making too much of this ayatollah-e-marja business. Khameini isn’t that important a shia scholar in the traditional sense. Neither was Khomeini, before he became a political superstar. Earning that kind of recognition the way it is supposed to be earned takes too much time and effort to allow anyone to dual track a political career at the same time. Khomeini was a force unto himself, unlike any other in modern Iranian politics, so the other Ayotollah’s didn’t mind granting him their approval, and bestowing the title of Marja on him. Khameini, i think is actually less learned in Figh than was Khomeini. His appointment as supreme leader was a political process. Because of the weight of his office, people give his opinion’s on religious matters much more weight than they would otherwise, but few people look to him as a main source of guidance.
Khameini’s role is like that of an Ombudsperson with very sharp teeth. He is supposed to be the final arbitrer of what the Constitution states, and make sure none of the organs of government get too out of line. The latter is an especially delicate balancing act. He can’t get bogged down with relatively minor details like in the clauses of a SOFA agreement between Iraq and the US. If he puts his foot down and makes a decision, he risks having it blow up in his face. Worse yet, he could take an official position and end up being ignored. His role is the long term Agenda, and managing relationships between power centers, not low level policy.
As for Nasrallah’s spiritual bond with Khameini, this is more symbolic than anything else.( please note i’m not saying that it’s just a ploy or that it’s unimportant). While Nasrallah’s would grudgingly oblige of Khameini asked him to keep quiet, I doubt he feels he has to clear his political positions with Tehran before he makes them public.
As far as the question of what side of the SOFA debate Iran falls on goes, i don’t think there is much of a mystery. Iran is doing what Iran always does; hedging it’s bets by playing both sides. While most of the public leaders of come out opposing the deal, they’ve maintained close enough links with the accommodationist sections of Malliki’s government to inject as much vague language, US concessions,and decisions defferred to later dates as they possibly can. When efforts to defeat the agreement failed, Iran trotted out their chief jurist to publicly approve the language of the SOFA so that if it does pass they don’t lose face. Meanwhile, they are free to create as much havoc as they like to block the Agreement as long as they do it quietly, so as not to appear to be overruling Malliki.
Masoud
@Masoud: first, welcome to my blog! Second, let me begin by thanking you for your comments here. This is exactly the kind of discussion which I am so eager to host here.
Now turning to your comments, there is only one section in them which puzzle me. You write As for Nasrallah’s spiritual bond with Khameini, this is more symbolic than anything else
As far as I can tell, Nasrallah is, indeed, an independent actor who does not need to clear his positions with anyone, however, is it not the case that Nasrallah’s choice of Khamenei as a spiritual leader for himself and for Hezbollah has caused a great deal of friction among Lebanese Shia? After all, why would Hezbollah choose to follow an Iranian Azeri like Khamenei rather than a local Arab Shia authority like Fadlallah?
I will be honest, I have no knowledge of the reasons or circumstances which brought about this choice, but I always believed that this choice must have had very deep motives, motives which go way beyond the need to secure Iran’s support for Hezbollah. Am I mistaken here?
Also, it appears that you and I agree on the fact that Iran is playing both sides. Do you agree with my conclusion that this kind of ambiguous policy runs the risk of alienating many Iraqis? With the opposition to the SOFA getting stronger and more vocal each day, and now with Hezbollah weighing in against it, does Iran not look out of touch with the reality on the ground by its rather bizarre idea of stating its position on the SOFA only *after* the Iraqi Parliament votes on in (that is what the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said Iran would do)?
Many thanks in advance for your insights.
Kind regards,
The Saker
Saker,
I don’t have any specialized knowledge of Lebanon, but i think the point you brought up is more of an anti-Nasrallah talking point than a serious grievance a Lebanese might have.
Much more serious would be Nasrallah, and Hezbollah’s, strategic linkage with and dependence on a non-Arab Iran. This seems to be something most have come to terms with.
Hezbollah does look to Iran for inspiration, but this is not Nasrallah’s doing, it’s just how events turned out. There would be little point in hiding it, i don’t even understand how this would be possible. So why try to hide it? People would try to beat you over the head with it anyway, it’s best to shout it at the top of your lungs and hope Iran looks to you more favorably in return.
As for the veracity of Iran’s strategy in Iraq, what you have to understand is that Iran is thinking much more long term than the SOFA. It wants to maintain good ties with all parties in Iraq, because no one is sure what the future will bring. If they twisted arms and intimidated Iraqi’s to the extent the US does they might gain a short term tactical advantage, but their long term influence would be jeporadized.What good would it do them to defeat the SOFA, have the US ignore it, and then have elements of Malliki’s government build closer ties to the occupation as a hedge against Iran? Iran’s leaders have stated their position on the US occupation many times in public. Once the cabinet approved it they took a neutral stance so as to allow Iraqi’s the ability to oppose it without looking like they are beholden to Iran.
Of course some element’s of Iran’s military might be sad to see the American’s leave, and so the ambiguity in Iran’s policy may be a reflection of this as well. But i think the former explanation is more convincing.
Will it alienate Iraqis? It might, but Iran dictating to Iraq what it’s position should be would be much worse from a PR standpoint.
Masoud