Pinocchio comes to life: "We will not be railroaded"

The corporate media have settled on an explanation for the contradictory statements from Baghdad on the "Iranian intervention" theme: Namely that Iraq is vacillating between Iranian and American influence.

It is an explanation that is so superficial as to be almost meaningless. More important is the evidence of a developing split between Hakim-led Supreme Council on one side, and Maliki and his circle on the other.

(1) First, key elements have been left out of the corporate-media account of the recent events (links provided in recent posts): The idea for the recent delegation to Tehran clearly resulted from a phone call from Bush to Hakim on Wednesday. And Maliki's close associate Sami al-Askari quickly pointed out that the idea for this did not come from Maliki. It was a first indication that Maliki wanted to distance himself from this initiative.

(2) Second, the corporate media account doesn't have an explanation why the delegation was arranged via Hakim and not via Maliki: The hawkish statements about Iranian arming and training of Iraqi militias have come mainly from American officials, and were echoed in the hoopla surrounding the the Hakim delegation. It is not as if the enthusiastic support for Washington's blame-Iraq campaign emanated from Maliki's circle. And that no doubt explains why the delegation was arranged via Hakim and not via Maliki (something that is otherwise unexplainable).

(3) So when Ali Dabbagh, in his statements on Sunday, expressed reservations about the quality of the evidence that was being talked about, he wasn't so much altering the Maliki position: he was merely pointing up once again the difference between what the Hakim group have been saying (at the instigation of Washington) and Maliki's position.

Here's part of what Ali Dabbagh said (according to the AlHayat account this morning, Monday May 5). First he said the Maliki administration will set up a commission to study whatever evidence may or may not exist. And the AlHayat reporter elaborates:

Dabbagh added in press-conference remarks in Baghdad [on Sunday] that the purpose behind this commission [to sift the evidence] is "to be able to stand on firm evidence, and not on intelligence based on the estimates of individuals". He stressed: "We do not want to be pushed by some push into entering into a fight with any of our neighbors, and certainly not with Iran". He was referring to the war between 1980 and 1988, in which an estimated one million people died. "It is enough what we have already had by way of tensions for which a horrible price has been paid, as a result of outsiders pushing Iraq into an position of enmity with Iran or with any other country. What we want is to form relationships with neighboring countries in a way that will serve the interests of Iraq."

I think the best way to understand these recent events is by analogy from what has already happened: The Sunni parties were alienated from the Washington-supported Maliki government starting with the execution of Saddam and the passage of the federalism-procedures law in the fall of 2006; the Sadrists were finally alienated from the Washington-supported Maliki administration via the American military attacks in the "surge" era. In both cases those who were alienated were those who didn't toe the American line (federalism procedures etcetera; dissolving the Mahdi Army). What has now happened, it seems, is that the Maliki group has come awake to the fact that Washington's support actually centers on Hakim's group, and that they (Maliki's circle) are now the ones that are expected to toe the Washington line. The Sunni parties, in their way, rebelled and left the Maliki cabinet, in the interests of a unitary Iraq; the Sadrists are on their way to becoming a full-blown resistance; and now, in his pitiful way, Ali Dabbagh on behalf of Maliki is purporting to stand up and say: "No, we too will defend the interests of Iraq, and not allow ourselves to be pushed around by outsiders".