Clerics agree Najaf peace deal

**Ironduke** · 27 Aug 04,, 04:29

Clerics agree Najaf peace deal

A deal has been reached to end the uprising led by radical cleric Moqtada Sadr in the Iraqi city of Najaf.

Iraq's most influential Shia leader, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, suggested the deal, which was welcomed by the interim government as a "great victory".

Members of Mr Sadr's Mehdi Army are set to disarm and leave the holy Imam Ali shrine by 1000 (0600 GMT) on Friday.

The pact came hours after scores died in attacks near Najaf, in the bloodiest day of the three-week stand-off.

Mr Sadr and his supporters have been challenging the rule of the interim Iraqi government and fighting US-led forces in the city.

But just hours after Ayatollah Sistani - Iraq's most revered Shia cleric - arrived in Najaf, a spokesman for the ayatollah announced the agreement.

'Face-saving' deal

At a hastily arranged press conference, the spokesman said negotiations were "three-quarters towards the end of this crisis".

The main points put forward by the ayatollah had been accepted by Mr Sadr, he said.

Under the deal, Mr Sadr will hand responsibility for the shrine to Ayatollah Sistani and his men will disarm.

Foreign forces will leave Najaf.

The agreement was reached when Mr Sadr himself went to where Ayatollah Sistani was staying just outside the old city, though it is not known if the two men met.

It followed Ayatollah Sistani's dramatic arrival in Najaf, accompanied by thousands of supporters.

A spokesman for the interim Iraqi government said it supported the deal.

"Brothers, we have entered the door to peace," said Qassen Daoud.

He said the government had agreed that "visitors" to Najaf - taken to mean Ayatollah Sistani's supporters - would be allowed to enter the Imam Ali shrine, where Mr Sadr's followers are holed up.

They will then leave the shrine by Friday at 1000, along with Mr Sadr's disarmed followers.

Mr Daoud said Mr Sadr's supporters would then be welcome to join the political process. He said Mr Sadr would be allowed to remain free.

The BBC's Alastair Leithead in Najaf says the deal allows everyone to save face.

It gives the Mehdi Army fighters an opportunity to blend into the crowds as they lay down their weapons and leave the shrine.

The 22-day standoff in Najaf began with clashes between US-led forces and Mr Sadr's followers close to his home in Najaf - clashes which neither side admitted initiating.

Doctors say dozens of people have been killed and hundreds injured.

US and Iraqi government forces moved closer and closer to the shrine but did not launch a direct attack on the site, which is one of the holiest for Shia Muslims.

At one stage, the Iraqi government announced that it had retaken control of the shrine complex, but that was later proved wrong.

Day of violence

The peace deal came after one of the bloodiest days in Iraq's recent past.

Iraq's health ministry said 74 people died and 315 were injured in the nearby town of Kufa, after a mortar attack on a mosque and exchanges of gunfire.

It was unclear who carried out the attacks. At least 25 were killed in the mortar attacks on the mosque, where many people believed to be supporters of Mr Sadr had gathered to march to Najaf.

Later, there were more deaths near Kufa as gunmen hidden among Shia marchers apparently shot at Iraqi police, who fired back.

Reuters reported a similar fatal exchange of gunfire involving supporters of Ayatollah Sistani in Najaf.

It said 15 Sistani supporters were shot dead and 65 wounded.

US-led forces said they had not carried out any operations in Kufa for 24 hours and the interim government said it had called a ceasefire in Najaf.

That ceasefire remains in place, our correspondent reports, and Najaf is quiet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3603196.stm

**Ray** · 27 Aug 04,, 06:39

We have seen all this before.

Let them put their money where there is mouth is first!

**phalanx** · 27 Aug 04,, 07:33

exactly we have seen this all before

we should get some human intel on the ground, follow half these al sadr cronies including muqtada himself and level their asses with some apaches outside of town

**visioninthedark** · 29 Aug 04,, 08:05

well ... they did what they said ... The Grand Ayatollah succeeded where others failed ... !!

**ChrisF202** · 29 Aug 04,, 14:15

Originally Posted by visioninthedark

well ... they did what they said ... The Grand Ayatollah succeeded where others failed ... !!

I wouldent belive a word until Montquda (sp) is in US custody

**Ray** · 30 Aug 04,, 10:48

Obviously the Grand Ayotollah had to succeed.

Islamists (funadmentalists) have no brains to think on their own it appears, since it took a single person to tell them the dangers that lay ahead!

Let's be very clear. The Americans have a lot a stake. They have not come to Iraq to play marbles. They'll blast the hell out of anyone in their way.

Remember Fallujah? That was just the hors d'oeuvre.

The main course starts later. Sadly, there is no USSR any more! The message is on the wall - clear and bright! Toe the line or Perish!

**Major_Armstrong** · 30 Aug 04,, 15:56

Do you think maybe the CIA brainwashed Ayatollah Sistani and/or implanted a chip in his brain or sent a clone of Ayatollah Sistani, or is this too much of a conspiracy theory? Maybe I'm reading too much leftist propaganda.

