US hopes of secular Iraqi state fade away (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-hopes-of-secular-iraqi-state-fade-away/2005/12/20/1135032020005.html)

By Paul McGeough Chief Herald Correspondent in Baghdad
December 21, 2005


CONSERVATIVE religious parties have surged to a runaway lead in the counting of votes to appoint a government to run Iraq for the next four years.

With more than 60 per cent of votes tallied, Washington's hopes that the former prime minister Iyad Allawi might pull enough support to build a secular administration have faded dramatically.

Instead, a religious alliance is in the box seat. These parties are already imposing a strict religious code on daily life across swathes of the country and are closely aligned with neighbouring Iran, one of George Bush's "axis of evil" enemies.

The religious Shiites and the Kurdish parties have maintained their iron grip on the south and north respectively, but with 89 per cent of votes counted in the Baghdad melting pot, both Dr Allawi and his arch rival and one-time Pentagon darling, Ahmed Chalabi, face marginalisation.

Amid claims of electoral fraud, it seems the religious Shiites are assured of dominating the new National Assembly, but not of the two-thirds majority needed for a series of major decisions on the shape of the new government or the fate of the new Iraq.

It is an outcome that signals a repeat of the protracted post-poll horse-trading that robbed the fractured country of most of the momentum won by the conduct of its first democratic elections in January, when millions of jubilant Iraqis stared down threats of insurgency violence.

Dr Allawi's best chance of forming a government now hangs on his ability to draw Sunni and Kurdish support for his secular coalition, but observers believe he would still need to split the religious Shiites, an unlikely outcome in the wake of his meagre showing and their apparent triumph in Thursday's poll.

Iraq's Sunnis turned out in dramatic numbers last week, but the Iraqi Electoral Commission is yet to release provisional figures for provinces in which they are the majority. But Baghdad's Sunnis threw their support behind a Sunni religious coalition whose leaders have called for resistance to the American military presence and demanded that the US fix a timetable for withdrawal.

Despite a concerted campaign push by secular and non-Shiite parties in Baghdad, the main Shiite coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance, grabbed 59 per cent of the provisional tally. Trailing it, with 19 per cent, is the main religious Sunni Arab party slate, the Iraqi Consensus Front.

Dr Allawi's secular coalition, the Iraqi List, scored 14 per cent and way behind was Dr Chalabi, whose paltry vote in the capital, less than 0.5 per cent, could deny him a slot in the first round of seat allocation in the new assembly.

Sunni parties are expected to win up to 55 seats in the parliament. But the religious Shiites have yet to indicate if they will be invited into the new government and, if so, whether they will be heard on the vital issues that separate them: regional autonomy, sharing Iraq's potentially vast oil revenue and the role of Islam in the law.

There is a risk that if the Sunnis are stonewalled in the parliament they will continue their material and moral support for the insurgency, making it even more difficult for Washington to make significant troop withdrawals before next November's US mid-term elections.

But as the country and Washington started to factor in the poll's affirmation of Iraq's deep religious and ethnic divisions, insurgents who had backed off in the days around the election returned to the fray.

A series of bombings and shoot-outs rocked the capital as Iraqis confronted another harsh economic reality: a threefold increase in the price of petrol on the back of a declaration by the Government that it could no longer afford to subsidise costly fuel imports to an oil-rich nation that has yet to find its feet.

I thought the elections in Iraq were supposed to be 'good news'.

Wow - by the time we pull out all the troops - it'll be time to invade again. Maybe we should just stage the toops in Kuwait as they are withdrawn.

If Iraq becomes a constitutionalized theocracy - then the constitution & democracy part will go out of the window fairly quickly - leaving only the theocracy part.

I'm actually quite suprised that given the amount of $ we have spent in Iraq to "change the middle east" etc - that the US would leave iraq's future govermental process upto brainwashed voters! Pretty risky. Of all the stories of the US subverting stuff - none of it can be true if they didn't subvert this to ensure a secular government, afterall - we know what they want & need far better than they do. Damn terrorists the lot of 'em.

