The other Khumaini and the new America

[Tom Penn]

Sistani is doing no one a favor by pretending that the US is not working toward a direct election for a Democratic government in Iraq. The disagreement is not about the end result, but the most viable, efficient, and safe path to get to that result. Sistani seems to think some magic wand can be waved and *poof* free and fair direct elections can be held in Iraq. This is pure naive fantasy.

 

I do agree that we are lucky Sistani is not a radical, but it would be helpful if his object was not to unify Iraqis for the sole purpose of opposing the US framework to build political and electoral institutions to support direct elections next year. If Sistani were so fired up about early direct elections, why did he not help the Americans when we were trying to light a fire under the GC's ass last year when we were begging them to get busy WRITING A CONSTITUTION FOR THE PEOPLE TO VOTE ON?!!!

 

But, no. Sistani has been too occupied with throwing up roadblocks to the caucus election for an interim government and Constitutional convention representatives (our plan B because why? NO CONSTITUTION), without proposing any real viable alternative. No, it is not helpful that Sistani pretends the Americans are the ones "dragging our feet" and trying to postpone Democracy. It is not helpful that Sistani ignores all the very practical reasons why direct elections right now are not feasible (lack of electoral and political infrastructure, lack of security, lack of a lawful process, lack of a CONSTITUTION, etc.). It is not helpful that Sistani pretends there are no external (elections within coalition govts) and internal political realities (defanging the "resistance", as well as points mentioned above) that dictate the handover to a interim Iraqi authority before direct elections can feasibly be held. Sistani fails to recognize that a caucus system for electing an interim government and Constitutional convention representatives is much more democratic, and will more quickly lead to the production of a Constitution and direct elections, than the "loyal jirga" path that Afghanistan has taken.

 

Sistani needs to face the reality that a handover of political power to an Iraqi interim government must take place in June and that direct elections are not feasible within that time frame. Until he can come up with an alternative plan that acknowledges those realities, he is simply being obstructionist.

[Guest Guest_tajer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/internat.../18IRAQ.html?th english

 

http://www.asharqalawsat.com/view/news/200...,19,218676.html عربي arabic

 

اشالره اخرى تبرهن على ماجاء في مقال السيد المستعار حول السبب الذي يدفع بعض قاده السنه العرب ان يكوموا ضد الانتخبات.

اذا كانت بسبب الامن .. لماذا لا يسمح للشيعه والاكراد ممارسه حقهم في مناطقهم التي تتمتع بالامن والاستقرار. السيد الباججي وكما يدعي المقال ضد ذلك متحججا بان السنه سيشعرون بعزله اكبر. هل يستطيع احد ما ان يوضح لي كيف يمكن ان يكون ذلك.

الشيعه والاكراد يريدوتن هذا في مناطقهم... لماذا لايدفع ذلك السنه للحذو حذوهم..؟ اعتقد انه بضغط مثل هذا فان الكثير من السنه سوف لن يرغبوا ان يمثلهم اناس معينون مثل الباججي.

 

اذا لم تكن تحب شى ما فعلى الاقل لاتمنعني عنه. نحن بحر الشوق لهذه اللحضه النادره في تاريخنا! ارجوكم لاتحرمونا من ان نكون ادميون ولو لمره في حياتنا.

شكرا لبوش وكل الاصدقاء الذين جعلوا هذه الفرصه ممكنه واعني فرصه الحلم بها.. قبل نيسان كان يصعب علينا حتى الحلم بها

 

Another point that would prove Mr. Almustaar's point of why some sunni' leaders are opposing the elections.

 

If it is because of security.. Whay not in The Shia and Kurds areas where it is stable and well manged. Mr. Bacahachi, according to this article is against it claiming that this would isolate the Sunni's.. Can some tell me how this would be ? Shia and kurds , each in their regions would like to do it.. Why Sunni's don't follow same path..? I think with such push , a lot of Sunni's will no longer accepting some one " appointed like the Bachachi" be representing them

 

If you don't like it , why you are forcing me to not have it! We are waiting for this moment since ever ! Please help us experience such great feeling of being a humen ! At least once in our life!

 

Thanks Bush and all friends that make such opportunity a real !! I mean the opprtunity of at least dream in it.. before April 2003 , we were not dare even dream about.

[Guest Muterjem]

Translating tom Penn's:

ترجمه تعليق توم بين

 

السستاني لايحسن صنعا عندما يدعي ان امريكا لا تعمل نحو انتخبات مباشره من اجل عراق ديمقراطي. الاختلاف ليس حول النتيجه النهائيه ولكن حول افضل الطرق واكثر شفافيه وامان للحصول على هذه النتيجه..يضهر ان السستاني يضن ان هناك حلا سحريا ندعكه لنحصل على الانتخابات المباشره والنزيه.هذا مجرد وهم سطحي..

انا اتفق اننا محضوضون بان السستاني ليس راديكاليا ولكن سيكون مفيدا لو ان هدفه لم يكن لتوحيد العراققين نحو هدف واحد هو توحيد العراققين ضد المشروع الامريكي لبناء مؤسسات انتخابيه وسياسيه تمهد لانتخابات نزيه في العام القادم..