**Ray** · 31 Aug 04,, 19:29

Major,

All this are ploys.

Iran has achieved its aim. They have got rid of Saddam and they have got the US in a quagmire.

Clever little ticks.

To be odious - Iran has two birds in hand and one also in the Bush!

Ticks they are!

**smilingassassin** · 01 Sep 04,, 08:11

Well it looks like this little truce is off yet again. How many more times will Sadr claim to lay down his arms only to start fighting again? No more deals, ploys or not, sooner or later sadr must be killed. He continues to defy Sistani and thats a no no.

**Ray** · 01 Sep 04,, 13:20

The situation in Iraq is very hazy.

First of all, one has to weigh up who has the larger number of supporters. Sistani or Sadr.

Then what is the funding source and the organisation.

It is better to eliminate the organisation and the source of funds and then eliminate the leader. Also the good old British policy of 'Divide and Rule'. Prop up Sistain, but very obliquely, and, Al Sadr becomes a nobody.

**visioninthedark** · 01 Sep 04,, 15:27

Originally Posted by Major_Armstrong

Do you think maybe the CIA brainwashed Ayatollah Sistani and/or implanted a chip in his brain or sent a clone of Ayatollah Sistani, or is this too much of a conspiracy theory? Maybe I'm reading too much leftist propaganda.

u forget ... he is shia ... not the same cup of tea like the others the US has been dealing with ...

with shias ... its a whole another ball game ...

**Ray** · 01 Sep 04,, 18:18

Iraq has become a tinderbox.

Apart from the Kurds and the Christians, all communities have undertaken attacks on the US troops, the UN, the aid agencies, the 'collaborators'.

Their aim is to create a state of anarchy. This is inexplicable in the light of the fact that the best thing that could happen to resolve this unholy mess was the formation of the interim govt. At least some sort of governance by the Iraqis of all religious and regional divisions has taken form. To oppose this is sheer madness and it smacks of a hidden agenda of inimical and interested countries with a finger in the Iraqi pie. Given the law and order situation, a general election cannot be held at this moment. That any intelligent person can fathom.

There is also some straws in the wind to suggest that Sistani has been bought over. While I have doubts, yet even if he has been, it is good move since at least he can bring some method to end this madness which is doing nobody any good.

The call for the US to quit by some fundamentalist elements is most impractical. A civil war will ensue if they do. In Sudan, the situation is chaotic and inspite of the UN resolution and non Sudanese troops coming into the scene, nothing positive is happening; so, if that is the benchmark, Iraq will be explosive if the US leaves and would add to immense instability in the Middle East and the World.

Also, the US is not overly keen to hang around. It is costing them megabucks that could be better used in their country or elsewhere. Their forces are over stretched forcing them to rethink their global deployment. Thus it is a popular ballyhoo if not a canard amongst certain sections of the world community that the US is keen to hold on to Iraq.

The question some can raise is that the US is interested in Iraq's oil and so they are hanging on. Perhaps. However, if the US withdraws and there is anarchy and a civil war in Iraq, which will happen since there will be a tussle for power amongst the ethnic groups (Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian or other 5% ) and the religious groups ( Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%). Obviously, observing the happenings in Iraq, it does not suggest any reconcialtion in a hurry, if indeed there can be any reconciliation. I wonder if the Sunnis would abdicate their hold that they have enjoyed with impunity so far to the majority Shias, nor would the Kurds deny themselves of their freedom and independence they enjoyed when the US ensured autonomy by their air wars.

If the Iraqi oil does not flow, the world economy will collapse like a pack of cards. If it does, the US will still trudge along, albeit with some niggling distress, but quite a few countries of the world would simply fold up leading to anarchy in their countries!

Therefore, the cry of certain sections of the world that the US quits is hollow and self defeating since they will be the first ones to fold up!

**smilingassassin** · 02 Sep 04,, 10:05

"If the Iraqi oil does not flow, the world economy will collapse like a pack of cards. If it does, the US will still trudge along, albeit with some niggling distress, but quite a few countries of the world would simply fold up leading to anarchy in their countries!"

The even bigger problem is that in 50 years we will be in the same situation. In 50 years world oil production will be at what it was in the 1950's, far short of what we need now, forget in 50 years! Alternative sorces of oil need to be found NOW. World oil production now is at its projected peak, and will start to decline.

Stability in the ME is questionable, if it can't be achieved in the next 10 years things will start heading down hill. Oil prices will skyrocket and any nation with oil will have to tred lightly with the super and hyper powers.

We certainly haven't seen the end of Anarchy, thats why we need to keep it in check now.

**Ray** · 02 Sep 04,, 11:42

Smiling,

Your post is most assuring. I willl sleep in peace even if I can't drive my car.

**smilingassassin** · 03 Sep 04,, 06:47

I hate to switch into doom and gloom mode but this is the reason why we have to make Iraq work. We need nations in the region to be able to rely on other sorces of income and prosperity, and to be stable freindly nations. Anarchy will always pose a problem, but soon lack of oil will exasterbate the problem even more. If Iraq fails I don't have to repeat what will happen as a result. We will literally have to build a wall around the region.