How Sistani Silently Halted Iraq’s Slide Back into War

Iraqi demonstrators gather during an anti-government protest in Baghdad, Iraq September 2, 2022. (Reuters)
Iraqi demonstrators gather during an anti-government protest in Baghdad, Iraq September 2, 2022. (Reuters)
TT

How Sistani Silently Halted Iraq’s Slide Back into War

Iraqi demonstrators gather during an anti-government protest in Baghdad, Iraq September 2, 2022. (Reuters)
Iraqi demonstrators gather during an anti-government protest in Baghdad, Iraq September 2, 2022. (Reuters)

When a pronouncement by a religious scholar in Iran drove Iraq to the brink of civil war last week, there was only one man who could stop it: 92-year-old Iraqi Shiite religious authority Ali al-Sistani, who proved once again he is the most powerful man in his country.

Sistani said nothing in public about the unrest that erupted on Iraq's streets. But government officials and Shiite insiders say it was only Sistani's stance behind the scenes that halted a meltdown.

The Iraqis who took to the streets blamed Tehran for whipping up the violence, which began after a cleric based in Iran denounced Iraq's most popular politician, Moqtada al-Sadr, and instructed his own followers - including Sadr himself - to seek guidance from Iran's Supreme Leader.

Sadr's followers tried to storm government buildings. By nightfall they were driving through Baghdad in pickup trucks brandishing machineguns and bazookas.

Armed men believed to be members of pro-Iranian militia opened fire on Sadrist demonstrators who threw stones. At least 30 people were killed.

And then, within 24 hours, it was over as suddenly as it started. Sadr returned to the airwaves and called for calm. His armed supporters and unarmed followers began leaving the streets, the army lifted an overnight curfew and a fragile calm descended upon the capital.

To understand both how the unrest broke out and how it was quelled, Reuters spoke with nearly 20 officials from the Iraqi government, Sadr's movement and rival Shiite factions seen as pro-Iranian. Most spoke on condition of anonymity.

Those interviews all pointed to a decisive intervention behind the scenes by Sistani, who has never held formal political office in Iraq but presides as the most influential scholar in its Shiite religious center, Najaf.

According to the officials, Sistani's office ensured Sadr understood that unless Sadr called off the violence by his followers, Sistani would denounce the unrest.

"Sistani sent a message to Sadr, that if he will not stop the violence then Sistani would be forced to release a statement calling for a stopping of fighting – this would have made Sadr look weak, and as if he'd caused bloodshed in Iraq," said an Iraqi government official.

Three Shiite figures based in Najaf and close to Sistani would not confirm that Sistani's office sent an explicit message to Sadr. But they said it would have been clear to Sadr that Sistani would soon speak out unless Sadr called off the unrest.

An Iran-aligned official in the region said that if it were not for Sistani's office, "Moqtada al-Sadr would not have held his press conference" that halted the fighting.

‘Betrayal’

Last week's violence began after Kadhim al-Haeri, a top-ranking Iraqi-born Shiite cleric who has lived in Iran for decades, announced he was retiring from public life and shutting down his office due to advanced age. Such a move is practically unknown in the 1,300-year history of Shi'ite Islam, where top clerics are typically revered until death.

Haeri had been anointed as Sadr's movement's spiritual advisor by Sadr's father, himself a revered cleric who was assassinated by Saddam’s regime in 1999. In announcing his own resignation, Haeri denounced Sadr for causing rifts among Shiites, and called on his own followers to seek future guidance on religious matters from Ali Khamenei - the cleric who also happens to rule the Iranian state.

Sadr made clear in public that he blamed outsiders - implicitly Tehran - for Haeri's intervention: "I don't believe he did this of his own volition," Sadr tweeted.

A senior Baghdad-based member of Sadr's movement said Sadr was furious. "Haeri was Sadr's spiritual guide. Sadr saw it as a betrayal that aimed to rob him of his religious legitimacy as a Shiite leader, at a time when he's fighting Iran-backed groups for power."

Sadrist officials in Najaf said the move meant Sadr would have to choose between obeying his spiritual guide Haeri and following Khamenei, or rejecting him and potentially upsetting older figures in his movement who were close to Sadr's father.

Instead, Sadr announced his own withdrawal from politics altogether, a move that spurred his followers onto the street.

The Iranian government and Sadr's office did not immediately respond to request for comment for this story. Haeri's office could not immediately be reached.