اذا كان السستاني مولع بمثل هذه الانتخابات المبكرهفلماذا لم يساعد الامريكان عندما كانوا يحثون مجلس الحكم خلال السنه الماضيه .. عندما كنا نتوسل اليهم بان يشغلوا انفسهم بكتابه الدستور كي يمهد للناس الانتخاب

 

ولكن لا. السستاني كان منشغلا بوضع العراقيل اما اللجان الانتخابيه نحو قيام حكومه مؤقته لوحسب الخطه باء . والسبب ؟ لا للدستور.. من دون ان يقدم بديلا عمليا اخر. لا ليس مناسبا ان يتهم السستاني الامريكان ان يجرونا و يؤجلون الديمقراطيه. ان ليس بناء ان يتجاهل السستاني كل تلك الاسباب العمليه حول الانتخابات المباشره الان" عدم توفر البنيه التحتيه السياسيه والانتخابيه, عدم توفر الامان, عدم توفر القاعده القانونيه, عدم وجود دستور.." انه ليس ملائما ان يدعي السستاني ان لاتوجد انتخابات خارجيه داخل حكومات التحالف و الحقائق الداخليه" متذكرا الارهاب والاسباب اعلاه" مما يمنع قيام انتخابات مباشره الاتن. السستاني فشل في ادراك ان اللجان الانتخابيه اسلوب اكثر ديمقراطيه وسيؤدي بسرعه اكبر للدستور و الانتحاب المباشر. من طريقه " مجلس القبائل" الافغانيه.

 

السستاني يحتاج ان يواجه الواقع من ان انتقال السلطه يجب ان يتحقق قبل تموز وان الانتخابات المباشره ليست ممكنه ضمن هذا التوقيت.. والا ان ياتي ببديل اخر يستوعب هذه الحقائق.. فانه ببساطه لن اكثر من مجادل

[salim]

Tom Penn,

Let me my friend tell you that I completely disagree with your analogy and conclusions.. Here below you may find the reasons

Sistani is doing no one a favor by pretending that the US is not working toward a direct election for a Democratic government in Iraq.

Indeed he never said that, he only said that a ligitame " religiously" government is the one which come from direct election.. And he believes that the plan of Nov. 15the is not having that legitamacy.

 

The disagreement is not about the end result, but the most viable, efficient, and safe path to get to that result. Sistani seems to think some magic wand can be waved and *poof* free and fair direct elections can be held in Iraq. This is pure naive fantasy.

It is not his only thinking.. Even your friends are saying same. There no perfect ness in any election , now or later. You need to understand the real motive behind such call. Iraqis are very reluctant with real intentions of the Americans..Such a move would break the big gap of untrust by the Iraqis toward the US. Other than some Sunni leaders , no one in Iraq buy the reason against the direct election.

 

I do agree that we are lucky Sistani is not a radical,

I would say we are lucky Sistani is such a democratic lover.

 

but it would be helpful if his object was not to unify Iraqis for the sole purpose of opposing the US framework to build political and electoral institutions to support direct elections next year.

I totally disagree.. If this is his intension , he wouldn't allow US to get in in the first place.

 

If Sistani were so fired up about early direct elections, why did he not help the Americans when we were trying to light a fire under the GC's ass last year when we were begging them to get busy WRITING A CONSTITUTION FOR THE PEOPLE TO VOTE ON?!!!

Another one that totally disagree with.. From the beginning , he said writing the constitution is an Iraqi responsibility and those who might write it must be elected. It the US plan of not encouraging Iraqis from taking the responsibilities especially with GC , that make all this delay happening.. I don't agree with the way US is dealing with Iraqis as a non democratic nation.. The last nine months told us a lot about how democracy is the hart of this nation..

 

 

But, no. Sistani has been too occupied with throwing up roadblocks to the caucus election for an interim government and Constitutional convention representatives (our plan B because why? NO CONSTITUTION), without proposing any real viable alternative.

 

 

From the begining he calls for election of representatives.. It is the responsibility of the occupying authirities to manage it.

 

 

No, it is not helpful that Sistani pretends the Americans are the ones "dragging our feet" and trying to postpone Democracy. It is not helpful that Sistani ignores all the very practical reasons why direct elections right now are not feasible (lack of electoral and political infrastructure, lack of security, lack of a lawful process, lack of a CONSTITUTION, etc.). It is not helpful that Sistani pretends there are no external (elections within coalition govts) and internal political realities (defanging the "resistance", as well as points mentioned above) that dictate the handover to a interim Iraqi authority before direct elections can feasibly be held.

 

Don't you find the above as repeation of all what the terrorist trying to creat.. We should both Americans and Iraqis stands agaist those criminals and don't let their dreams of blocking the democracy of Iraq from happening..Don't you agree that this terrorist acts are much more than what had happened in Afaganistan.. Why? because they know the possibility of having democratic system in Iraq, that dream which would explode their roots and backgrounds.. We need to encourage such tendency by Iraqi people toward democracy not blocking it.

 

 

Sistani fails to recognize that a caucus system for electing an interim government and Constitutional convention representatives is much more democratic,

 

Let me tell you as Iraqi, I would not buy this.. All those tyrants were telling same .. Keep saying that they are interim and will do it later.. We want to keep our selfs away from any surprises that the election in US would reflect on our only opportunity in our history.. We know very well that other are calling for this postponing as they are relying in the possibility of changing the American policy.. Iraqis have the right to secure it before such thing might happen. We knew very well that this is a unique chance and don't want to have escape as the other one that happened eighty years ago.

