Nouri Maliki reappointed as Iraqi prime minister

[tantalus]

BBC News - Nouri Maliki reappointed as Iraqi prime minister

Nouri Maliki reappointed as Iraqi prime minister

Newly re-elected Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has reappointed Shia leader Nouri Maliki as prime minister.

The move comes after a deal was reached to end months of political deadlock.

But the power-sharing deal was thrown into doubt after the main Sunni-backed alliance, led by former PM Ayad Allawi, walked out of parliament.

The group accused Mr Maliki of reneging on an agreement to end a ban on four Sunni leaders who had worked for Saddam Hussein's Baath party.

The parliament convened after a delay of several hours on Thursday and voted to appoint Osama Nujaifi - a Sunni and a member of Mr Allawi's al-Iraqiyya coalition - as speaker.

Under the power-sharing deal - struck late on Wednesday - it was also agreed that Mr Maliki would continue in his post as prime minister, while Mr Allawi would head a new council for national strategy.

Mr Nujaifi was among those who walked about before the vote on the presidency could be held.

Despite the walk-out, the parliamentary session continued and MPs went on to re-elect Mr Talabani.

Iraq has seen eight months of political deadlock, after there was no clear winner in elections in March.

The White House earlier said the deal reached was a "big step forward" for the country.

Stalemate

The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says al-Iraqiyya want parliament to pass a motion to remove the stigma of Baathism - adherence to Saddam Hussein's former regime - from four of the coalition's key figures.

They wanted this to occur before the election of the president, although al-Iraqiyya was not opposed to Mr Talebani's re-election.

The re-appointed president handed the task of forming the government to the leader of the largest coalition - Mr Maliki - who now has have a month to put together a cabinet.

In addition to the council for national strategy, Mr Allawi's bloc will also get the foreign ministry.

Negotiations to form a new government reached a stalemate after March's election results were announced.

Mr Allawi's al-Iraqiyya bloc won two more seats than Mr Maliki's State of Law party, but neither had enough seats to form a government.

The tide turned for Mr Maliki in early October when the militant young Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr announced that the 40 or so seats he controls in the new parliament would back the incumbent for a second term.

[RoccoR]

tantalus, et al,

Yes, isn't this interesting.

Mr Allawi's al-Iraqiyya bloc won two more seats than Mr Maliki's State of Law party, but neither had enough seats to form a government.

The tide turned for Mr Maliki in early October when the militant young Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr announced that the 40 or so seats he controls in the new parliament would back the incumbent for a second term.

(COMMENT)

I thought the Ayatollah want-a--be, and (radical) cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr has been hiding-out in the Iranian city of Qom (Iran) because there is there is an outstanding warrant for his arrest in connection with the murder of Hayder Al-Khoei; an Iraqi Research Student from Kingston University in Shi'a Studies.

Only the White House could say (with a straight face) that this outcome was a "big step forward" for Iraq. We (the US) must be absolutely desperate for the Iraqis to research a settlement and show that US Democratization Efforts paid-off.

I guess I should appreciate the fact that it was a peaceful transition; 8 months after the election; and the anti-American cleric al-Sadr had more influence in breaking the deadlock, and selection the next Prime Minister, than did any of the non-criminal --- pro-American element.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Dreadnought]

I would think he had all that much to do with it. If you notice it has been very quiet. Sadr is the last thing Iraq needs.

[RoccoR]

Dreadnought, et al,

It is not to either sides advantage to flaunt the al-Sadr connection. But the finger prints are there, just the same.

I would think he had all that much to do with it. If you notice it has been very quiet. Sadr is the last thing Iraq needs.

(COMMENT)

I suspect that it goes like this:

• Nouri al-Maliki (Shi'ite - 89 seats) did not have enough votes to overcome the lead held by Iyad Allawi (Sunni - 92 seats).
• Iran, working behind the scenes, convinces Moqtada al-Sadr (radical Shi'ite) to throw his 42 Seats in Paliment in behind al-Maliki.

This has the effect so far, after all the political wrangling:

• The GOI is headed by Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, supported by Shiite Insurgent Moqtada al-Sadr,
• The President of Iraq will be the Kurd Jalal Talabani.
• The Iraq National Security Council will be headed by the Sunni Iyad Allawi,

Interestingly enough, the US did not prefer either al-Maliki (as PM) or Talabani (President).

