On Saturday, the Iranian regime's propaganda department reported that Iraqi Ayatollah Ali Sistani would not allow a 'security accord' between the US and Iraq as long has he was alive.
This accord will include agreements and guidelines on US bases in Iraq.
Iranian Press TV reported:
Iraq's most revered Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has strongly objected to a 'security accord' between the US and Iraq.This was a strange report for a number of reasons:
The Grand Ayatollah has reiterated that he would not allow Iraq to sign such a deal with "the US occupiers" as long as he was alive, a source close to Ayatollah Sistani said.
The source added the Grand Ayatollah had voiced his strong objection to the deal during a meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the holy city of Najaf on Thursday.
The remarks were made amid reports that the Iraqi government might sign a long-term framework agreement with the United States, under which Washington would be allowed to set up permanent military bases in the country and US citizens would be granted immunity from legal prosecution in the country.
First- It came from the Iranian regime. The hardliners do not want a permanent US presence in Iraq.
(They even have Hezbollah leader Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah speaking out against the accord.)
Second- The Iraqi press did not mention this when reporting on the meeting between Prime Minister Maliki and the moderate Ayatollah Sistani.
Third- Ayatollah Ali Sistani has a record of being very moderate in comparison to the hardliner Iranian Shiite rulers. He has been very supportive of the fledgling democracy in Iraq and has kept some distance from policy discussions.
Sure enough, today the Iranian news altered their original report.
Fars News reported:
Iraq's top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is yet to publicly comment, but an aide said he has called for the authorities to have a public debate on the issue.That report is a far cry from their original claims on Saturday.
"He has always expected the officials to consult the people before taking a decision," the aide said. "They should go ahead only if a majority of the people accept it."
When the Bush-Maliki statement was announced in November, a host of Sunni groups also voiced their opposition, warning that it would give the Americans the right to "interfere" in Iraq for years to come.
Last week, a senior cleric in Iran also slammed the proposed accord as treachery to Islam, charging that it would allow US troops to launch attacks from Iraq, it would stop Iraqi courts from trying US nationals, and would put Iraqi ministries under US supervision.
Fabius Maximus has a thorough report on all of the Sistani talk from this last week.
Bill Roggio has more at The Weekly Standard Blog and says it is most likely that the Associated Press was fooled by Sadrist members purporting to be close to Sistani in last week's reports.
Previously:
Busted!!... Iraqi Press Denies AP Report On Ayatollah Sistani
It Was a Bogus Story 2 Days Ago... But, Who Cares?... TIME Mag Throws It Out There Anyway
Iran Stirs Up More Trouble in Iraq With Dubious Media Report
++
ReplyDeleteIraq Agrees To Long-Term U.S. Presence
excerpt:
[The framework Mr. Bush approved outlines broad principles, such as that both countries will support Iraq's economic institutions, and help its government train Iraqi security forces to provide stability for all Iraqis. Lute said "all major national leaders of the existing Iraqi government" have committed to it.
"The basic message here should be clear: Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own; that's very good news, but it won't have to stand alone," said Lute, who rarely holds televised briefings.
He said it is too soon to tell what the "shape and size" of the U.S. military commitment will look like, including military bases.
The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000.]
guess i'm not nuanced enough to
understand the faux controversy..
==
"today the Iranian news altered their original report."
ReplyDeleteIs it correct to refer to all stories from Iran as coming from some unitary entity? Press TV is a government organ, but Fars News is private.
Even if strongly influenced by the government, which is a guess (but likely), this does not mean there is a master agency writing the script. Iran's political and religious elites have factions.
Also, this may reflect a situation in motion. First, various people may be leaking stories to influence events. Second, al-Sistani's and his close associates may be undecided, and giving mixed signals as they work to a decision.
Imposing a black/white narrative on this seems premature -- esp. with such certainty -- when relying on these fragments of information.
++
ReplyDeleteFabius Maximus @ 6:26 PM..
re: [Second, al-Sistani's and his close associates may be undecided, and giving mixed signals as they work to a decision.]
there's much more info in previous posts & comments, ie:
this one..
Najaf Scholars Reject Reports of Anti-Occupation Opinions
==
To see all the current English-language news stories so far in this debate, see the link that the G. Pundit posted in this blog entry.
ReplyDeleteNone of these little fragments from mostly anonymous sources are definitive. AP cites " three prominent Shiite officials." The IraqSlogger story to which you link cites "reliable, well-placed sources."
How can you tell for sure which are correct, if any? There are many scenarios which match the available data, including the one I described.
++
ReplyDeleteFabius Maximus @ 7:29 PM..
simple.. the AP is well known
for printing BOGUS reports..
here's another link..
Red Herring Fatwas
and just to preempt your next 300 "gotcha" questions, believe whatever you want, no skin off my back..
but to use your logic, if you can't tell whether or not some, a combo, or all statements are true or false, then one must either presume it's a moot story, or make up their own..
==
++
ReplyDeleteminor correction re: bg @ 8:02 PM..
AP et al, since most MSM reports, if not word
for word, more or less repeat / mimic AP's..
==
No need for gotcha's. In these things everyone speculates, everyone believes what they want to believe. I was just making a case for caution.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that any analysis would find AP to be less reliable than Fars News (founded 2003), Aswat al Iraq (2005), IraqSlogger (2006), or Press TV (2007).
The link you posted is by Nibras Kazimi, obviously an expert but equally obviously quite partisan.
None of these facts means that any of these sources are wrong -- or right. None of this appears to add up to much. We can just speculate and wait.
However, imo it would be helpful if everyone included some background about these sources when relying on them. (I include brief descriptions in my post, the link to which Gateway Pundit includes in this post.
++
ReplyDeleteFabius Maximus @ 9:31 PM..
i hear you, and believe we agree (albeit TG/NK has been right on so many things so far i've lost count).. :)
at any rate, this may help as to why one cannot trust the AP.. i posted it @ ITM the 24th (maybe in here somewhere as well).. GP & others have also exposed numerous bogus AP stories, not to mention Pallywood..
HT : TLWJ (Roggio)
pertinent excerpt:
[On May 23. the Sadrist movement claimed the Iraqi Army is violating the truce and assaulting and mistreating Iraqis during clearing operations in Sadr City. The Associated Press repeated the claims of Mohannad al Gharawi, who is portrayed as a neutral person sent to Sadr City to monitor the truce. But Gharawi is in fact a senior member of the Sadrist movement.]
thanks..
==