 

 

and will more quickly lead to the production of a Constitution and direct elections, than the "loyal jirga" path that Afghanistan has taken.

Don't you think that the US plan is the one that is similar to "Loyal jorka"? Are those folks get elected?

 

 

Sistani needs to face the reality that a handover of political power to an Iraqi interim government must take place in June and that direct elections are not feasible within that time frame. Until he can come up with an alternative plan that acknowledges those realities

,

 

 

 

 

Agree and that is why he insisted on election..

 

he is simply being obstructionist.

 

You might better find some other one .. Without his great wise and great performance, you would find Iraq as the real battel field..

[Tom Penn]

Salim,

 

Dear friend, you make many very good points. Certainly, you understand the situation within Iraq much better than I ever could. Texas Gentlemen in a post titled "Iraqi Opinions" in the forum “By members” below expressed my reservations about immediate direct elections versus Bremer's caucus plan much better than I have. My concerns about premature direct elections are not limited to security. There are many other very important practical concerns, but I won't go into those details here again.

 

I fully support proceeding with elections for local governments in more stable areas, and it is my understanding that those are taking place (I sure hope they are). But, I am very afraid of what could happen in Iraq if the Sunni's are not fully joined in the national political process from the beginning. It's absolutely unthinkable that sovereign power of the nation be handed over exclusively to Kurds and Shiites, as is now being proposed. Such a division of the Iraqi people is impossible. If the Sunni's are disenfranchised politically, they will have no choice but to fight, and if you think there is a terrorist problem in Iraq now, just wait. No, they MUST be brought along by your side. Compromises must be made to keep them politically engaged. And I do not mean compromises that give them privileged power, but I mean by making the process representative in a fair way for the whole nation. Our soldiers and the Iraqi Army and IP will still be there to ensure the 2005 elections take place and that "interim" does not become "permanent".

 

I absolutely do not trust Sistani, or any other religious figure consolidating his power and throwing his weight around. Bin Laden talks softly, and he was not raging about killing infidels when we were helping the Afghans oust the Soviet Union. I do not trust political religious leaders. And I do not trust anyone who says one thing, but does another. And regardless of what Sistani says, he is very much engaged in politics and taking a very active position at that, as are the other Shia clerics. As a matter of fact, he already seems to be DOMINATING the political process within Iraq.

 

I hope that I am wrong to distrust Sistani, but his positions look very much to me like an opportunistic, heavy-handed power grab by Shia church figures before secular parties have had a chance to fully organize, develop their positions, and publicize them to attract memberships. The church figures have taken to doing these things in their Mosques at every opportunity. They have a ready-made bully pulpit and they are obviously not afraid to use it. And, this new alliance of Kurdish politicians and Shia clerics does not bode well for a peaceful, democratic path forward for Iraq as a nation, and further supports my theory that this early direct election position by the Shia clergy is an ill-disguised power grabbing maneuver. And it quite likely will fuel the resistance and scare more Sunnis into more active support of it, and perhaps further encourage participation by like-minded sectarians from elsewhere in the Muslim world, which will add to the many enemies of a free and democratic Iraq.

 

I know that no election is flawless, but it is very important that we all understand the potential consequences of each knowable "flaw". Decisions must be made on a logical risk versus reward basis. Some risks are too potentially damaging to our common objective to take. And, I'll tell you, Salim, this emerging situation looks pretty dangerous from where I am sitting. But, I have such a limited perspective and perhaps I am wrong about many things. Actually, I pray that I'm wrong about many things. But, I am eager for you to teach me. It is very likely that I worry too much, but my worry is for you and your countrymen, so please be patient with me. Take care, my friend.

 

Regards,

Tom Penn

[salim]

Tom ,

I fully agree with a lot of your fears..I assume that there are a lot in Iraq who have same concerns including Alsistani himself!

 

He keeps insisting that clergy should not be involved in governemnt.. I think that is the reason behind the great support that he is having within the Iraqis.

 

There is a common feeling inside Iraq that the new government should not be islamic governemnt, and that is why we all ask for election. This is the only way to asure this demand..

You might find what I am talking about strange, based on the great support to Alsistani by people , especially Shia.. I can understand that. Let me explain it ..

 

What you are seeing is not the support to the person but to the call. The way Najaf Shia Marjea works is that there is no grand leader and people have the full right to choose.. Alsistani is not the grand ayatulla, he is just one of many other grand ayatulla's.. Some of them are radicalls , others are like Sistani following the traditional Shia path of splitting government from clergy.

However all of them are a ware about people well being, but each one is following his understandinfg of what such good..

Indeed that is the main difference that Shia makes to other Islamic groups.. The leader should follow the fellowers and not the other way. People are the one who creat the leader, they are the one how pay "Zaka and Khumus" money that this leader is conrolling. On the difference to the Sunni clergy, the Shia one need to be so commited to his followers. Sunni needs to be so commited to the governemnt who pay him to be a Shiakh in the mosque.

