The Times of London has a disturbing article about a potentially unsettling event--an Iranian-style theocracy in post-Ba'athist Iraq.

The mullahs who are orchestrating this get their oxygen from Iran. We've been hoping (or so at least I infer) that Iran would have a pro-western (and pro-American) revolution as a result of a democracy on the border to their west. But what if, as a result of infiltration of pro-theocracy Mullahs from Iran, such an entity is still-born, or strangled in the cradle, due to coalition indiligence or inattentiveness? How, then, will the young Iranians be encouraged, rather than discouraged, from taking the fate of their nation in their own hands?

It may be that Iran will have to move much higher on the priority list in the War on "Terrorism" (scare quotes because it's really a war on many other things, of which terrorism is simply a tactic) in order to ensure that we have a chance at a viable democracy in Iraq. We may have to preempt another country to prevent the one we recently liberated from falling under the thrall of yet another, though different, dictatorship. I don't have any specific answers right now, but I hope that it's something that's being debated both at Foggy Bottom, and across the river...

I keep going back-n-forth on this. On the one hand, if they really want a mullethead-style dictatorship they're welcome to it. (Though who "they" are in this case isn't clear.) On the other foot, we clearly didn't want to liberate Iraq only to end up in five years with yet another mullethead-style dictatorship screaming "death to America, no new taxes" for no particularly good reason.

(I really do miss the Soviet Union sometimes. They were anti-American, but in a fun, pseudo-rational and wacky sort of style reminiscent of Tom & Jerry cartoons.)

I wonder if this is yet another case of "all we know is [insert badness here] so that's what we're sticking with". If that's the case, then how in the world did the Founding Fathers ever manage to evade that trap? I guess not every society has a Thomas Jefferson...

I really am curious what they want. The Iraqi people, that is. At this rate we'll never find out.

> an Iranian-style theocracy in post-Ba'athist Iraq.

Well, duh! No one seems to remember the reason we left Saddam in power in '91. Now we're going to be reminded the hard way.

The primary reason we left Saddam in power in '91 was pressure from Egypt and Saudi Arabia (an incomprehensible soft spot of Bush 41). While many secondary reasons have been discussed -- the desirability of Iraq as a barrier to Iranian expansion, possible repercussions from the common Arabic hero-worship of Saddam, and so on -- I can't recall anyone suggesting until now that prevention of a new Islamic theocracy was even one of these, much less the primary reason.

Do you have a citation for that statement?

Troy: you are right, we did not pursue Saddam, or support the Shiites and Kurds afterwards, because of pressure from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Both were, and still are, dictatorships over large Islamic populations who have a valid concern about the spread of the Islamic revolution. Into Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which would mean the deaths of those in charge. Iraq served as a bulwark against that expansion.

In short, the reason why Iraq served as a bulwark against Iran, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia did not want Saddam gone, is because of the concern for the spread of a theocracy into the power vacuum left behind Saddam, and the spread into Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Underneath the reasons you give, is this concern.

Given everything I?ve heard with the exception of Israel the people of Iran (not the government) are perhaps the most Pro-American of any nation in that part of the world. Having lived under an Islamic government they have more appreciation of what democracy has to offer.
Perhaps the Muslim leaders in Iran are looking to bolster their position by expanding into a neighboring country. Or just looking for a new home, if the ever talked about secular revolution in Iran actually comes to pass.

Foggy Bottom is the problem, not the solution, because the last thing anybody there is interested in doing is coming up with a diplomatic and political strategy to isolate the regime in Teheran and support anti-regime, pro-democracy forces in Iran, i.e., the student movements, trade unions, etc. Instead we get fools like Richard Armitage saying "Iran is democracy." Well, on paper so is the PRC, North Korea and Cuba.

Then when Newt Gingrich calls the State Department on their record of constantly undermining the Administration's intiatives, the Wall Street Journal runs a "news" piece speculating on his political motives. How about this one: the State Department is doing a terrible job of representing the interests of the American people to the rest of the world.

Well, I see two problems with the Department of State. First, it does have significant institutional weaknesses and biases that probably can only be cured with a housecleaning. However, the administration's use of the Department has been pretty amateur. The Department of State was marginalized from the start, and the concerns of England (which needed the diplomatic support) and other allies were ignored IMHO for too long a time. If the diplomatic initiative had started say in early spring then we could have had all summer to get that side worked out.

What Gingrich forgets is that because the Department of State wasn't involved till September 2002 (perhaps due to the above institutional problems), that put off significantly the US's war plans by months and the US lost some standing. I just find Gingrich's blame to be ill aimed.

For a long time now it seems like the state department needs a shakeup. Apparently (and amazingly) 9-11 wasn't sufficient. It's one thing to observe protocol and respect dignitaries of foreign countries. It's quite another when collusion (either intentional or not) works against this countries own interests. Why the preferential treatment of Saudi visas when they clearly spawn terrorists for instance?

What's wrong with individual nations pursuing there own interests even aggressively (though not necessarily militarily) when others are obviously plotting our distruction? What purpose does the UN serve in that case? Which we couldn't handle one-on-one by ourselves?

I really would like to know what Powell is talking to the Syrian about. I don't know that I'd go so far as Newt to say he shouldn't be doing it... but depending on his goals, maybe he shouldn't. I don't know and all I have left is to put my trust in a government that seems to be moving in the right direction, but could easily make a wrong turn somewhere leading to more death in the future.

In this dangerous world, it's good to see some idiot's are being marginalized. Still I'm concerned about the fallout - zealots and con-men seem to be making their bid for the new Iraq (a guy nobody knows declaring himself mayor of Baghdad and giving every civil servant a pay raise, while our military commander doesn't know who he is?)

It would be nice to jump forward in a time machine to see how this all is going to work itself out.

I have no idea why people are surprised that there is a move for an Iranian style Shia state. Its been one of the more likely outcomes should the Iraqi "people" actually choose a government.

The issue isn't whether or not we're
"surprised." Obviously there's going to be a faction that desires that. The question is how large it is, and to what degree it's being promulgated by the Iranian mullahs, and what we need to do about it. It's not at all clear that it has widespread popular support.

> It's not at all clear that it has widespread popular support.

This is a complex question with an answer in several parts. I would suspect it does have reasonable wide spread support in the Shiite community, even without Iranian interference. The Sunni minority will fight against this and the Kurds want the current status quo they have.

The degree of support will also be variable based on how long we are in there and how long it takes to get the country back up and running. This topic was discussed to death on a BBC Question Time special last night from Abu Dhabi - worth looking at.

It's been a long time since I've seen anything at the Baghdad Broadcast Corporation worth looking at.

You'd like Question Time.

You'd probably like Newsnight.