Got My Hand in My Pocket and My Purple Finger's on the Trigger

by Eric Martin

Prior to this past weekend's provincial elections in Iraq, I warned that the elections could portend a spike in violence depending on the extent to which the competing parties (many only recently adopting the political approach to the exclusion of more violent methods) view the results as legitimate.  Marc Lynch offers some admittedly preliminary, and appropriately caveatted, causes for concern:

I'm a bit confused by the rapturous reception across the board of the Iraqi provincial elections.  I'm as delighted as everyone that the Iraqi provincial elections went off without major violence. But as I've been warning for many long months now, the dangerous part of the provincial elections comes when those groups who expected to win find out they didn't. Early signs are extremely concerning -- Anbar is under curfew after threats of violence, Diyala's outcome may signal a rapid escalation of Arab-Kurdish tensions, and that's not even looking at Baghdad. [...]

One of the main reasons that the U.S. pushed so hard for the provincial elections in the first place was as a reward for the Awakenings groups which had cooperated with the U.S. against al-Qaeda. For over a year the Anbar Salvation Council and various tribal groupings have been engaged in a nasty political battle with the Iraqi Islamic Party.  The IIP controlled the provincial council after most Sunnis boycotted the election, and the Anbar Salvation Council wanted power for itself as a reward for its service against AQI. It almost came to violence at several points -- but it was always tamped down (in part) by the U.S. pointing to the elections as the moment for power to be transferred peacefully and legitimately.

I kept warning, publicly and privately, that they might not actually win those elections:  that tribal influence may be exaggerated, that the Awakenings were internally divided, that the Islamic Party could draw on state resources.  But I was told again and again by military sources and others that this was impossible, that the tribal groups controlled the streets, and that the IIP had no chance. 

Well, early returns suggest that the Islamic Party has won at leasta plurality in  Anbar.  Turnout was only 40%.  Ahmed Abu Risha, formerly of the Anbar Salvation Council and now of the Iraqi Awakenings Conference [corrected], has been telling everyone who will listen that there was massive electoral fraud in Anbar, and that if the IIP is declared the winner the province will look "like Darfur."  Another leader, Hamed al-Hayes of the Anbar Salvation Council, is warning that if the IIP is declared the winner his men will turn the province into a graveyardfor the IIP and its collaborators.  The Iraqi military has declared a curfew to prevent outbreaks of violence.

This could be problematic (and that's an understatement), but as Lynch cautions, it would be premature to engage in detailed analysis given the unconfirmed nature of the results*.  Still, that didn't prevent Max Boot from proclaiming that the elections were a major repudiation for Iran.  Nor did it stop John Bolton from taking to the pages of the New York Times to grab the baton from Boot and continue stumbling down the track flailing wildly.  Matt Duss does his best to correct Bolton's ravings.

(*but if it's speculation you want, you could do worse than this post)

Comments

[Ugh]

Dear Marc Lynch,

Ur doin it wr0n3.

The Iraqi elections were a huge success as democracy flourished like dandilions after a rainstorm in a wonderful event that Iraqi men, women, and children celebrated in the streets sharing their new found freedom, mutual love and respect, then went and had tea together at the local watering hole where they discussed the relative merits of regular tax cuts vs. very much big tax cuts, the evils of big government and pork, and how much they loved the good ole US of A and George W. Bush for liberating them almost six years ago. They remember it like it was yesterday.

I do not wish to hear your plainly false stories about how Anbar will look "like Darfur" or a "graveyard." The Surge™ ended the war in glorious U.S. victory for the Fatherland Homeland which will result in over a thousand generations of peace and justice in the Old Republic Iraq.

As such, the troops can come home. Now.

Sincerely,

Ugh

[Peter K.]

Props for writing about the election while other liberal blogs ignore it.

Does look like Maliki gained in the South while the Iranian-backed groups lost. This is about nationalism and pragmatic concerns and not about Iran vs. the US. The US is leaving anyways.

It is good to see Iraq have successful elections while every other nation in the region besides Israel does not.

[Eric Martin]

Does look like Maliki gained in the South while the Iranian-backed groups lost.

Yes and no. It's a mistake to say that Maliki is not an "Iranian-backed group." Iran's preferred partner, ISCI, doesn't appear to have done well. But Maliki and his Dawa party have also received much backing from Iran, and have very close ties.

Many of Dawa's members, including Maliki for a while, spent time in exile in Iran during the decades of Saddam's crackdowns. Some of the smaller Shiite parties that did well also have Iranian-backing. As the West Point Counter Terrorism Center made clear:

Iran has a robust program to exert influence in Iraq in order to limit American power projtestion capability in the Middle East, ensure the Iraqi government does not post a threat to Iran, and build a reliable platform for projecting influence further abroad. Iran has two primary modes of influence. First, and most importantly, it projects political influence by leveraging close historical relationships with several Shi’a organizations in Iraq: the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the Badr organization, and the Dawah political party.

Still, ISCI was the worst party for Iraq IMO, and any news that they did poorly is good news for Iraqis first and foremost.

[NonyNony]

Possibly a stupid question, but where does Matt Duss do his best to correct Bolton's ravings? The link with his name on it appears to connect to the ravings themselves.

[Eric Martin]

Not a stupid question at all. I messed up the link. But it's fixed now.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/03/bolton-removing-irans-enemy-did-not-help-iran/

[Gary Farber]

"Does look like Maliki gained in the South while the Iranian-backed groups lost."

Hint: The Islamic Dawa Party, Maliki's party is an "Iranian-backed group."