 

It is smart to refer to that article.. I don't see any difference between election and any other democratic way as far as minority concerns. Those who don't know Iraq might not know that Iraq is geographically devided . In both ways , sunni or shia representative will come from same areas and provinces.

I just wanted to comment that , we should always remmeber that encourging some minority should not be looked at as a way to compromise on the rights of others. It is not for the sake of majority, but in order not to encourage those who are with the process to go in the other direction to acheive their goals.. Seeing some minority get more previliges upon terrorizing the US and other Iraqis.

 

Thank you very much for all commitment to the Iraqi people

[Airedale]

Tom ,

I fully agree with a lot of your fears..I assume that there are a lot in Iraq who have same concerns including himself!

 

 

 

It is smart to refer to that article.. I don't see any difference between election and any other  democratic way  as far as minority concerns.  I just wanted to comment that , we should always remmeber that encourging some minority should not be looked at  as a way to compromise on the rights of others.  It is not for the sake of majority, but in order not to encourage those who are with the process to go in the other direction to acheive their goals.. Seeing some minority get more previliges upon terrorizing the US and other Iraqis.

 

Thank you very much for all commitment to the Iraqi people

Good dialogue on this thread. I want to make breif comments.

 

There is something obvious and common in the political talk.

 

We agree there is untrust or mistrust between all groups. Lets "put it on the table" and talk long term expectations.

 

This is my opinion.

This is what we ( United States ) wants;

A stable Iraqi government of the people to make treaties with. We want Air and Army bases to house a smaller US presence.

We don't need to be in Europe any longer.

The German villages,it is reported in the news, are angry that after 60 years,we are going to close those bases.

Those German people will lose jobs and money they expected to always be there. SO they protest and demand we stay ?

 

We delegate power to a council on June 30th but by no means will we leave. I feel some Americans think by July 1st, all US troops leave.

Iraqi's know that isn't the case. The US Troops are not Saddams Republican Guard but they will be a presence for some time into the future.They will never be at the numbers as Sadams Republican Guard troops. Saddams Army was rumored to be the largest and most brutal in the ME.

Iraqi's will see less American soldiers in their cities but will be glad to know they offer job opputunities and stability keeping a lower profile in the years to come.

 

Thats it , the "cards are on the table" for all to see.

 

On Alsistani ;

He keeps insisting that clergy should not be involved in governemnt.. I think that is the reason behind the great support that he is having within the Iraqis.

 

There is a common feeling inside Iraq that the new government should not be islamic governemnt, and that is why we all ask for election. This is the only way to asure this demand..

Lets look beyond the June 30th power handover.

Lets look past the potential elections of 2005.

Both inside and outside Iraq ,many see an Islamic state is possible in Four years.

Let's be real and wonder what things will become like in the year

2008 or 2010 for example.

 

Alsistani is not the grand ayatulla, he is just one of many other grand ayatulla's.. Some of them are radicalls , others are like Sistani following the traditional Shia path of splitting government from clergy.

They are whats known as " grass roots " politicians.

They will guide the country's majority.

Is it wrong?

No.

Iraqi's are not Persian.Will they seperate Mosque and State?

Depends on what is preached by the hard line radicals every week from now on.

Indeed that is the main difference that Shia makes to other Islamic groups.. The leader should follow the fellowers and not the other way. People are the one who creat the leader, they are the one how pay "Zaka and Khumus" money  that this leader is conrolling. On the difference to the Sunni clergy, the Shia one need to be so commited to his followers. Sunni needs to be so commited to the governemnt who pay him to be a Shiakh in the mosque.

The Shia come into power as a majority.Maybe they will take payments from the government. Iraqi's have a lot to decide in such a short time.

Those who don't know Iraq might not know that Iraq is geographically devided .  In both ways , sunni or shia representative will come from same areas and provinces.

Will the American presence be a bridge for the divide? I wonder if some day soon the Sunni triangle will welcome American Army bases in old Republican Guard locations. Ironic they may be accepted as protectors of the minority.

 

In a nutshell;

We do not see ourselves handing power over to a govt that will demand us to leave. It's not going to be that way.

 

The Germans prefer we return to support their local economy.

 

I don't think maintaining a large presence there anymore is going to be a long term goal of the military.

[Airedale]

I have posted most of this article;

 

American interests

 

Iraqis Say Deal on U.S. Troops Must Be Put Off

By DEXTER FILKINS

 

Published: February 23, 2004

 

 

AGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 22 — Iraq's interim leaders said Sunday that they could not negotiate a formal agreement with the American military on maintaining troops in Iraq, and that the task must await the next sovereign Iraqi government.

 

The delay could put the Americans in the position of negotiating an agreement with leaders they did not appoint on such sensitive issues as when the use of force would be allowed.

 

It also means that another feature of the agreement of Nov. 15, which set out the steps to sovereignty, will not occur on schedule. Other things falling by the wayside are the approval of an interim constitution, which was supposed to occur by next Saturday, and the now abandoned plan to hold caucuses to pick a transitional assembly.

But the Americans have clung to the final date of handing power to a new Iraqi administration — June 30.

 

Members of the Iraqi Governing Council, appointed by the Americans in July, said they had reached a consensus that the issue was too momentous to handle without a popular mandate.