That's what you get when you try to push democracy on nations that aren't ready for it. Secularism had its chance in Iraq under Saddam. It's going to take another Saddam to bring it back.

Was it any wonder that you would find in the democratic elections of Iraq, a conflict brewing between the Sunni and the Shi'a?

This religious tension has existed for centuries dating back to the caliphates that developed after Muhammad's death.
They will be at odds with each other, and there may develop a civil war for a brief period after our military's final departure. For each election there will be threats, fraud, and lies to get their candidate forcefully in office to create a theocratic Islamiah fascist regime in the doctrine of their sects. There is a minority, and a majority, which are always subject to change. Iraq belongs to the Iraqis, and they will forge their nation the way they can. Perhaps we would like a secular government in the Middle East with which to have business with, but is that what the Iraqis want?

This is not unexpected news, this conflict in the electoral process of the new government officials, and it is really a non-issue to us. Surely it affects our diplomatic outlook for the future with them, but the Iraqi masses with do with their country what they can with it.

True - but why are we spending at least 400 billion $ to let the Iraqi's have what they want? How incredibly generous of us.

I wish New Orleans was Iraqi because getting money out of the Federal government to protect the future of Americans is like getting blood out of a stone. Maybe if we were all Iraqi down here we'd be swimming in "help"

Events in Iraq seem to be unfolding almost exactly as I feared they would. When we first invaded Iraq I said that Saddam was a secularist and was the only force keeping Iraq from becoming a theocracy aligned with Iran. That seems to be what is happening now.

Iraq will either become a Shia theocracy or another strongman will arise in the military who will take power and keep the warring religious factions at bay.

The problem in Iraq is that they are going to be free to do what they choose. I predict that one of the first things that the new government will do is ask us to leave. Then the Shia and Sunni factions will start a civil war, with each side recieving outside aid. The Iranians will back the Shia, and the Saudis and Syrians will back the Sunnis. The Kurds will declare themselves independent, and Turkey has already pledged to invade if that happens. Of course that will have nothing to do with the oil reserves in Kurdistan, and will only be to suppress the Kurdish rebellion in southeast Turkey.
This will be a problem for the entire world. Oil production will be reduced, and prices will rise. This will affect economies worldwide.
In addition, the possibility of other powers entering the war must be considered. Turkey is a member of NATO. This could lead to Europe and the United States being dragged back into the war. It is also notable that China has a relationship with Iran. Factor into this, the Iranian nuclear program and the possibility that Israel might attack Iran. Consider that Pakistan is an ally of Iran, as well as China, and they already possess nuclear weapons. Then consider that India also has nuclear weapons, and no great love for either Pakistan or China. They also have a growing need for oil.
I hope our little expedition to find WMDs, or to fight Al Qaida, or eliminate Sadaam, or to bring democracy to Iraq, or oil, or whatever the current rationale is; doesn't precipitate a world war. As bad as the cost so far is in both blood and money, it could get a lot worse.

Good post Imagineer

I hope it doesn't come to that - but certainly you propose a plausible scenario.

Two things about any future invasions/wars.

China will not let any oil-producing country be invaded ... period.

As far as U.S. participation ... tell that marine, soldier, sailor, airman that just did 3 tours in Iraq that (s)he's gonna be doing another 3,4 or 5 tours for another war.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Two things about any future invasions/wars.

China will not let any oil-producing country be invaded ... period.


China won't do anything if it means a confrontation with the US beyond verbal condemnation. There is simply no way China will provoke a war with the US. If it wasn't for the US - China would have overrun Taiwan years ago & Taiwan is 1000 times more important to China than Iran is.

China will stand aside just like they did when we invaded Oil producing Iraq.

