What an ayatollah would mean for Iraq

The prospect of an ayatollah-run Iraq does not seem as implausible as it may have months ago. According to The New York Times, when democratic elections roll around in postwar Iraq, it is almost certain that the majority Shiites will emerge as key players – a development that Bush would likely welcome.

By working with influential Shiites, who make up 60 percent of the country's population, the Bush administration may gain needed short-term support. Shiite rule could help stave off the violence that has occurred in predominantly Sunni areas. Two American soldiers were killed overnight in separate attacks in Baghdad, US military officials said Monday. They follow a string of attacks, which are beginning to resemble organized guerilla warfare.

The Bush administration is seeking "to blame desperate Baathists, 'dead enders' from Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard, criminals and terrorists for the violence," The New York Times reports. While safety seems ever more tenuous in Sunni-controlled regions of the country, Shiite cities and villages are relatively quiet. In Najaf, Karbala and Basra, Shiites are rebuilding their cities "side by side" with American and British forces. It seems hard to imagine, writes Times reporter Patrick E. Tyler, that "the Bush administration has not considered that an ayatollah might be Iraq's first postwar leader."

Skeptics question if this is the right answer for long-term stability in the country. A Shiite-dominated government would be a dramatic change for Iraq, which has been ruled by the Sunni minority since the days of Ottoman Turkish rule. Shiites, who were oppressed under Saddam Hussein's rule, have often rebelled against Sunni rulers.

more