The US does not want it dramatized that Iran now has more inside influence over the current (new) GOI and al-Maliki; as it would indicate that our Democracy Building project rested a move by an opposing radical Islamic State.

There may yet be trouble on the horizon. The Iraqi Parliament has to formally create the new National Security Council. This could be essentially viewed as Iyad Allawi having been tricked out of power by al-Maliki and the Iranians, even though Allawi actually won the majority in the election. This could create another Sunni uprising if they feel disfranchised.

Just My Armchair Thumbnail View.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Dreadnought]

IMO, Time kills most politicians aspirations. Even if Sadr and Irans influence remain around the US is still looking at combat operations well into 2015. IMO, Dinnerjacket probably wont be in power there that long and who knows, as we have all seen politics changes constantly and Irans may have too by then. If you notice, others are trying to stop the night raids the US is pulling. Its having a direct effect on political pressures next door as well as the insurgency. IMO, Your reason for Iranian influence stems from the fact that Iraq has the potential to far outrun Iran in many different spectrums. Iran doesnt like this idea as it proves problems at home for them. Problems they have no interest in while maintaining a boot to the necks of those they wish to rule by any means possible including cheating them in the elections.

There are some right now that are questioning if Dinnerjacket himself is telling the truth to his boss about Irans Economy.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Sanctions against Iran are biting hard and triggering divisions among its leadership, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday, as he argued against a military strike over Tehran's nuclear program.

Iran has agreed to meet with a representative of the six big powers for the first time in more than a year over its uranium enrichment drive, but diplomats and analysts see little chance of a breakthrough in the long-running dispute.

Gates said he saw little choice, however, to pursuing a political strategy that includes sanctions and renewed his concerns that a military strike would only delay Iranian nuclear capabilities by two or three years.

He added that sanctions "have really bitten much harder than (Iranian leadership) anticipated," and suggested Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was increasingly at odds with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"We even have some evidence that Khamenei, now, (is) beginning to wonder if Ahmadinejad is lying to him about the impact of the sanctions on the economy. And whether he's getting the straight scoop in terms of how much trouble the economy really is in," Gates told the Wall Street Journal CEO Council in Washington.

The West believes that Iran aims to use its uranium enrichment program to build atomic weapons, which Iran denies. Both Israel and the United States have said all options remain on the table to deal with its nuclear ambitions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ratcheted up rhetoric last week by calling on the West to convince Iran that it would be willing to take military action to prevent Tehran from producing nuclear weapons. He said economic sanctions had so far failed to do the job.

Gates has publicly disagreed with Netanyahu about the need to put forward a military threat.

Although he acknowledged on Tuesday that Iranian leaders "are still intent on acquiring nuclear weapons," he said military action was not a long-term answer.

"A military solution, as far as I'm concerned ... it will bring together a divided nation. It will make them absolutely committed to obtaining nuclear weapons. And they will just go deeper and more covert," Gates said.

"The only long-term solution in avoiding an Iranian nuclear weapons capability is for the Iranians to decide it's not in their interest. Everything else is a short-term solution."

[RoccoR]

Dreadnought, et al,

We are (apparently) thinking along similar lines.

IMO, Time kills most politicians aspirations.

(COMMENT)

Yes, we can agree on this.

If you notice, others are trying to stop the night raids the US is pulling. Its having a direct effect on political pressures next door as well as the insurgency.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I am interested in the correlation between all the interested parties that are opposing ISAF Night Raids; and why.

IMO, Your reason for Iranian influence stems from the fact that Iraq has the potential to far outrun Iran in many different spectrums.

(COMMENT)

In some respects this is correct.

I see that the developments in Iraq being of US and Regional interest for some time to come. But in saying that, I also see US influence over those developing events dwindling, with Iranian influences gaining ground. I also see that the appearance (the image held by indigenous Regional populations) of US being forceful in the Region will lead to a growing anti-US sentiment.

Iran doesnt like this idea as it proves problems at home for them. Problems they have no interest in while maintaining a boot to the necks of those they wish to rule by any means possible including cheating them in the elections.

