The rising star of Moqtada al-Sadr has been the subject of much recent speculation: how his bloc became the biggest in the Shia UIA alliance, how he controls one of the most extremist militias in the country, and how he has become one of the most important politicians in Iraq’s development toward democracy. And also one of its biggest threats. Avowedly ready to stage an uprising should Iran give the order, some military commanders must be wondering why the hell they didn’t get rid of him a long time ago when they had the chance. Now his prominence is being compared to the rise of Hitler.

Strange, however, is the connection between the bombing the of al-Askariya shrine in Samarra and who benefited the most from it. Al-Sadr, that’s who. It should not be a surprise that one of the many theories surrounding the attack is that it was staged by Iranian agents, loyal to a fundamentalist regime whose religion is pure power. And whose intention is to ignite sectarian strife in neighboring Iraq.

We know right off the bat, as I already explained, that there is no chance in hell that it was the Sunnis. Ironically, though the Sunnis have been the ones throughout the entire affair to denounce the attacks, it was al-Sadr who organized the mass extra-judicial killings of hundreds of Sunnis afterwards. It was his Medhi Army militia, along with men infiltrated into the Interior Ministry through the UIA, who ran people off the streets in fear to their homes, and attacked dozens of Sunni mosques. He was the first to call for revenge, yet he was the one praised for brokering compromise between the Shias and Sunnis afterward. Throwing dry leaves on the sectarian fires, just like the bombing in Samarra, has only helped al-Sadr. The Shias have taken advantage of it in order to stress the importance of a government with them in charge and the importance of having their own federal region, things they may have had to compromise on otherwise.

The man is dangerous for Iraqi democracy. He is both radical in his views and disloyal to his country. With that disloyalty comes the promise of more corruption and dysfunctionality in the government. It was his final vote that allowed current Prime Minister Jaafari to obtain the nomination again. With such a prospect for the next four years, sectarian lines are actually blurring as the Sunnis, Kurds, and Allawi’s multi-confessional secular party have all joined together to oppose Jaafari’s nomination.

BAGHDAD, Iraq Mar 1, 2006 (AP)???????? Key political groups agreed Wednesday to mount a campaign to deny Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari another term in a bid to jump-start stalled talks on a new national unity government, as at least 47 people died in bombings and shootings across the country.

The move against al-Jaafari, which has been building for weeks, is spearheaded by three major political blocs that have been in U.S.-backed talks with the Shiite alliance on forming a new government.

Those talks broke down last week when the Sunni parties pulled out of the negotiations to protest attacks on Sunni mosques in reprisal for the Feb. 22 bombing of a sacred Shiite shrine in Samarra.

During a meeting Wednesday, leaders of three parties, including Sunnis, Kurds and the secularists of ex-Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, agreed to ask the Shiite alliance to withdraw al-Jaafari’s nomination and put forward another candidate.

Officials of all three groups confirmed the plan but spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Under the constitution, the nominee of the biggest bloc in parliament gets the first chance to form a new government. The Shiites won 130 of the 275 seats giving them the biggest bloc, but not enough to govern without partners.

Denied. If the religious Shia UIA is going to insist on having its way, and al-Sadr is going to remain the most dominant force in that coalition, then the rest of Iraq is ready to block his seemingly destined ascent to power. They realize the danger of a one-party monopoly based on religion, so they’re ready to make the UIA pick a new one or instead form an even larger bloc, allowing them the pick the new government. It has been a long time in the making, but the concrete construction of the bloc will completely change the political map of the country.

Whatever happens, the Shia have once again been put on the spot. They may have been repressed, tortured, and killed under Saddam, but it does not mean that they have the inherent right to power now as many of the leadership believe. How that Shia leadership deals with its declining power, and maybe even the outright loss of it, will determine if a new dictatorship will emerge or if democracy can really work in Iraq.

*****
Update 10:19am: Just a little news update for everyone. The Shias have decided to continue supporting citing it as being their constitutional right. Well, good politics is compromise, and as I think the Shias are about to find out, it is the other group’s right to form an even larger umbrella, comprising 141 — or over half — the seats in order to block Jaafari and pick a different choice for prime minister. In our own history, the Second American Revolution was when power was first transferred peacefully from John Adams gave up power to Thomas Jefferson after the presidential election of 1800 effectively realigned the nation. Now, Iraq will have its own. Can the Shia give up power peacefully should it be challenged?…

Update 11:55am: In a preliminary investigation, Iran is being implicated in the bombing of the shrine. Go figure!