Originally posted by Imagineer
The problem in Iraq is that they are going to be free to do what they choose. I predict that one of the first things that the new government will do is ask us to leave. Then the Shia and Sunni factions will start a civil war, with each side recieving outside aid. The Iranians will back the Shia, and the Saudis and Syrians will back the Sunnis. The Kurds will declare themselves independent, and Turkey has already pledged to invade if that happens. Of course that will have nothing to do with the oil reserves in Kurdistan, and will only be to suppress the Kurdish rebellion in southeast Turkey.
This will be a problem for the entire world. Oil production will be reduced, and prices will rise. This will affect economies worldwide.
In addition, the possibility of other powers entering the war must be considered. Turkey is a member of NATO. This could lead to Europe and the United States being dragged back into the war. It is also notable that China has a relationship with Iran. Factor into this, the Iranian nuclear program and the possibility that Israel might attack Iran. Consider that Pakistan is an ally of Iran, as well as China, and they already possess nuclear weapons. Then consider that India also has nuclear weapons, and no great love for either Pakistan or China. They also have a growing need for oil.
I hope our little expedition to find WMDs, or to fight Al Qaida, or eliminate Sadaam, or to bring democracy to Iraq, or oil, or whatever the current rationale is; doesn't precipitate a world war. As bad as the cost so far is in both blood and money, it could get a lot worse.

Excellent post Imagineer, although I do not forsee things evolving so far into such a debacle, but your clairvoyance is not outside the realm of possibility.

China and India however, have a everso slight chance that they would be propelled into war involving the United States because of business ties thicker than blood, and a fear of the destruction of such a confrontation. I do not believe either nation has interest in waging war against us, they've opportunities that could have taken and futures at stake they don't want to destroy.
Pakistan getting involved would be troublesome but seemingly unlikely, in the recent times during our incursion into Afghanistan they proved to be of assistance to us, and the tensions between India are heating up with Pakistani ally Iran on the rise militarily.
As for the Turks, I do believe they are willing to prove their bark is as big as their bite and will take action in the Kurdistan region. But the NATO status of their nation complicates things, were we to get involved, our presence in the area as well as debating in the UN would probably help us avoid conflict there. My fear of a conflict with Turkey comes not from a war with the US there, but when we leave they may decide to stomp on the kurdish tribes, or the Iraqis might have a bone to pick. Turkey is building many dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, leaving less and less water streaming down to the restructuring Iraq, that causes some blood to boil for Iraq I'd imagine.
Iran is in a tight spot itself--the citizens have a well received view of the West, and our businesses are gaining ground there. The government wants to become increasing conservative and pushes for a strong theocratic nation. Rebellious youthful generations in Iran will be a source of contension for the government, so we shall have to see how things develop with that nation and how they will influence the Iraqi elections. But factions in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, as well as the Saud government and the Iranians will undoubtedly not rest until Shi'a or Sunni muslims take hold of the sprouting democracy in Iraq.

The Middle East is a tricky place, the desire and need for oil in the region is what fuels their economies almost entirely, and their populations are growing and growing because of the newfound wealth. Soon the resource will run dry and alternatives will be found, what happens then when the water and oil disappear from the region, and all those people are left with little infrastructure and primative economies while their Islamic leaders squander the money on personal affectations? Wars are inevitable somewhere in the Middle East in the coming 25 years, I predict we shall see a great increase in bloodshed not just from militant extremists, but the government funded militaries themselves. In the end, a place that needs to be worried over.

'Democracy,' Iraqi-Style
It isn't pretty

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8307

Originally posted by Evakian
Excellent post Imagineer, although I do not forsee things evolving so far into such a debacle, but your clairvoyance is not outside the realm of possibility.

China and India however, have a everso slight chance that they would be propelled into war involving the United States because of business ties thicker than blood, and a fear of the destruction of such a confrontation. I do not believe either nation has interest in waging war against us, they've opportunities that could have taken and futures at stake they don't want to destroy.