 

Gen. John P. Abizaid, the commander of American forces in the region, recently suggested that the military agreement would not occur according to the original timetable, but he expressed confidence that whatever the new conditions might be, the American military would be treated hospitably. Simply put, no Iraqi government could survive without the American forces, according to American commanders.

 

A formal agreement governing American forces in Iraq could touch on many issues, including the number of American troops remaining and their location.

......

....Legally and in every other sense, the new sovereign Iraqi government will have the power to say `Thanks very much, we don't need you, go home,' " said Samir Sumaidy, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council. "That is probably unlikely. But legally we will have the power."

 

One issue of paramount interest to the Americans is legal immunity. American officials have said they want their soldiers to be protected against local prosecution, while some Iraqi officials say they would insist on the right to prosecute American soldiers who break Iraqi laws.

 

About 105,000 American troops operate inside Iraq, in a coalition authorized by the United Nations.

 

....

..Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's powerful Shiite leader, has pressed hard for elections soon, despite the insecurity of the nation during a time of insurgency. But, an elected body of representatives could prove unpredictable for the Americans.

 

The views of Ayatollah Sistani, and the politically sensitive American presence, appeared to weigh on the Governing Council's members. Some leaders said they had decided to pass the issue to a future government because they felt they lacked sufficient legitimacy to take such a momentous decision.

 

 

....

...We are not 100 percent accepted by the Iraqi people," said Ghazi M. Ajil al-Yawar, a member of the Governing Council. "We have not been elected. We do not want to draft an agreement that a new government would come in and change anyway."

 

But Governing Council members made it clear that even if an agreement was reached, the relationship between Iraqis and the American military would change.

 

"Once sovereignty is transferred, the Americans will be an invited guest," said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, a Governing Council member.

 

Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said negotiations over the status of American troops could prove very delicate.

 

"You are opening Pandora's box," Mr. Cordesman said. "It is a deeply divided country where no one knows the rules."

 

General Abizaid said, "It's apparent to all of us that Iraqi security institutions will not be mature enough by July to continue or be able to control the situation through the nation without the help of the coalition forces."

 

Nearly 250,000 American military personnel serve abroad, and the United States government has formal agreements with 53 of the countries where they operate. But the United States has maintained substantial military forces in some countries without any formal agreement. One example, Mr. Cordesman said, was Saudi Arabia, where the United States military had a significant presence until last year.

 

Proceeding without any agreement, even after the transfer of sovereignty, seemed to be one option that some members of the Iraqi Governing Council were contemplating.

 

"Sistani said that if there was an agreement, it had to be approved democratically," Mr. Rubaie said. "But not if there is no agreement."

 

In any case, Mr. Rubaie said, the political calculus in Iraq suggested that the Americans would be welcomed here for a long time by most of the people.

 

"No Shiite or Kurd will ask the Americans to leave," Mr. Rubaie said. "They would like them to stay for a long time."

[Guest Guest_salim]

No Shiite or Kurd will ask the Americans to leave," Mr. Rubaie said. "They would like them to stay for a long time."[

 

Indeed that is exactly what I ment.. Having such aggreement through a legitimate government is the only way.. A government with limited legitimacy would not dare doing it. While legitimate one can. No one would argue if this the will of people, But a lot of those propogandist would claim any agreement to be non legitimate

[Guest Guest_tajer]

http://holynajaf.net/bian.htm

 

نص البيان الصادر عن السيد السستاني حول تقرير الامم المتحده بشان انتقال السلطه والانتخابات.

البيان يدعوا الامم المتحده لتجاوز حاله التمييع بشان اهميه الانتخابات وتحديد موعد محدد وبشكل قرار من مجلس الامن. كما يدعوا الى عدم منح الحكومه الانتقاليه اي صلاحيات تلزم الحكومات المنتخبه والشرعيه بما تتخذه من قرارات.

The original stetment by Alsistani about the latest UN report. Calls for UN to to have a new resolution about the final date of the ellection and ask for having a transition government with limited authirities not to oblige the legimate government with any any aggrements.

 

In Arabic

[Guest Michael]

The Article by MR Amustaar is a very deep analysis..

When I read it now, I come to one conclusion , how great Iraq will be !

[Guest mustefser]

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/728/re82.htm

 

Intersting article by Iraqi American Scholar Abbas Kadum

[Guest Mustefser]

"المفاجأة" وليس رفسنجاني:

تحديات جمة تواجه الرئيس الجديد

دبي- نجاح محمد علي

جاءت نتائج الانتخابات الرئاسية الايرانية مخيبة لآمال الاصلاحيين بشقيهم المعتدل والمتطرف، ولكنها كانت متوقعة بالنسبة لأولئك الذين يعرفون بخطط المحافظين، التي نجحت أخيرا في إحكام سيطرتهم على كل مفاصل النظام في الجمهورية الاسلامية

إذن جاءت" المفاجأة " ونجح المحافظون في خطتهم ،وحالوا بين الرئيس السابق أكبر هاشمي رفسنجاني والعودة مجددا الى الرئاسة في ايران،وهاهم اليوم يسيطرون على السلطات الثلاث: التنفيذية والتشريعية والقضائية، وباقي مفاصل النظام الاقتصادية والعسكرية، ولكن مهمتهم داخليا وخارجيا ستكون صعبة جدا في ظل تحديات خطيرة واستحقاقات عدة.

