Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Nella cabina elettorale...

...Allah ti vede, Bush no.
Analysis
Iraq Winners Allied With Iran Are the Opposite of U.S. Vision
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 14, 2005;
When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq two years ago, it
envisioned a quick handover to handpicked allies in a secular
government that would be the antithesis of Iran's theocracy --
potentially even a foil to Tehran's regional ambitions. 
But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis
instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong
religious base -- and very close ties to the Islamic republic next
door. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly
Iraq policy -- $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts
say. 
Yesterday, the White House heralded the election and credited the U.S.
role. In a statement, President Bush praised Iraqis "for defying
terrorist threats and setting their country on the path of democracy
and freedom. And I congratulate every candidate who stood for election
and those who will take office once the results are certified." 
Yet the top two winning parties -- which together won more than 70
percent of the vote and are expected to name Iraq's new prime minister
and president -- are Iran's closest allies in Iraq. 
Thousands of members of the United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite-dominated
slate that won almost half of the 8.5 million votes and will name the
prime minister, spent decades in exile in Iran. Most of the militia
members in its largest faction were trained in Shiite-dominated Iran. 
And the winning Kurdish alliance, whose co-leader Jalal Talabani is
the top nominee for president, has roots in a province abutting Iran,
which long served as its economic and political lifeline. 
"This is a government that will have very good relations with Iran.
The Kurdish victory reinforces this conclusion. Talabani is very close
to Tehran," said Juan Cole, a University of Michigan expert on Iraq.
"In terms of regional geopolitics, this is not the outcome that the
United States was hoping for." 
Added Rami Khouri, Arab analyst and editor of Beirut's Daily Star:
"The idea that the United States would get a quick, stable,
prosperous, pro-American and pro-Israel Iraq has not happened. Most of
the neoconservative assumptions about what would happen have proven
false." 
The results have long-term implications. For decades, both Republican
and Democratic administrations played Baghdad and Tehran off each
other to ensure neither became a regional giant threatening or
dominant over U.S. allies, notably Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich Gulf
sheikdoms. 
But now, Cole said, Iraq and Iran are likely to take similar positions
on many issues, from oil prices to U.S. policy on Iran. "If the United
States had decided three years ago to bomb Iran, it would have
produced joy in Baghdad," he added. "Now it might produce strong
protests from Baghdad." 
Conversely, the Iraqi secular democrats backed most strongly by the
Bush administration lost big. During his State of the Union address
last year, Bush invited Adnan Pachachi, a longtime Sunni politician
and then-president of the Iraqi Governing Council, to sit with first
lady Laura Bush. Pachachi's party fared so poorly in the election that
it won no seats in the national assembly. 
And current Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, backed by the CIA during his
years in exile and handpicked by U.S. and U.N. officials to lead the
interim government, came in third. He addressed a joint session of
Congress in September, a rare honor reserved for heads of state of the
closest U.S. allies. But now, U.S. hopes that Allawi will tally enough
votes to vie as a compromise candidate and continue his leadership are
unrealistic, analysts say. 
"The big losers in this election are the liberals," said Stanford
University's Larry Diamond, who was an adviser to the U.S. occupation
government. "The fact that three-quarters of the national assembly
seats have gone to just two [out of 111] slates is a worrisome trend.
Unless the ruling coalition reaches out to broaden itself to include
all groups, the insurgency will continue -- and may gain ground." 
Adel Abdul Mahdi, who is a leading contender to be prime minister,
reiterated yesterday that the new government does not want to emulate
Iran. "We don't want either a Shiite government or an Islamic
government," he said on CNN's "Late Edition." "Now we are working for
a democratic government. This is our choice." 
And a senior State Department official said yesterday that the 48
percent vote won by the Shiite slate deprives it of an outright
majority. "If it had been higher, the slate would be seen with a lot
more trepidation," he said on the condition of anonymity because of
department rules. 
U.S. and regional analysts agree that Iraq is not likely to become an
Iranian surrogate. Iraq's Arabs and Iran's Persians have a long and
rocky history. During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Iraq's Shiite
troops did not defect to Iran. 
"There's the assumption that the new government will be close to Iran
or influenced by Iran. That's a strong and reasonable assumption,"
Khouri said. "But I don't think anyone knows -- including Grand
Ayatollah [Ali] Sistani -- where the fault line is between Shiite
religious identity and Iraqi national identity." 
Iranian-born Sistani is now Iraq's top cleric -- and the leader who
pressed for elections when Washington favored a caucus system to pick
a government. His aides have also rejected Iran's theocracy as a
model, although the Shiite slate is expected to press for Islamic law
to be incorporated in the new constitution. 
For now, the United States appears prepared to accept the results --
in large part because it has no choice. 
But the results were announced at a time when the United States faces
mounting tensions with Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons
ambitions, support for extremism and human rights violations. On her
first trip abroad this month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said
Iran's behavior was "something to be loathed" and charged that the
"unelected mullahs" are not good for Iran or the region. 
One of the biggest questions, analysts say, is whether Iraq's
democratic election will make it easier -- or harder -- to pressure
Iran. 
Candide

 Iraq Winners Allied With Iran Are the Opposite of U.S. Vision
Be' qui almeno si parla chiaro. Pero' in parlamento (italiano) ancora si 
crede alla favoletta che il risultato elettorale indica irakeno una 
quieta arrendevolezza a diventare protettorato americano. E cosi' si e' 
ritirato fuori la copertura ONU il giorno prima che Annan declinasse di 
fornirla... 
Mi sembra che Bush e Condi stiano facendo una bella faccia a pessimo 
gioco, chiedendo agli europei di sponsorizzare la catastrofe, prima di 
rimanere con  il cerino in mano...
Per fortuna che il almeno WP non perde i suoi bearings.  Voglio proprio 
vedere se gli USA terranno tutta la regione sotto controllo con un corpo 
di spedizione di 130.000 uomini, e la minaccia di qualche bombardamento 
a tappeto...
Am.

say.
Puttanata :)
Era ben risaputo che gli sciiti avevano forti legami con gli iraniani,
visto che la loro massima autorita' religiosa e' stata in esilio proprio
in quel paese :)
Come era risaputo che gli sciiti rappresentavano la maggioranza del
paese.   Come era risaputo che gli sciiti rappresentavano la maggioranza
della popolazione che era andata a votare :)
-Stefano