India would become involved not against us, but against Pakistan should they become involved. The long standing problems between Pakistan and India have led to several wars in the last 50 years and they nearly went to war at the time Pakistan first tested a nuclear weapon. Only the intervention of the United States prevented it. We intervened because we were trying to use Pakistan as a route into Afghanistan at the time.
China's involvement is based on an alliance with Pakistan against India, and on a growing need for oil. The Chinese have mainly acted to acquire oil supplies from the Caspian Sea region. They are constructing a pipeline to the region across Uzbekistan and Khazakstan. This passes very close to the U.S. bases in Uzbekistan. They will probably prefer to remain behind the scenes, but a war involving India and Pakistan could draw them into the conflict, particulairly if the trouble extended into the region of their pipeline. Since U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan are in close proximity to that pipeline, a wider war in the area could lead to this.

Originally posted by Evakian
Pakistan getting involved would be troublesome but seemingly unlikely, in the recent times during our incursion into Afghanistan they proved to be of assistance to us, and the tensions between India are heating up with Pakistani ally Iran on the rise militarily.

The current military leadership of Pakistan has a difficult problem maintaining control of the country. The population is strongly Islamist, and largely opposed to the U.S. and our efforts in the region. Support for the Taliban, Al Qaida, and Iran are the majority opinion in Pakistan. The government walks a fine line between supporting the U.S. and supporting Islamists. The actions of the A.Q. Khan network in disseminating nuclear technology show just what a double game is being played. I would not count on Pakistan remaining our ally. The government needs to appease the Islamists, and if Iran is attacked the pressure will be enormous on all sides. The government of pakistan could easily be forced in on the side of Iran to forestall being overthrown. The alternative is that they could try to maintain ties to the U.S. and be overthrown. Their successors would not be friendly to the U.S.

Originally posted by Evakian
As for the Turks, I do believe they are willing to prove their bark is as big as their bite and will take action in the Kurdistan region. But the NATO status of their nation complicates things, were we to get involved, our presence in the area as well as debating in the UN would probably help us avoid conflict there. My fear of a conflict with Turkey comes not from a war with the US there, but when we leave they may decide to stomp on the kurdish tribes, or the Iraqis might have a bone to pick. Turkey is building many dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, leaving less and less water streaming down to the restructuring Iraq, that causes some blood to boil for Iraq I'd imagine.

If the U.S. leaves Iraq because the newly elected government demands it, and Kurdistan declares itself independent, Turkey will invade. They have already said they would, and they will back this up. We will certainly try to pressure them not to, but I doubt we will be successful in this. The dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers affect mostly the Sunni and Shiite areas of Iraq, and they do raise concerns. The floods on the rivers are vital to the ecology of the marshes in southern Iraq. The marsh dwellers are mainly Shiite, and strongly allied with Iran.
The agriculture along the river vallies is the basis of food production in Iraq. This will not be affected too much by the hydroelectric dams, although the reduction of silt that settles out behind the dams could have long term effects on fertility.
It is notable that Iran also borders Kurdistan, and they also oppose an independent Kurdistan because it threatens to cause unrest among the Kurdish minority in Iran.

Originally posted by Evakian
Iran is in a tight spot itself--the citizens have a well received view of the West, and our businesses are gaining ground there. The government wants to become increasing conservative and pushes for a strong theocratic nation. Rebellious youthful generations in Iran will be a source of contension for the government, so we shall have to see how things develop with that nation and how they will influence the Iraqi elections. But factions in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, as well as the Saud government and the Iranians will undoubtedly not rest until Shi'a or Sunni muslims take hold of the sprouting democracy in Iraq.

Iran is not monolithic, and there are competing forces there. Rebellious youth tend to grow up and become less rebellious. There are generally good feelings toward Americans as individuals in Iran, but great opposition to our government. There are also strong ties to the Shiites in southern Iraq. There is already support going to the Shiite militias, and it won't stop when the U.S. withdraws. There is also a lot of nationalism and support for Iran's nuclear ambitions. If Israel attacks them, many will believe the U.S. is involved because of our close ties with Israel.

