Gary,

So basically Democracy won't work in Iraq because most Iraqis are Shi'ites (like Iranians)?

I find this argument flawed on two main levels.

1. Iraqi Shi'ites are not the same as Iranian Shi'ites.

2. Iranian opinions are not represented by the mullahs.

I've expanded on this in more depth in a post here

Well, I go a fair bit beyond that one quote you extract. I was just trying to acknowledge some good as I saw it while poiting out it was a little early (and late) for too much glee from the war party. Gareth's pieces was silly and well below his usual standards of fairness. The account he gives of what I wrote, for instance, is simply wrong.

Bargarz,
oddly enough I was reading your reading weblog when you were making the comments.

Not quite. It will be more liberal than democratic because of the need to prevent the Shi'ite majority within Iraq from gaining control of the control of the council through democractic means.

Shi'ites running the show will not coincide with the strategic interests of the US. One of these is to contain Iran as a rogue state.

I read your excellent post. It ignores that the US has defined Iran as a part of the axis of evil and so needing to be dealt with.

I think a federal structure is almost certain, although the Kurds will probably use it as a power base to push for "Greater Kurdistan".

Tim,
Of course you went a lot further than just raising the problem in your very fine post.

You addressed it in an sophisticated and even handed manner.

Me I was just scratching the surface in order to establish a bit of common ground between left and right.

If left and right agree on a democratic Iraq then where are trhe fracture lines? Where do left and right part company?

Rob,

I'm actually more pessimistic. I reckon the US will be respond tro the threat of anarchy through an authoritarian regime based on the Sunni Muslims.

I don't think there's a hope in hell of the Bush administration permitting a democratic iraq. Turkey is a much more important ally than the Kurds and the Turks have vetoed a federal system just as strongly as they've vetoed an independent Kurdistan.

The problem, from Ankara's perspective, is that a majority of all Kurds live in southwest Turkey. An autonomous Kurdish state in Iraq would threaten the whole Turkish political structure.

As it is, the PKK, the Kurdish guerillas on the Turkish side, regard the KDP/PUK autonomy on the Iraqi side as a betrayal of the principle of independence.

The US will set up Chalabi as a toy Shi'ite with Western politics and then go home.

The Chalabi government will then last about 24 hours once his US protectors are gone. He will make Hamid Karzai look like a major success.

Gary,

Good point on the divergence in strategic goals. I agree.

I also alluded to that point in my post that anti-mullah feeling in iran does not automatically translate into support for the US - history and religion determines that the truth lies in the middle.

As to Iran remaining in the Axis of Evil, I think the US would be best served by taking a wait and see approach. If democracy is seen to work in Iraq, the pressures for more reform on the mullahs from their own population will be enormous. As I noted, Iranians do have access to news and don't trust their state controlled media. Their awareness of events across the border is increasing. The religious ties we've discussed may even increase the cross fertilisation of ideas.

Already there are reports of blowback against radical Palestinean groups in iraq - they were the beneficiaries of Saddam's support and are seen as complicit in supporting his regime.

Iran does support groups like Hizbollah et al but that largesse is driven by the mullahs. Support for those groups amongst ordinary Iranians is dropping becasue they are seen as tainted by their symbiotic relationship with the clergy.

I would not be surprised that as reform gathers pace, groups like Hizbollah will find themselves more unwelcome. I'd also hazard a prediction by saying that as Iraq improves, Iran will find itself importing dangerous ideas rather than exporting them to the region.

The US wins by concentrating on making Iraq work and I hope that's what they'll do.

Whoops. Forgot to mention there is slightly more detail in my updated post.

Bargarz,
Its well argued and plausible re Iran and I hope that you are right.

But I am not sure that the US neo-cons at the American Enterprise Institute are simply concentating on making Iraq the beacon light of democracy in the Middle East. The eagle eye is being turned onto regime change in Syrian and Iran.