لقد فاز أحمدي نجاد وحقق بذلك "المفاجأة" التي لم يتوقعها الا القلة فقط ممن خبر دهاليز السياسة الايرانية وتضاريسها المتعرجة،واستثمر نجاد سجله الخالي من سلبيات الحكم وأخطائه، لاحراج منافس قوي من طراز رفسنجاني،الملئي ملفه بأخطاء مرحلة إعادة البناء عندما كان رئيسا للفترة مابين(1989و1997)،ونجحت خطة المحافظين الذين جعلوا رفسنجاني في موقع المدافع، عبر سلسلة اتهامات ظلت ترافقه طوال الحملة الانتخابية.

 

نجاد ينتمي الى اسرة فقيرة، والى نسيج متدين محافظ جدا لايرى ضرورة كبرى لموقع الرئاسة ويعتقد انه منفذ فقط لارادة الولي الفقيه، بينما منافسه يعتبر نفسه شريكا في النظام،منطلقا من ثنائيته التأريخية مع المرشد الأعلى آية الله علي خامنئي، الممتدة الى عهد ماقبل الثورة الاسلامية،وأثناء قيادتهما معا،البلاد طوال الفترة الماضية، وبذلك يرى المحافظون الذين عملوا ضد الرئيس السابق، أن رفسنجاني سيكون منافسا قويا لخامنئي(وهذا ما لايمكن تصوره)، ومن هنا عملوا على أن لايصل الى الرئاسة من جديد.

كذلك فان اخفاقات الاصلاحيين المتكررة، وفشلهم في تنفيذ وعودهم، وصراعهم المفتعل في أحيان عدة، مع المحافظين حول الحريات الاجنماعية، والسياسية،رفعت من أسهم احمدي نجاد الذي جاء من بيئة الفقراء، واعدا بانصافهم.

لقد تعهد نجاد بمحاربة الفساد وبتقسيم الثروة بشكل عادل ، لكنه اذا فشل ولم يحقق شيئا في هذا الاتجاه،وهو أمر متوقع بسبب تركيبة النظام المعقدة، والتحديات الخطيرة التي تواجهه، فانه سيكون سببا رئيسا في قطع حبل الوصل الممدود بين الشعب والحكومة.

سكان القرى والأرياف يشكلون نحو 90% من سكان ايران، وهم يدينون في الغالب بالولاء لنظام الجمهورية الاسلامية، حتى وإن كانت لديهم ملاحظات على أداء رموزه والمسؤولين الحكوميين،وهؤلاء لعبوا دورا في ترجيح كفة أحمدي نجاد، بعد أن تأكد للشارع الايراني أن المحافظين قادرون على عرقلة جهود الاصلاحيين الرامية الى تحسين اداء الاقتصاد الايراني ومواجهة التحديات الأخرى الداخلية والخارجية،.

لقد شارك أهالي الريف والقرى في الحرب مع العراق وقدموا القرابين فيها ، ولكنهم انزعجوا كثيرا مما أصبح يعرف في ايران" أبناء السادة" أي أبناء المسؤولين، الذين وصلوا قمة الثراء بعد انتهاء الحرب، وأمسكوا بمفاصل العديد من الشركات والمؤسسات الاقتصادية ، لأنهم اولاد " الملوك"، وعلى رأسهم أبناء الخاسر في الانتخابات الايرانية أكبر هاشمي رفسنجاني.

ليس مهما من فاز من مرشحي التيار المحافظ في هذه الانتخابات، بل المهم بالنسبة للمحافظين، ولعامة الشعب الايراني، أن يخسر رفسنجاني ويفشل في الوصول مجددا الى سدة الرئاسة، حتى وإن غير جلده، ولبس لباس الاعتدال، وأعلن عن تشكيل جبهة لهذا لاعتدال.

قبل ثلاث سنوات وجه قادة الحرس الثوري الايراني رسالة لها مغزى الى الرئيس(حتى أغسطس) محمد خاتمي ولمحوا فيها الى عزمهم على فتح مواقع الاصلاحيين وقلاعهم، ووضعوا لتحقيق هدفهم، خطة طويلة الأمد، بدأت بالتحضير للانتخابات البلدية في عام 2003 والتي جاءت بالرئيس الجديد محمود أحمدي نجاد، واعلنوا للانتخابات التشريعية عن تأسيس حركة عمّار ايران(آبادكران) ليخوضوا بها انتخابات مجلس الشورى(البرلمان) ويسيطروا عليه،عندما عرضوا لغة مرنة أظهروا فيها وجههم"الاصلاحي".

تحديات الرئيس

لن يكون طريق نجاد نحو قصر الرئاسة الواقع في شارع فلسطين، وبالجوار من منزل ومكتب المرشد الأعلى آية الله علي خامنئي، مفروشا بالزهور، على الرغم من الفوز المريح الذي حققه في هذه الانتخابات ،في ضوء الاتهامات المكررة والجاهزة له عن ضلوعه في عملية اقتحام السفارة الأمريكية بطهران في تشرين ثاني/نوفمبر عام 1979، واحتجاز رهاني أمريكيين لمدة 444 يوما، وفي اغتيال عبدالرحمن قاسملو زعيم الحزب الديمقراطي الكردستاني في ايران في تموز/يوليو عام 1989.