Originally posted by Evakian
The Middle East is a tricky place, the desire and need for oil in the region is what fuels their economies almost entirely, and their populations are growing and growing because of the newfound wealth. Soon the resource will run dry and alternatives will be found, what happens then when the water and oil disappear from the region, and all those people are left with little infrastructure and primative economies while their Islamic leaders squander the money on personal affectations? Wars are inevitable somewhere in the Middle East in the coming 25 years, I predict we shall see a great increase in bloodshed not just from militant extremists, but the government funded militaries themselves. In the end, a place that needs to be worried over.


The Middle East is a complicated place. There are long standing conflicts that are difficult for outsiders to comprehend. The decrease of oil money that will inevitably happen will put pressure on the area, and will make conflicts inevitable, but it is interesting to note that there have been wars between government militaries amongst Arab nations at least as numerous as Arab - Israeli Wars all along.
Water has always been a source of contention in the area, and that will continue. Increased population will put pressure on the supply of water, and on the supply of food that it produces.
The one thing that is certain in the long run, is that as oil production decreases the area will become less vital to the rest of the world. That is in the long run, however. In the short run, I fear that a civil war in Iraq could easily evolve into a much larger war.

Looks like the insurgents are back to business as usual.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4559606.stm

Originally posted by Imagineer
India would become involved not against us, but against Pakistan should they become involved. The long standing problems between Pakistan and India have led to several wars in the last 50 years and they nearly went to war at the time Pakistan first tested a nuclear weapon. Only the intervention of the United States prevented it. We intervened because we were trying to use Pakistan as a route into Afghanistan at the time.
China's involvement is based on an alliance with Pakistan against India, and on a growing need for oil.

Ahh, I see what you are getting at more clearly. However, it is still rather impropable that things would develop to the point of drawing in the Pakistanis, and so the Indian question of entering would be rather fruitless. American and world intervention would in all likelihood be taken as a way to curb the tensions between the two if Pakistan chose to take the opportunity to wage a campaign on India, or if India did likewise because of their own industrialization and dependence on the conflicts west of their Pakistani neighbors.

As for your prediction of the Kazakh and Uzbek pipelines, Sino-American relations would be tarnished to a degree, and so let us be more optimistic that a chain beginning with Iraqi elections would lead to a conflict with the Indians around Chinese pipelines.

I would not count on Pakistan remaining our ally. The government needs to appease the Islamists, and if Iran is attacked the pressure will be enormous on all sides. The government of pakistan could easily be forced in on the side of Iran to forestall being overthrown. The alternative is that they could try to maintain ties to the U.S. and be overthrown. Their successors would not be friendly to the U.S.

Agreed on all counts.

If the U.S. leaves Iraq because the newly elected government demands it, and Kurdistan declares itself independent, Turkey will invade. They have already said they would, and they will back this up. We will certainly try to pressure them not to, but I doubt we will be successful in this.

The question remains at whether America will jepoardize its ties with the Turks, or go for its shaky relations with the Iraqi populace. Most certainly it will be Iraq, and the Turks getting involved may leave NATO scratching their heads on what to do, as well as the Syrians or Jordanians feeling the heat and beginning to stir.

And on the Kurdish note, because of the motivation of the Kurds to establish their own autonomous state in the region, it may happen before the end of the decade or even as early as the beginning of the next decade. But the repercussions of the action may lead to quick reactions from Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus, and Istanbul leading to a crushing of the tribes. I suggest the US not get involved over it for fear of the straining of relations with the Mohametan governments of the region, and invest hope in international distress with Europe over the Kurdish crisis.

Iran is not monolithic, and there are competing forces there. Rebellious youth tend to grow up and become less rebellious. There are generally good feelings toward Americans as individuals in Iran, but great opposition to our government. There are also strong ties to the Shiites in southern Iraq. There is already support going to the Shiite militias, and it won't stop when the U.S. withdraws. There is also a lot of nationalism and support for Iran's nuclear ambitions. If Israel attacks them, many will believe the U.S. is involved because of our close ties with Israel.