There are some right now that are questioning if Dinnerjacket himself is telling the truth to his boss about Irans Economy.

(COMMENT)

I believe Iran's first priority is to remove or mitigate the US military presence, in Iraq, from the Region; which is there to re-enforce the American Hegemony.

I believe that Iran's "long-term" goals include some Religious and Political dominance over Iraq; giving it Regional leverage and influence (economically, politically and theologically).

There are some right now that are questioning if Dinnerjacket himself is telling the truth to his boss about Irans Economy.

(COMMENT)

There does seem to be a disconnect between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the leadership projected by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (The Supreme Leader). However, Ayatollah Khamenei (representing Iran) is trying to reach out and engage the "Muslim Elite" and encourage them to support the greater resistance movements against, what they perceive as, US (linked to Zionist goals) aggressions. The Ayatollah makes a direct connection between US Aggression and "Muslim" issues in Palestinian (Gaza) - Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Kashmir.

"The only long-term solution in avoiding an Iranian nuclear weapons capability is for the Iranians to decide it's not in their interest. Everything else is a short-term solution."

(COMMENT)

This is insightful, for the SECDEF. I am amazed.

Most Respectfully,
R

[tantalus]

RoccoR

I see that the developments in Iraq being of US and Regional interest for some time to come. But in saying that, I also see US influence over those developing events dwindling, with Iranian influences gaining ground

but over what time scale?
if one argues that oil is the single most crucial factor Iraq has to offer regarding US interests and thus it is important that US influence remains strong, than the time scale of US influence need only be a matter of only 20 years, not even considering once the contracts are signed and new exploration is in place, although I admit that estimate is an arbitrary guess, but you see what I am getting at.......as long as this macro interest is protected

other US interests such as preventing a haven for terrorists I have not considered in my reply, regarding their importance or time scale, although some are foreseeably never-ending, but as I said, it is the oil which I feel is most significant US interest imo, the control of the influence of Iran regionally is an issue which has many factors that are more signficant than Iraq in the future imo.

[Dreadnought]

Yes, I am interested in the correlation between all the interested parties that are opposing ISAF Night Raids; and why.

IMO, They have been very effective against the Taliban and Insurgency. This brings political pressure to the Afghan leader. He is loosing room to manuver between the US, NATO forces and his constituants in the Taliban, Iran and Insurgency. He might even be forced into making a choice as to exactly what he wants or what side he wishes to stand upon. If you have not read the headlines this morning, The US plans on bringing the M1 Abrams into Afghanistan to add to their tool box. I'm pretty certain the Afghan leader and friends are not going to be too happy about this as it will add a far new dimention to accuracy and stand off range against selected targets especially with their optics, sensors and firepower. No doubt the Afghan leaders friends in Iran wont be too happy about this development either. Other forces have used tanks in Afghanistan, but up till now the US has not.

[Dreadnought]

I believe Iran's first priority is to remove or mitigate the US military presence, in Iraq, from the Region; which is there to re-enforce the American Hegemony.


Believable, however if Iran hasnt noticed due to arrogance, threats and continuation of a nuclear weapons program the US is moving closer and closer not farther as they would wish. The UN sanctions hitting home cannot possibly cast Dinnerjacket in a positve light back home no matter what his rhetoric states. The Iranian people see this first hand and have a good understanding as to why. IMO, unless they screw the Iranian people come election time AGAIN myself, I dont forsee Dinnerjacket retaining his office. Irans politics could change overnight if the right person was elected through fair and transparent elections. We know this probably wont happen but heres to hope. There are alot of intellectual minded adults in Iran that feel as though their country is standing still while the surrounding nations continue to evolve and develop there by enhancing their own economies and lives. With a theocracy such as Irans in power, many think it will never evolve in a positive light as sanctions take hold and are increased with time. Sooner or later Dinnerjacket is going to have to come clean about the programs and Irans economy. Facing these two issues alone for him, once he does, will make intrusion into other countries politics take to the back burner. As we both agreed, time does indeed kill political aspirations. Dinnerjacket is not imune either.