[...] Dawa supported the Islamic Revolution in Iran and in turn received support from the Iranian government. During the Iran–Iraq War, Iran backed a Dawa insurgency against Saddam Hussein's Baathist government in Iraq. In 1979, Dawa moved its headquarters to Tehran, the capital of Iran.[6]

You might want to, you know, look into this.

[Peter K.]

You might want to, you know, look into this

From January this year. Read it and weep smart guy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/world/middleeast/26maliki.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

He joined the Dawa Party in college. At the time, the Islamist party, founded by an uncle of the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, was already largely underground. Mr. Hussein saw its religious philosophy and predominantly Shiite membership as a threat. In 1979, shortly after he seized power, Mr. Hussein ordered the arrests of all Dawa Party members nationwide. In Mr. Maliki’s home district alone, at least 70 men were detained; most were never seen again.

Mr. Maliki was one of fewer than five who escaped. He took refuge in Syria, moved to Iran and then returned to Syria, where he stayed until the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

While Shiite Islamist parties like Dawa are often accused of being close to Iran, Mr. Maliki saw the Iranians as neighbors but not always friends, his associates said. Dawa’s exiles were treated as “unwelcome guests” in Iran, said Sami Alaskary, a member of Parliament and a close friend of the prime minister.

He recalled one occasion when Mr. Maliki sought permission from the Iranians to send a Dawa operative across the border to Iraq. After Mr. Maliki had waited for weeks, an Iranian official called to say that the answer was ready but that Mr. Maliki needed to pick it up at the border office. It was winter and bitter cold, but he made the 14-hour drive there. When he arrived, the paper said: “Permission denied.”

“That person who called him to tell him the answer was ready, he knew it was a rejection but he didn’t tell him; he did it to humiliate him,” Mr. Alaskary said.
------

Oh and looks like the secular Ayad Allawi did very well. So sorry Juan Cole fans... I know how disappointed you must be....

[Eric Martin]

Peter:

I wouldn't rely on the word of Maliki's "associates" - as quoted in a Times article - that Maliki has an antagnoistic relationship with Iran. Those associates, and Maliki himself, have an interest in playing down ties to Iran.

ISCI tried to do similar things when it changed its name from SCIRI and declared that it would be heeding Sistani's clerical decisions rather than Khamenei's. It was a PR stunt, nothing more.

All indications are that Dawa and Iran continue to have the close relations that they have had over the past quarter century. Recall, Maliki has gone to bat for Iran on several fronts in opposition to Bush administration objectives: shutting down the MEK, ruling out using Iraq as a base to attack Iran and strengthening economic ties with Iran.

That being said, Maliki definitely isn't as close as the Hakim family and ISCI/Badr in general.

[Peter K.]

I wouldn't rely on the word of Maliki's "associates" - as quoted in a Times article - that Maliki has an antagnoistic relationship with Iran. Those associates, and Maliki himself, have an interest in playing down ties to Iran.

Why not? Doesn't make them not true. And doves and anti-Bushies (he's gone btw) have an interest to play up Maliki and Iran's associations. Why should we trust the doves any more than the "associates"?

The fact is when Maliki made a move against Sadr without the US's prompting, he was surprised at the level of Iranian influence in the South. Of course Maliki is going to try to have a good relationship with a powerful neighbor, not to mention a rising power.

Recall, Maliki has gone to bat for Iran on several fronts in opposition to Bush administration objectives: shutting down the MEK, ruling out using Iraq as a base to attack Iran and strengthening economic ties with Iran.

What about asking the Americans to leave? You forgot that one. (He's definitely not a puppet which some doves insisted.) My point would be that in some instances, Iran and Iraq share interests. They were pretty much in agreement over Gaza for instance.

Again, kudos for discussing the Iraqi election whereas most liberal blogs are ignoring the purple fingers this time.

[Eric Martin]

Why not? Doesn't make them not true. And doves and anti-Bushies (he's gone btw) have an interest to play up Maliki and Iran's associations. Why should we trust the doves any more than the "associates"?

No. Don't trust "doves." Don't trust "anti-Bushies." Don't trust Maliki and his associates.

Trust history. Trust impartial think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations, Stratfor and West Point's Counter Terrorism Center (hint: West Point's CTC are not "doves" nor "anti-Bushies").

The history is this:

Dawa supported the Islamic Revolution in Iran and in turn received support from the Iranian government. During the Iran–Iraq War, Iran backed a Dawa insurgency against Saddam Hussein's Baathist government in Iraq. In 1979, Dawa moved its headquarters to Tehran, the capital of Iran.

Dawa was housed in Iran. Dawa fought on the side of Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. Maliki lived in Iran for a while. Maliki and his party received significant amounts of money from Iran over the past few years - and for decades before that.

That is an awful lot of evidence to wipe away because of an anonymous quote from an "associate" of Maliki in the Times.

The fact is when Maliki made a move against Sadr without the US's prompting, he was surprised at the level of Iranian influence in the South.

No he wasn't. Maliki knew full well how much Iranian influence there was throughout Iraq. After all, he was on the receiving end of some of the largesse.

Now, I don't think Maliki is pleased with all of it, and he did crack down on some Iranian-tied groups (certain ISCI friendly outfits).

But when he wanted a cease-fire, he looked to Iran to broker it. Which Iran did. In general, Iran and Maliki agree that it's better to weaken Sadr at this point.

[hairshirthedonist]

No substance to add. Just wanted to acknowlege the continuing increase in the size of your posse, Eric.

[Eric Martin]

It not only gets big, it gets bigger ;)