But as further infiltration of American products and business sinks in, and the Iranians vie for the western ways of life, the citizenry have a high chance of sparking revolts, leading either to bloodshed or a further enclosure from the outside world for Iran, both of which do not suit well for the strait of Hormuz and the Iraqi, and Afghani borders.

The one thing that is certain in the long run, is that as oil production decreases the area will become less vital to the rest of the world. That is in the long run, however. In the short run, I fear that a civil war in Iraq could easily evolve into a much larger war.

Forgive my ramblings or agreement Imagineer, but I just like to spark discussion, especially on this intriguing issue. You've made predictions of a highly lethal situation caused by the unrest in the Iraqi elections, I agree that it is largely a possibility, but attempt to be more optimistic in the view, as we pour money and forces into the region, things may alter even if the elections go awry for the neighbors.

Here is a link on the pipeline. It is very near to completion at the moment.

http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=3158

China views access to the Caspian Sea area oil reserves as a critical interest, much as the United States views the Persian Gulf.

Thanks for the link Imagineer, interesting to see the Chinese go for the largely untapped fields of that area while the West sits back. However, I believe ExxonMobil has expressed some interest in drilling in Kazakhstan in recent years. We shall have to wait if others will follow...

Give it a little time and bush will be bombing Iraq all over again when this election doesn't pan out as planned and the Iraquis want control of their own oil and ask us to leave.

Shock-n-awe 2

Attacks Halt Production At Iraq's Largest Refinery http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901488.html
International Team to Probe Complaints of Election Fraud

By Ellen Knickmeyer and Salih Saif Aldin
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, December 30, 2005; Page A14

BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 -- Under a mounting insurgent offensive against Iraq's gasoline supply, the country's largest fuel refinery sat idle Thursday. Gas station owners in surrounding communities in northern Iraq hung up their dry nozzles. A police chief put out a no-patrol order to his men to conserve fuel. And Nouri Ahmed Azaid put off his wedding.

In Iraq, convoys of cars draped with wreaths, their horns honking and side windows sprouting relatives with video cameras, are as much a post-wedding ritual as the honeymoon. But Azaid said, "I suspended my wedding party, because there is no fuel to drive around."

Azaid lives in Baiji, a town north of Baghdad that is home to Iraq's largest refinery and a frequent target of insurgent attacks. On Thursday, authorities confirmed that the refinery had been closed since Dec. 21 by a concerted insurgent campaign against gasoline distributors and filling stations.

The confirmation came on a day when U.S. and other international mediators helped stave off an early crisis in Iraq's efforts to assemble a new government, announcing the appointment of a multinational team to investigate complaints of fraud in Dec. 15 national elections. Sunni Arab and secular parties had said earlier Thursday that they would boycott talks on forming a coalition government without such an investigation.

The investigative team includes two representatives of the Arab League, a former member of the Canadian Parliament and a European academic, authorities said. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and Iraqi candidates welcomed the team's creation and the willingness of Iraq's election commission to accept it. U.S. officials said the team had the blessing of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.

The day's political brinkmanship, fuel shortages and violence highlighted the complex political, economic and security tangles facing U.S. and Iraqi leaders as they try to move toward a stable government and sustainable economy.

Insurgents, apparently hoping to pick a cause popular with Iraqis, launched their offensive on gas stations this month after Iraq raised fuel prices eightfold. The International Monetary Fund mandated the reduction of government gasoline subsidies as a condition for forgiving some of Iraq's multibillion-dollar foreign debt.

The United States and Iraq have been trying desperately to rebuild Iraq's energy sector as the foundation for other reconstruction work here. Although Iraq has one of the world's largest oil reserves, inadequate refining systems mean it must spend $500,000 a month importing fuel.

As a result, Iraqis already faced a choice between waiting for hours at gas stations or paying higher prices to buy gasoline on the black market. This week, insurgent attacks and heavy storms in the south brought oil production to some of its lowest levels since the war began in 2003, analysts told the Dow Jones news service.....