هذه الاتهامات لن تتوقف حتى يتم الانتهاء من حل العقد المستعصية لبرنامج ايران النووي، ما ينسجم مع الموقف الأمريكي المطالب بتخلي إيران كلياً عن التكنولوجيا الذرية ودورة الوقود النووي،مع علم واشنطن الأكيد أن نجاد لم يكن ضالعا بالفعل في تلك الحوادث/خصوصا وأنه ينتمي الى تيار،يكن على الدوام عداء شديدا للشيوعية ويجد نفسه قريبا من أعدائها!.

 

ونذكر هنا أن نجاد كان أثناء أزمة السفارة الأمريكية(1979)،منشغلا في عمله كمحرر في صحيفة(جيغ وداد) وتعني(الصراخ)، وقيل إنه كان يميل الى احتلال سفارة الاتحاد السوفيتي السابق، بدلا من سفارة واشنطن.

كما تنبغي الاشارة أيضا الى أن خارطة القوى السياسية داخل الجمهورية الاسلامية كانت موزعة آنذاك على

"يسار ديني" يعادي الولايات المتحدة ونفذ عملية اقتحام السفارة الأمريكية، و " يمين ديني " لايعارض الانفتاح على الغرب،والولايات المتحدة بشرطها وشروطها،ونجاد لم يكن من القسم الأول.

 

الايرانيون وخصوصا الاصلاحيين الذين لايحملون ودا لنجاد ، نفوا هذه الاتهامات ووصفوها بالمزاعم التي تمارس في سياق حرب نفسية تشنها الولايات المتحدة واسرائيل ضد بلادهم ، ونصحوا الدول الأوربية ووسائل اعلامها بان لاتخضع للضغوط الأمريكية و"الصهيونية"،وأن لايصدقوا حملة التشهير التي لاتستهدف نجاد وحده بل النظام برمته..

وحتى يتم اتخاذ موقف أوروبي وأمريكي موحد إزاء هذه الاتهامات ، يُنظر الى أداء ايران في عهد الرئيس المنتخب إزاء العراق تحديدا، بأنه سيشكل الأساس الذي ستبنى عليه احتمالات زيادة الضغوط على نجاد وفتح ملفات أخرى على ضوء خلفيته السابقة في الحرس الثوري ...

على أية حال ،فالذين يمسكون بمقاليد الامور في ايران لديهم مخاوف جدية من أمريكا، ولديهم شكوك أيضا من موقف أوروبا،ولايثقون بجيرانهم في الشرق الأوسط،ولديهم مخاوف من المُناخ المفتوح نسبيا في البلاد ومن التوجه نحو الديمقراطية الذي أوجده الرئيس الحالي محمد خاتمي،الذي اعتقد أنه قادر على دمقرطة "الثورة" ،فيما نجاد يرى عكس ذلك تماما أن الثورة الاسلامية لم تنتصر من أجل الديمقراطية الغربية التي يمكنها برأيه يمكن أن تؤدي الى انهيار الثورة، وسقوط النظام.

من هنا يؤمن المعارضون لنجاد أنه سيكون الواجهة لتعزيز سلطة المحافظين،والسؤال المطروح هذه الأيام بقوة :هل سيستخدم نجاد الحرس الثوري والجيش والاستخبارات وباقي أجهزة الدولة لقمع الشعب اذا أراد الديمقراطية؟.

مهما يكن من أمر فان الاختبار المهم أمام نجاد هو عندما تجلس ايران مع الاتحاد الأوروبي على طاولة المفاوضات،لأن أي تغيير في الفريق المفاوض سيُنظرمن قبل الأوروبين بحذر يزيد من شكوكهم ولن يساعد على نهج بناء الثقة الذي مضى عليه خاتمي، ،ومع ذلك فالنظام مايزال يملك القدرة على التعاطي بمرونة ولايريد المواجهة مع الولايات المتحدة.

تحديات نجاد

انتخاب محمود أحمدي نجاد أثار مخاوف من أن تشهد ايران عزلة دولية واقليمية على ضوء تصريحاته المثيرة أثناء الحملة الانتخابية، وخلفيته في الحرس الثوري ، الجيش العقائدي لنظام الجمهورية الاسلامية.

وسيواجه الرئيس الايراني المنتخب الذي سيتسلم الرئاسة عمليا في أغسطس /آب القادم ، تحديات أهمها داخليا:ملف القوميات وتتألف ايران من ست قوميات ستثير قلقا للحكومة المقبلة بعد الاضطرابات التي شهدتها الاهواز مركز اقليم خوزستان.

أيضا التنمية الاقتصادية وحل مشكلات البطالة والتضخم، وتحديث البنى التحتية خصوصا مايتعلق بجذب الاستثمارات الأجنبية لتطوير المنشآت النفطية، تحد مهم يواجه نجاد.

وبحسب الارقام الرسمية، يعيش حوالى ستة ملايين ايراني تحت خط الفقر والرقم يزيد عن ذلك كثيرا حسب تقارير غير رسمية .