Specialists in Shiite Islam say Haeri's move to shut his own office and direct his followers to back the Iranian leader would certainly have appeared suspicious in an Iraqi context, where suggestions of Iranian meddling are explosive.

"There's strong reason to believe this was influenced by Iranian pressure - but let's not forget that Haeri has also had disagreements with Sadr in the past," said Marsin Alshammary, a research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.

"He directs followers to Khamenei when there's no (religious) need to do so. And it seems unlikely a person in his position would shut down his offices which are probably quite lucrative," she said.

Violence is one of the tools

As gun battles raged in central Baghdad, Sadr stayed silent for nearly 24 hours.

During that time, Shiite religious figures across Iraq tried to convince Sadr to stop the violence. They were joined by Shiite figures in Iran and Lebanon, according to officials in those countries, who said pressure on Sadr was channeled through Sistani's office in Najaf.

"The Iranians are not intervening directly. They're stung by the backlash against their influence in Iraq and are trying to influence events from a distance," an Iraqi government official said.

Baghdad was calm on Friday, but the deadlock remains.

Sadr insists on new elections, while some Iran-backed groups want to press ahead to form a government. Clashes broke out late in the week in oil-rich southern Iraq.

"Sadr's main focus is to become the main Shi'ite actor in Iraq, and so he wants to go after his Shi'ite opponents. In Iraq, violence is one of the tools used to compete," said Renad Mansour of the London-based Chatham House think tank.

More violence was possible, Mansour said.



Will Israel Build on its War ‘Gains’ or Become More Involved in Lebanon?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during the General Debate of the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly at United Nations Headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 27 September 2024. (EPA)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during the General Debate of the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly at United Nations Headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 27 September 2024. (EPA)
TT

Will Israel Build on its War ‘Gains’ or Become More Involved in Lebanon?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during the General Debate of the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly at United Nations Headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 27 September 2024. (EPA)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during the General Debate of the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly at United Nations Headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 27 September 2024. (EPA)

As in every war, Israel is faced with two options: either invest in its military “gains” or seek a new “political horizon” after in the post-war scenario.

So, far the military and political commands are still riding the high of the series of victories against Hezbollah, from the detonation of the party’s pagers and walkie-talkies and eventually the crowning “achievement” of the assassination of its leader Hassan Nasrallah on Friday.

These “successes” undoubtedly are good for Israel in raising morale among its people and troops and restoring some of the image of its army and intelligence that took a damaging hit by the Hamas’ October 7 operation.

These achievements, however, can be quickly dashed if Israel doesn’t invest them politically and militarily.

On the military level, these accomplishments are useless if the army were to get carried away in its arrogance and gloating. It must derive lessons from history, which has proven that power has limits and that any enemy can be defeated, except for arrogance.

Arrogance will be anyone’s downfall, no matter how powerful they are. Using more might to achieve what wasn’t achieved by force the first time is not only a misconception but also foolish. Many countries have paid the price in blood for following such an idea and the Israeli army’s threat of more escalation and expanding operations is in this vein.

Hezbollah’s continued attacks against Israel, despite the heavy blows it has been dealt, will drag Israel towards scenarios it experienced no less than three times in the past in Lebanon, once in 1978, 1982 and 2006.

What’s the plan?

Israelis must point out to their experience generals that the assassination of former Hezbollah chief Abbas Moussawi in 1992 led to the appointment of Nasrallah, who drew the party even closer to Iran and its agenda. He turned the party into an organized armed movement that rivals regular armies.

And yet, the situation is not limited to the army. Israel is led by a government that guides the army, which is demanding it to draft a strategic plan for the state upon which it can build its military plan. As of this moment, this plan has not been formed yet.

The American administration has come to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s aid and offered him a golden opportunity for peace so that he can come down from his high horse. It offered him the opportunity to strike peace with Arab countries and create horizons for peace in the region,

However, the Americans themselves are also aware that Israeli officials have said that their country does not have a leader, not because the PM is weak, but because he is simply running the country according to his narrow interests.

Netanyahu has not shied away from confronting US President Joe Biden – a self-professed Zionist who has offered everything possible for Israel during the war – for the sake of his interests. Netanyahu makes light of Biden and even criticizes presidential candidate Donald Trump to shy away from any possible political opportunities.

In Israel, Netanyahu is seen as a salesman, not a leader. Israelis fear the price that has been paid and that will be paid in the future.