Too claim that Iraq doesn't have enough gas for Iraqis is a huge lie. The problem is that those in control of the oil would rather export it then give to those who should have first pick...
++++++++++++++++

"Rehabilitation of a gas-oil separation plant in northern Iraq has led to the addition of 200,000 b/d the Kirkuk's oil fields production capacity.

Iraq currently produces around 300,000 b/d from northern oil fields, according to officials.

The government said that an oil refinery with a capacity of 10,000 b/d has been built in Nasiriya in southern Iraq.

Similar small refineries will be built in other major cities in order to meet domestic needs."
http://www.thebusinessonline.com/DJStory.aspx?DJStoryID=20051205DN001788
+++++++++++++++++
Guess who they slipped in the back door...
++++++++++++++++++++++

Chalabi takes over Iraq Oil Ministry
Al-Jazera-net

Friday 30 December 2005

Ahmad Chalabi, Iraq's deputy prime minister, has assumed direct control of the powerful Oil Ministry amid growing panic over an anticipated fuel shortage.

Chalabi, who has been improving his relations with Washington after falling out with the US administration, was appointed acting oil minister after the incumbent Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum was given leave, officials said on Friday.

His takeover coincided with long lines forming at petrol stations in Baghdad, as words spread that Iraq's largest oil refinery had shut down and a crippling petrol shortage was inevitable.

Chalabi, who supported Uloum for the post when a US-backed government was formed earlier this year, is already the head of the Oil Council, a cabinet-level board, and his influence on Iraq's economic and commodities policy is massive
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m19116&l=i&size=1&hd=0

Key Shiite Backs Away From Charter Accord
Sunnis Won Chance to Make Revisions

By Nelson Hernandez
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 12, 2006; Page A14

BAGHDAD, Jan. 11 -- Iraq's most influential Shiite politician said Wednesday that he would not allow a new government to "change the essence" of the country's constitution, despite a promise made to Sunni Arabs that it would be opened to major revision.

The promise of future changes to the constitution had been a key concession to encourage Sunni Arabs to join the political process in Iraq and stop violence. Last summer, Sunnis were ready to walk away from the negotiating table as the country's ruling Shiite and Kurdish coalition wrote a constitution that allowed the creation of strong regional provinces.

In a last-minute deal negotiated under heavy pressure from U.S. diplomats, the three groups agreed that the draft constitution would be put to a national referendum in October as planned but would be open to change for four months after a new government was formed early this year.

But Abdul Aziz Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the most powerful Shiite party in the ruling coalition, appeared to back away from the constitutional compromise Wednesday.

"The first principle is not to change the essence of the constitution," Hakim said in a speech given during the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, according to the Associated Press. "It is our responsibility to form Baghdad provinces and southern Iraq provinces."

A spokesman for Hakim's party confirmed the remarks. "The major points in the constitution were agreed to by all the parties that participated in the drafting of the constitution," Haitham Husseini, the spokesman, said in an interview. "As for changes in the powers, some points or details, these are open to negotiation. However, the main principles which were agreed to by all sides, and approved by the people in a popular referendum, they cannot be touched."

The most difficult issue is whether Iraq will have a strong central government or a federal government composed of largely autonomous regions. The Kurds and Shiites, who live in oil-rich areas, support federalism; the Sunnis, who have little oil in the areas they dominate, fear that the country will break apart and that they will be denied a share of the oil revenue.

While it would be a blow to Sunnis if they were unable to amend the constitution, which voters approved Oct. 15, a Sunni politician said he viewed Hakim's comments as a political ploy.

"I don't know why Mr. Hakim is saying this at this time," said Alaa Makki, a senior member of the Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni political party in Iraq. "It's time for reconciliation, it's time for negotiation, it's time for participation in the political process."

However, a Western diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity, said it was important "to remember that there's a lot of jockeying for political position going on. I think you have to look at the comments people are making as part of that process. Everyone is staking out their position in advance of the announcement of final election results."

Special correspondents K.I. Ibrahim in Baghdad and Saad Sarhan in Najaf contributed to this report.
__________________

More fuel for the insurgency and those Sunnis who support it.