Always Bet on Ali

by Eric Martin

Matt Yglesias takes note of the recent scuttlebutt regarding Iraq's inability to form a government:

Apparently we’re trying to diminish the powers of the prime minister’s office as a way of greasing the skids of coalition:

American officials said that the approach, which aims to bring Mr. Maliki’s State of Law party, Ayad Allawi’s Iraqiya party and the Kurdish alliance into a governing coalition, represents the best chance to break the political logjam that has left the Iraqi public without a new government six months after voters went to the polls.

So what stands in the way?

Doubts remain whether the Americans can close the deal and, meanwhile, Iran has stepped up its efforts to press an alternative coalition in which Mr. Maliki might remain prime minister but in a coalition with his Shiite rivals and not Mr. Allawi. Which coalition prevails will serve as a barometer on whether Iran or the United States has more prestige in an unsettled and still turbulent country.

The author is wrong to frame this as an Iran vs. US proxy battle entirely, although each side certainly has its preferred parties.  Though I used to pay attention, in detail, to the maneuvering and intrigue surrounding the Iraqi political scene and the potential cross-ethnic/sectarian coalition possibilities, a very wise man once gave me a useful shorthand: Due to the influence of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, and other common interests, the Shiite coalition would never dissolve.  Sistani recognized, early on, that the Shiites must remain united in order to ensure their continuing hold on power, and to forestall a potential return of Sunni dominance.

Thus far, his rule has proven sound.  Of course, at some point it might bend or break, but there is little reason to choose "now" as that moment.

Thus, my money would be heavily on the side that Iran happens to back, and which the US favors less.  This is because Sistani, not the US or Iran, has had the real political clout in Iraq since the invasion.  After all, it was Sistani that demanded elections immediately, which brought to a relatively abrupt halt the extended period of viceroyship that the Bush administration had envisioned.

While Iraqi political ouctomes have certainly been more to the liking of Iran than the US in terms of which players have filled out key government positions, it is not necessarily because of the power of the former over the latter.  That being said, with the main Shiite political parties (other than the Sadrists) being formed and/or hosted in Iran during a lengthy period of exile, Iran has considerable influence over most of the main players as well.

And to think: the neocons actually argued at the time of the invasion that the results would diminish Iran's standing in the region.