Brief information about the true heroes of the victory over Takfirism.
The “official” version of the victory over ISIS in Iraq says that the fatwa of Ayatollah Sistani, calling on the Iraqis to mobilize all over the takfiris, was the main motive for the creation of the “Popular Mobilization Units” (Hashad al-Shaabi). “Popular Mobilization Units” (PMU) became a key force in the defeat of the radicals.
However, if we abstract from the media pathos and consider the facts, we will see a completely different picture affecting both the real creators of the People’s Militia and the architects of the victory over terrorism. In this story, there is no pro-American Iraqi army, there are no occupiers themselves, and the role of Sistani is largely exaggerated.
These persons jointly* tried to prevent the IRGC from building tactics of fighting the Takfiris and their local allies, and they have “good reasons” for that.
For example, for Sistani, driving the Iranians out of Iraq, was a task much more important than defeating an enclave of radicals led by the remnants of the Baathists. The Americans did not want any defeat of ISIS at all. For Washington, the task was to create an “Iraqi-Syrian swamp” for Tehran, the goal of which is the gradual exhaustion of the Islamic Republic.
Takfiris for Washington are just an excuse to justify their occupation of Iraq and Syria, where all the efforts of the occupiers will be reduced to fighting the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Let us consider briefly the phenomenon of Hashad al-Shaabi.
The creation of a new military-political institution in Iraq is wholly and entirely owned by the IRGC. The Iranians point to an analogy between their Basij and the PMU.
But who became the base of the “new revolutionary force”?
Once again, Iraq is bailed out by the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution of Iraq (ISCI or SCIRI).
It was the “former” military wing of the Council, the BADR, that became the key mechanism in the formation of Hashad al-Shaabi.
According to the “official register”, about 70 percent of the People’s Militia are affiliated with the BADR and the ISCI. At one time, the BADR already performed a similar function of a military militia, when the Islamic Republic was attacked by Saddam under the leadership of the West, the Supreme Council, being a coalition of various Islamic forces with the support of Tehran, formed militant groups to fight the Baathists. Now the time has come for the second round*1, where BADR is the main figure around which the People’s Mobilization Forces are built, with the only difference that now the military function of the Islamic revolutionaries of Iraq includes the complete elimination of Takfirism (the remnants of Ba’athism) and the liberation of Iraq from the American invaders.
Thus, the ISCI’s plan to “play along” with the “democratic” pro-American political system of Iraq since 2003 has fully justified itself. The BADR was successfully integrated into the “new state”, while the rest of the most diverse organizations affiliated with the Supreme Soviet were able to either “legally” engage in politics or go into the shadows for a while. And the use of BADR in the construction of the People’s Militia demonstrated that ISCI is still guided by the tactics of ” imperium in imperio” and continues to form Islamic ideology in the bowels of Iraq.
About Sistani’s fatwa. The fact is that absolutely any sober*2 scientist of Najaf is capable of such a decision, the whole question is in the interpretation and political overtones.
The main problem is competition and confrontation among scientists. No matter how “official” Najaf insists that he “does not interfere in politics”, in reality Sistani and KO are only engaged in politics. The fact of rivalry with other clergy is proof of that. In this context, there are two interesting points to consider.
First of all, in the speeches of “Marji” there was originally the phrase “voluntarily join (06/13/2014)*3 to the security forces” (that is, the pro-American army and police). The topic of “volunteers” appeared a little later (20.06.2014), that is, there was a certain “correction of the fatwa”. Why? I will give my point of view about the “correction”. And second of all, the “head” of Najaf was not the first to issue such a “conclusion based on Islamic jurisprudence.”
About the first point. There is a version according to which Sistani heeded*4 the advice of the martyr Soleimani. You can guess about the essence of the message, where the legendary general explained that behind ISIS is Saddam’s Muhabarat, who has a wide agent network in all military institutions of Iraq, therefore there is no point in relying on the army as the main military force against the takfiris (plus the dependence of the Iraqi Air Force on the Americans, who will certainly put a spoke in the wheels of any Iranian initiative associated with the Iraqi army). A new military body is needed. Thus, the Iranians proposed to cast aside all disagreements between Qom and Najaf and unite in front of a common enemy.
