Juan Cole, answer, "yes":
Moreover, it is not just al-Sadr. I detect a change in the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, now led by Ammar al-Hakim [background] after the death from lung cancer of his father, Abd al-Aziz. ...
...
But now the Friday prayers preacher of Najaf is denouncing global arrogance and openly calling Iraq a colonized country that must regain its independence.
...
But now the Friday prayers preacher of Najaf is denouncing global arrogance and openly calling Iraq a colonized country that must regain its independence.
It's not clear the strategic ambitions the "religious parties", of the non-Da'wa block (non-Maliki). Among them might be a veto power, within the government, similar to a "guardianship". (Ostensibly, they are just for kicking out the U.S. as soon as possible).
Cole outlines two options:
So those are the two possibilities facing Iraq-- roughly, reintegration into the Sunni-dominated Arab League, or an Iran alliance.
He thinks the Iran alliance is the odds on bet. Why? He thinks the Kurds, to whatever degree fragmented (but not "unraveled") after the current elections, would not ally with a "Sunni dominated" block. Also, he doesn't think that the alternative to the status quo will pull enough votes to catalyze a "radical change".
If he's right, then the U.S. taxpayer will have paid a trillion dollars and 4,380 lives ... to achieve this culmination of Cheney-Rumsfeld-Perle vision for a new Iraq, at least for the foreseeable future, an Iraq not facing away from the tyranny in Iran but suckling from it, to some uneasy degree.
