The Shiite factor
Long vilified as extremists, these Muslims may hold the key to a new Middle East
An important factor behind that flexibility is the fact that interpretation of the sacred texts remains open within Shiism, whereas within Sunni Islam the gates of interpretation ( ijtihad ) supposedly closed in the 10th century. Even Iran's Khomeini, for all his austerity, believed that the Koran had to be made relevant to the modern world. In addition to flexibility, Shiism suffers less from the general Islamic crisis of authority because it has unmistakable centers and figures of religious authority. Because there is widespread respect for Sistani--whose popular website makes his religious judgments available around the world--there is less chance that renegade mullahs such as Moqtada al-Sadr can ignore his rulings.
This is not to say that a Shiite-dominated political regime in Iraq will immediately satisfy all western notions of a modern, liberal democracy. And there will be debates--even within the broad Shiite coalition that Sistani has cobbled together--over how much Islamic law will shape the constitution and family and personal law. But there is strong evidence that Sistani is open to compromises. "He is particularly flexible," Nakash says, "and so are his most likely successors." Nakash goes on to elaborate that Sistani wants neither a theocracy nor a completely secular state: "We have to expect something that is neither the Iran of Khomeini nor the Turkey of Ataturk."
Tactics. Almost every supporter of a favorable outcome in Iraq agrees that America must be a careful midwife, exercising tact in diplomacy and greater shrewdness in its strategic thinking. Even being too cozy with Sistani might not be a good thing, particularly if he is perceived to be a U.S. lackey. And Iraq's chances of subduing the insurgency might be greatly helped, says Thomas Barnett, author of The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century and a former professor at the U.S. Naval War College, if Washington tries to make Iran a more responsible player in the region. Tact means avoiding inflammatory labels such as "axis of evil" (which only rallies support for the shaky theocracy), and shrewdness means coming up with bargaining chips to draw Tehran away from building the Bomb. As he argues in a current Esquire article, Barnett believes that a more responsible Iran is more likely to change. "They will be influenced by what is happening in Iraq," he says. "Sistani may be their Lech Walesa."
Above all, urges Khoei, Washington should resist the colonialist habit of playing Shiites against Sunnis, Sunnis against Shiites, in Iraq and elsewhere. "Iraq is now the key," he says. "If the United States leaves a divided country, this will destroy America's image. People are wondering if America is dividing the Muslim world or uniting it. I hope it is using its influence to help unite it."
advertisement