ويتعين على نجاد الاستعانة بفريق من الخبراء الاقتصاديين لترجمة شعاراته التي تصطدم كثيرا بمفردات الواقع الايراني، وللاستمرار في تطوير المنشآت النفطية وجذب الاستثمارات التي تقدر بـ100 مليار دولار خلال أربع سنوات، رغم أنه شخصيا لاينسجم كثيرا مع تحرير الاقتصاد، وفتح ابواب ايران الخارجية،لكنه بالتأكيد لن يتمكن من مواجهة رغبة الاقتصاديين من حلفائه مثل احمد توكلي المؤمنين بقوة بأهمية الاستعانة بالاستثمارات الأجنبية.

لقد أصاب انتخاب نجاد الاقتصاد الايراني بحالة من الذهول وعدم الاستقرار والاضطراب، فنجاد اطلق في حملته الانتخابية شعارات" يجب ولايجب" دون ان يقدم برنامجا محددا، ولكنه بعد انتخابه قدم برنامجا واضحا، لايختلف كثيرا عن غيره من الرؤساء الايرانيين عدا طريقة العرض وأولويات المرحلة.

فبينما كان رفسنجاني في عهدين رئاسيين(1989-1997) تبنى إعادة الاعمار بعد توقف الحرب مع العراق، طرح خاتمي(1997-2005) فكرة حوار الحضارات وإزالة التوترات،وهاو نجاد ينادي بالعدالة الاجتماعية في الداخل، دون ان ينسى تحديات الخارج ماضيا على خطى سلفيه،لأنه ملتزم بنظام ولاية الفقيه، وبالنهج العام للنظام.

الرئيس المقبل يواجه ايضا مهمة الاستمرار في البناء العسكري وتطوير قدرات ايران العسكرية وتحديدا الصاروخية لحماية المنشآت النووية والمرافق الحيوية الاخرى في ظل تصاعد التهديد بتوجيه ضربة عسكرية تطول هذه المرافق.

المحافظون يقولون أنهم ينتظرون من رئيسهم الجديد ان يضع حدا لما يسمونه بالغزو الثقافي الغربي، والتراجع عن قيم الاسلام والثورة، ويريدون من رئيسهم فرض قوانين صارمة ضد اوجه الانحراف في المجتمع ، ويتهمون الرئيس الايراني محمد خاتمي بانه منح حريات كثيرة للشباب.

أما أهم التحديات الخارجية فتتمثل بملفات عدة تنتظر أن تفتح بعد الاستحقاق الرئاسي منها الملف النووي وطبيعة ماستؤول اليه العلاقات مع الأطراف المعنية: الاتحاد الأوروبي والولايات المتحدة، وروسيا التي تتلكأ في تحويل الوقود النووي لتشغيل محطة بوشهر النووية.

أيضا ..الأداء الايراني في العراق الذي سيختلف عن عهد الاصلاحي خاتمي، وآلية التعاطي مع الحكومة المقبلة وكذلك مستقبل العلاقة مع سوريا ، والمنظمات الاصولية وأهمها حزب الله في لبنان والموقف من نزع سلاحه في ضوء التطورات الاخيرة في لبنان والضغوط على سوريا، والموقف من عملية التسوية مع اسرائيل، والعلاقات مع دول الخليج العربية.....كلها ملفات تنتظر على طاولة الرئيس الذي سيظهر تشددا حيالها لكن دون أن يخل بالمضمون وهو أن السياسة الخارجية لايصنعها الرئيس بل يشارك في صنعها...

عموما ستولي الحكومة الايرانية المقبلة أهمية خاصة لتطوير علاقات ايران مع الدول العربية والاسلامية،وباقي دول العالم عدا المعادية وهي اشارة الى الولايات المتحدة.

وبعد أن دعا المرشد الأعلى آية الله علي خامنئي، اكبر هاشمي رفسنجاني مرشح الرئاسة المهزوم الى البقاء منخرطا في السياسة،يصبح من نافلة القول إن سياسة ايران الخارجية لن تشهد تغييرا كبيرا، لأن رفسنجاني هو رئيس مجمع تشخيص مصلحة النظام ، أعلى هيئة ترسم السياسات الاستراتيجية.

عربيا فان المحافظين يجدون أنفسهم الأقرب الى أشقائهم في الدين، دون أن يعني ذلك تقديمهم تنازلات في قضايا قومية في الخلاف مثلا مع الامارات العربية المتحدة حول الجزر الثلاث،

وأما عن العلاقة مع الغرب فستواصل ايران حوارها النووي مع الاتحاد الأوروبي، لأن المحافظين الممسكين بالسلطتين التنفيذية والتشريعية، سيقودون مفاوضاتهم بموقف موحد .

وتظل العقدة الأصعب التي ترتبط أساسا باسلوب الرئيس، وبموقف النظام برمته، هي العلاقة مع الولايات المتحدة، وبحسب المقربين منه فان نجاد لن يغلق الباب نهائيا أمام حوار مفقود مع العدو اللدود لايران، ولن يفتحه هو رغم أن رفاقه المحافظين في الحكومات السابقة كانوا أول من دعا لهكذا حوار لحل الخلافات تمهيدا لاعادة العلاقات.

[Guest Guest]

We are wellocme to it's configuration.

[Guest Guest]

Wellcome to the real world.