[Dreadnought]

There does seem to be a disconnect between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the leadership projected by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (The Supreme Leader). However, Ayatollah Khamenei (representing Iran) is trying to reach out and engage the "Muslim Elite" and encourage them to support the greater resistance movements against, what they perceive as, US (linked to Zionist goals) aggressions. The Ayatollah makes a direct connection between US Aggression and "Muslim" issues in Palestinian (Gaza) - Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Kashmir.

Only one problem I can see with that. A vast amount of your intellectuals in Iran are smarter then this. They realize religion does indeed have a place, but not all places. Many probably even realize they would not have sanctions if it wasnt for the regime, its threats and its interference in other countries. If you have noticed and Im sure you have, they do their best to shut down the green movement, but every time they do the green movement gains ground. Imo, only a matter of time. Maybe not as soon as many wish, but they just like everyone else cannot escape time. Theirs is coming.

If they really wanted to know, then they would find out for themselves instead of listening to this rubbish from the Assahola and Dinnerjacket. These were the very same responsible for all the bullshit over the elections and that the entire countries votes could be counted in a 4 hour period and then handed office to Dinnerjacket and demanded the people accept it. Anyone with a third grade education knows that to be impossible, hence you had the riots and Iran sealed off the media and sent the Basij into the streets to both beat and control the people. You cant keep control very long ruling like that.

[RoccoR]

tantalus, et al,

Yes, several lines of thought here.

• but over what time scale?
• if one argues that oil is the single most crucial factor ...
  • than the time scale of US influence need only be a matter of only 20 years,
  • .......as long as this macro interest is protected

(COMMENT)

One of the factors that play into this confusion are the original concepts for engaging (militarily) Iraq; the goals and objectives. "Oil" was never a stated objectives (more on that later). It was advertised as a purely defensive action, a decision for which The President was forced to take in order to protect American lives. But having gone into Iraq, we've aggravated a preexisting complaint (of the Arab World), if not generating an entirely new complaint, concerning American Regional Influence. Thus, relative to the stated goals, we may have unintentionally expanded the problem of security, as opposed to reducing it. If the timeline was based on the whole-Region concept, US interests in Lebanon, Israel, the Occupied Territories, the Oil Rich Gulf States, then one might expect a much longer stay.

On the other hand, from the very beginning, many voices were sounded that the Regional Hegemony needed a Strong US Military Presence (immediately accessible and strike capable) to render a peaceful resolution to many issues, simultaneously. The stationing of forces, in support of the Hegemony would have been for as long as it served US political and economic interests (half a century at least).

No one every forgot about the oil deposits and its implication on the world economies. BUT, the agenda was, not to vocalize it. If the Arab world thought that the US interest in Regional Peace was merely to last until the "oil" was exhausted, that would have created an entirely difference POL-MIL climate; one we were not yet ready to address. If one looks at the POL-MIL commitment based on the consumption rate of oil, and the exhaustion timeline, then we get another result.

[LIST]

• ... preventing a haven for terrorists ...
• ... it is the oil which I feel is most significant US interest imo, the control of the influence of Iran regionally is an issue which has many factors that are more signficant than Iraq in the future imo.

(COMMENT)

Preventing terrorism was a lost cause to start with. No reasonably intelligence person, with any understanding of the causes and strife violence in the Arab/Muslim world, could possibly believe that a US military incursion into the Middle East would go unchallenged. And if one assumes that the US military is invincible in a conventional military setting, then the challenge would have to come in the form of Occupation Resistance and Terrorism.

[LIST]

• ... factors that are more signficant than Iraq in the future imo.

(COMMENT)

The unintended consequence of the US action may have advanced several of these to the forefront.

Most Respectfully,
R

[RoccoR]

Dreadnought, et al,

Yes, we may be seeing the end of the fence-sitting.

This brings political pressure to the Afghan leader.

...The Afghan Leader

• US, NATO forces and
• his constituants in the Taliban, Iran and Insurgency.

(COMMENT)

Well, exactly what are those relationships? Are they short-term allied compacts? Or, do we have a nation that is going to be a friend and ally for many decades to come?

One of the weaknesses of this whole affair, is that that we actually DO NOT KNOW if we installed a "friend or foe." What do the people of Afghanistan really want and how much effort are they willing to put forth to secure it? Our Foreign Service and Diplomatic Corps says one thing. But the President of the Islamic Republic (Hamid Karzai) often says and does something different.

