An Ayatollah's prerogative. According to the Times' Dexter Filkins, anyway, Sistani just plumb changed his mind. Reporting the Iraq Governing Council's approval of an interim constitution, in a version unchanged from the one that appeared blocked on Friday by Shiite demands for revision to the law's super-supermajority approval requirements, Filkins writes:

The change of heart by the Shiite leaders appears to represent a retreat by Ayatollah Sistani, who touched off the impasse last week by expressing his concerns to the Shiite leaders.

Until Sunday, the ayatollah had all but dictated to American officials the terms of such important political questions as elections. Comments by Ayatollah Sistani in January, for instance, scuttled an agreement by which a future Iraqi national assembly would have been selected in a series of nationwide caucuses.

Shiite leaders said Sunday that Ayatollah Sistani had dropped his objections to the interim constitution because he did not want to spoil the Iraqis' opportunity to get a constitution, even an imperfect one.

In other words, Filkins has nothing to explain the turnaround, so he's going to take as "optimistic" a line (in Jerry Bremer terms) about the thing as he can. Sistani has magically "retreated" from dictating terms to the Americans (in spite of there being no evidence on offer to support such an interpretation)—apparently his big ol' heart just got the better of him, and he decided not to "spoil" a nice little historical moment after all. Maybe he's finally coming around to us!

Call me a cynic, but powerful politicians don't simply "retreat" from shows of strength in order to make nice for the sake of the kids. Naturally, I have no insight into what may have changed over the weekend to have caused this reversal—but since it doesn't seem likely that Sistani is any less in a position of power now than he was three days ago, I have to think that somebody, American or Iraqi, who knows? gave him something he wanted. (Unless the holdup was never really intended to put the kibosh on the interim constituion, but was merely a demonstration of what levers Sistani can pull when he wants to. I have to think, though, that the Ayatollah's already amply demonstrated that to the satisfaction of anybody who's paying attention.) Juan Cole notes, from Az-Zaman, that Shiite members of the IGC convened with Sistani over the weekend, "and that 7 of those who supported the Basic Law made promises to him that caused him to relent." No information about those promises. Can't help wondering, though, does that mean that this was an occasion for Sistani to extend his authority over the Shiite political apparatus? That would be the opposite of a retreat, wouldn't it?

I don't think it's too much to ask that Filkins at least gesture toward the realities of whatever political gamesmanship got played out this weekend in Iraq. Or would skepticism diminish the Watershed Moment the Times seems to be anticipating here?

posted by michael  4:53:32 PM  
tell me about it []