The world’s highest Shiite Muslim authority, Ali al-Sistani, has sounded an alarm, which seems like the last warning before Iraq faces a critical turning point that neither the state nor its people may be able to withstand.
These potential dangers have compelled Sistani to break his long silence, expressing dissatisfaction and disapproval of Iraq’s political experiment since the 2003 regime change, which now finds itself at a crossroads: either undergo radical reform or descend into deadly chaos.
During his meeting with the United Nations Secretary-General’s representative and head of the UN mission in Iraq (UNAMI), Mohammad Hassan, the Grand Ayatollah called for the monopoly of arms by the state, the rejection of all foreign interference, and the fight against corruption.
Sistani’s calls are not new; they are principles he consistently upholds and reiterates to his influential visitors, excluding Iraqi politicians whom he has refused to meet for the past decade. He also emphasizes these principles to his followers, the majority of whom belong to the Jaafari Shiite sect worldwide. His recent reassertion of these positions, following a long period of political silence, was made at a crucial juncture in Iraq’s and the region’s history.
The timing of his statement, then, is what makes Sistani’s stance remarkable, even if it repeats past messages. The reiteration itself signals a warning about what the religious authority in Najaf perceives as an imminent threat to Iraq and the post-2003 system, and it delivers a sharp, direct message to the so-called political houses produced by this system. These houses have been responsible for creating power structures but have failed to establish a stable state, which is the primary motivation behind Sistani’s warning.
The location of this message, Najaf, is also significant. It is the spiritual heart of the global Shiite community and plays a general pastoral role, serving as an advisor, not a ruler. Najaf advocates for the protection of individuals and the national community, regardless of their ethnic, religious, or sectarian identity, from the perspective of the state alone. In this view, the nation’s welfare, whether in Iraq or Lebanon, is the concern of individuals, the citizens, and only the state—fair or flawed—bears the ultimate responsibility for national security.
Political forces, particularly the ruling Coordination Framework, were quick to affirm Sistani’s words. However, this moment requires actual commitment and action, something that appears difficult or nearly impossible under the current circumstances. Despite the risks, Sistani’s words remove any religious or legal justification for the power-and-arms duality that has ruled and influenced Iraq since Saddam’s fall—and similarly, Lebanon. His statement is a clear call for these groups to abandon their illicit gains and relinquish their influence over the state and society, while also holding them accountable for the consequences of weakening the state and monopolizing its decision-making.
Sistani’s message resonates not only in Baghdad and Beirut but also in other capitals concerned with his stance. It represents a measure of national interest that transcends transnational ideological affiliations, affirming that loyalty to the state supersedes all other allegiances, and that the safety of nations and lives ensures the security of faith, sect, and belief.
Sistani’s straightforward words to the Iraqi people were sobering. He said: “Iraqis face a long path to achieve this; may God help them on this journey”—referring to the fight against financial and administrative corruption and the effort to centralize arms under the state’s control. This message applies to Lebanon as well; it is not merely a historical statement but one intended for the future. As a prominent figure from the modern historical school once said: “History is not the science of knowing the past; it is the science of human beings within historical time—past, present, and future.”