He might even be forced into making a choice as to exactly what he wants or what side he wishes to stand upon.

(COMMENT)

Yes, but then when challenged in a private setting, he will give solemn assurances that he is an ally and enjoins the US to prosecute the Taliban and associated threats.

If you have not read the headlines this morning, The US plans on bringing the M1 Abrams into Afghanistan ... No doubt the Afghan leaders friends in Iran wont be too happy about this development either. Other forces have used tanks in Afghanistan, but up till now the US has not.

(COMMENT)

Insurgents do not work in a vacuum. They must be sustained by someone. Not everyone in the outlying regions of Afghanistan (noted for Taliban activity) is our ally and friend in the fight against the insurgency.

Armor (relative to an insurgency), is usually something you use to do two very important things.

• It is show of strength and commitment to a given area and to beef-up the defense (suppression against attacks).
• It also extends the immediate area of influence for the combat commander

I'm not sure that it will make the indigenous population feel any safer; that remains to be seen. It is definitely not the tool to use to chase down the insurgents. But it can be effectively employed to deny hostiles from foraging for support from sympathizers in the immediate area; keeping them at standoff distances.

Most Respectfully,
R

[tantalus]

interesting points RoccoR

relative to the stated goals, we may have unintentionally expanded the problem of security

but ofcourse and as you acknowledged major goals unstated (oil) are more secure, which is linked to regional hegemony, one only has to look how Iraq has grown as a oil producer recently.

It is not ofcourse a simple linear equation, to succeed in achieving certain goals will result in the partial or total failure of others and/or the creation of other separate predicted or unpredicted problems. It is cost-benefit reality, I would argue the more important goal, oil security has been achieved, O and when I discuss success and failure I am not speaking about my personal opinion but my personal opinion of the point of view of those who are playing the game, on the american side (just so I am clear)

Preventing terrorism was a lost cause to start with

I was more referring to the prevention of attacks on american soil by the policy of going on the offensive, a purported claim imo, I was just highlighted it as to illustrate that I was aware of other official goals for the american presence in Iraq.

As we are discussing the topic only in part, I just want to state that a great many good things and opportunities have arisen as a result of the Iraq conflict, my opinion on the matter is multicoloured and should not be extracted from my limited statements in the thread, just dont want to come across wrong.

The changing nature of energy supply to arise over the next 40 years will certaintly redefine geopolitics as we know it today.

Anything I didnt comment on, I agree with.

[RoccoR]

Dreadnought, et al,

We agree on many aspects; but this is not one of them. You have much more faith in the Iranian than I have.

Only one problem I can see with that. A vast amount of your intellectuals in Iran are smarter then this. They realize religion does indeed have a place, but not all places.

(COMMENT)

There are many well educated Muslims throughout the Region, from the Mediterranean Sea - right through & beyond - The Persian Gulf. While they show signs of intelligent life, the little gray cells working (Agatha Christie's - Hercule Poirot would say), there is no reasonable expectation that they will initiate a Regime change either politically or in theological form; let alone both simultaneously. Remember, the political and religious leadership is of their own blood making. Intellectually, yes - you are correct. They have the where-with-all to make those kinds of deductions; they could make them today. And, they probably do in the deep recesses of dark dingy corners where no one can hear them.

There is a similarity to them and the Iraqi Regime of Saddam. Both nations were repressed by their own kind. Wolves keeping watch on the dogs as the dogs guard the sheep. It may take some serious damage, very deep gouges in the standard of living, before the people will rise-up. I'll be long dead by then.

Most Respectfully,
R

[tantalus]

Dreadnought

Irans politics could change overnight if the right person was elected through fair and transparent elections. We know this probably wont happen but heres to hope. There are alot of intellectual minded adults

I agree, There does appear to alot of opposition in Iran and a liberal and well informed youth opposed to the current government (although maybe I am misguided with this pereption?), however as you said, fair and tranparent elections are unlikely, all actions thus far indicate domestically in Iran this will continue, unfortunately. Even if a fair election with new leaders did arise , the influence of the highly nationalistic iranian military and the reality of a range of other middle eastern geo-politcal and religious factors will help shape Iran into the future, and cannot be ignored.

as usual, complex