However, there are facts that indicate that the “Marja” did not follow (or “partially” supported) any advice of the late leader of the IRGC, and the fatwa changed after Sistani realized that “pro-Iranian Ayatollahs” demanding the creation of a “Popular Mobilization Forces” authority, as a result of which the “legacy”*5 of Ayatollah Khoe can be greatly shaken. After all, it is worth recalling the chronology of events according to which Sistani did not at all support the presence of Soleimani in Iraq. Of course, contacts through intermediaries were carried out, but were there personal meetings?*6
If so, where are the details of the meetings, or at least a joint photo? The disgust of the “Marjah” towards the representatives of the IRGC has been known since the time of the guerrilla actions of the Iraqi followers of the “Islamic Revolution” against the Ba’ath regime (from 1990 until the fall of the dictatorship) and the American occupation, where different branches of Shiism were on opposite sides of the war. It should also be added here that the Sistani website has an explanation according to which the “head” of Najaf opposes “armed militias operating outside the law.” This can be interpreted as a signal to the Iranians and their Iraqi brothers not to create “personal military formations.”
There is the explanation for the second point. Who was the first Ayatollah to issue the fatwa that saved Iraq and the region? Ayatollah Seyyed Muhammad Taqi al-Modarresi was the discoverer of the fatwa on the need to fight the takfiris by organizing “military formations” (Hashad al-Shaabi). At one time, Taqi al-Modarresi and his brother Hadi were important figures in the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution of Iraq, and although clerics are now aloof from party affairs, the veterans of the Iraqi and Bahrain “front” still have strong ties with the Council.
Therefore, it would be fair to assume that the secret tandem of al-Modarresi – Suleimani (ISCI-IRGC) and their supporters are the main figures in the victory over the radicals and the appearance of a preamble to the new “Islamic Iraq”.
Having a variety of information about the ins and outs of “official” Najaf, I would like to ask why the same Iranians are silent and hide the truth? As they say everything has its time, “sabr” (patience), because in truth “Allah is with the endurants.”
The plight of Iran so far does not allow revealing all the cards and telling about many secrets, including the war with ISIS. Unfortunately, the current geopolitical alignment of the Ummah is such that the only Islamic Republic continues to be surrounded by enemies, respectively, all Iranian diplomacy is aimed at avoiding the emergence of new ill-wishers from among Muslim countries. Indeed, if the figure of Sistani is exposed, the “official” Najaf will surely react, which the Americans and their regional puppets will immediately take advantage of, which may turn into new wars within the already Shiite world.
A split within Najaf has existed since the time of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and in the event of an open ideological struggle, the situation could get out of control. Therefore, it is not yet time for “shocking revelations.” The Iranians close their eyes to many things, but until a certain time.
P.S. The reliance on SCIRI and BADR Organization has shown how the Iranians, at the right time, will activate their allies, following the export covenant of the Islamic Revolution. As at one time, the Sadridists were a key force in the fight against the NATO occupation, so the ISCI supporters became the base of the “People’s Mobilization Forces”, thereby the IRGC competently finds application to all the Islamic forces of Iraq associated with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
* – The first statement from Sistani after the assassination of Sardar Soleimani included verbal condemnation of Trump (that is, just Trump, not The Great Satan in general) with the Pentagon and a call for Shiites to “calm down” (that is, to avoid escalating the conflict against the occupiers). However, the “Marja” did not demand that Washington withdraw its bandit formations. Moreover, in his letter to Rahbar, Sistani ignored the main culprit of the tragedy altogether. Draw your own conclusions. Marja may not like Trump, but I will remind you of the rather warm relations between the administrations of the previous American presidents in the person of Obama and Bush with the “official” Najaf.
*1 – It was Saddam’s secret services, together with the Americans and the British, that created ISIS, so we are seeing continued attempts by the Baʿath-West alliance to inflict damage on the Islamic Republic of Iran. Only the background of the war is different.
Previously, imperialism relied on nationalism, now on Takfirism.
But the goal remained the same – the fight against Tehran.
*2 – Only ardent sectarians, as the Shirazists and their local lackeys, can refrain from calling for a fight against takfirism and the like. Only the Shirazi Sect, as a conductor of the imperialist policy, can issue such a “decision” that will become the conduit of Western imperialism.
*3 – Ayatollah al-Modarresi “outstripped” Sistani in a matter of hours. I suppose that in this way the Iranians were “reinsured” in the event of Sistani’s refusal to cooperate. Also, one cannot discount the ideological component, since al-Modarresi is a supporter of the Islamic Republic.
*4 –
*5 -Sistani is the successor of Khoe. Both are scholars with an Akhbarite base in terms of jurisprudence and opponents of Velayat Fakih.
*6 -The former Iranian ambassador to Iraq, in an interview with the Jamaran portal, said that the late Sardar Soleimani met with Sistani, but did not give arguments and facts. Liberal opposition publications write that there have never been such meetings.