Folks:
It is not possible to present a proper academic paper as it would be too long and would present an intellectual challenge to some of the so called 'self-styled political scientists' in the Politics forum.
Thus, these are some thoughts that I have on this particular day!
On February 1, 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran, Iran after 15 years in exile. The Shah of Iran, despite his military power, even with the support of the United States, was humiliated into fleeing the country a few weeks earlier.
The same theocracy rules in Iran to this day. Iran, under the Shah, was not near the military power that Iran is today with the nuclear capability that it is procuring for itself.
Let's fast forward to today. Saddam Hussein has been overthrown and is in custody. He faces what could be the trial of the century; if such a trial takes place. He was, at one time, a military power in the Middle East. By the end of his regime, Iraq was a shell of its former military strength.
Election results are not known yet. However, I suspect the Shiites will command a strong majority. Ultimately, the individual who will end up with the real power will be Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Once again, a cleric.
Iraq will slowly become a theocracy; whether the United States and the Middle East wants it or not. Simply put: the Shiite majority was surpressed for so long that they are savouring the political power that they have earned. They will not let go of this thirst for power.
The Grand Ayatollah is so revered that his statements are accepted as being 'divine'. You cannot compete with this. The United States did not want elections to begin with. They had planned to try and maintain power thru an appointed body. It did not work. To have tried to maintain power the way Paul Bremer had in mind would have been a challenge to the Grand Ayatollah. The latter would have prevailed because of the loyalty he commanded among the religious faithful.
Now, we have an election that surely has produced a strong mandate for the Shiite majority to rule Iraq. This means the Grand Ayatollah will be the main influence on the evolving Iraqi state. There are many questions that we can ask. One of them is: does the evolving Iraqi state have a plan to strengthen its armed forces and possibly seek nuclear capability? Obviously not now, but what about in five, ten or fifteen years?
Lord Byron stated that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"!
I suspect that as the political power of the Grand Ayatollah grows and his hold over the masses strengthens; we will see the beginning of the rise of the theocratic state. With this will come the desire to maintain that political power. Another question: have we replaced one dictator with possibly another dictator, even if a benevolent one?
Regards.
It is not possible to present a proper academic paper as it would be too long and would present an intellectual challenge to some of the so called 'self-styled political scientists' in the Politics forum.
Thus, these are some thoughts that I have on this particular day!
On February 1, 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran, Iran after 15 years in exile. The Shah of Iran, despite his military power, even with the support of the United States, was humiliated into fleeing the country a few weeks earlier.
The same theocracy rules in Iran to this day. Iran, under the Shah, was not near the military power that Iran is today with the nuclear capability that it is procuring for itself.
Let's fast forward to today. Saddam Hussein has been overthrown and is in custody. He faces what could be the trial of the century; if such a trial takes place. He was, at one time, a military power in the Middle East. By the end of his regime, Iraq was a shell of its former military strength.
Election results are not known yet. However, I suspect the Shiites will command a strong majority. Ultimately, the individual who will end up with the real power will be Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Once again, a cleric.
Iraq will slowly become a theocracy; whether the United States and the Middle East wants it or not. Simply put: the Shiite majority was surpressed for so long that they are savouring the political power that they have earned. They will not let go of this thirst for power.
The Grand Ayatollah is so revered that his statements are accepted as being 'divine'. You cannot compete with this. The United States did not want elections to begin with. They had planned to try and maintain power thru an appointed body. It did not work. To have tried to maintain power the way Paul Bremer had in mind would have been a challenge to the Grand Ayatollah. The latter would have prevailed because of the loyalty he commanded among the religious faithful.
Now, we have an election that surely has produced a strong mandate for the Shiite majority to rule Iraq. This means the Grand Ayatollah will be the main influence on the evolving Iraqi state. There are many questions that we can ask. One of them is: does the evolving Iraqi state have a plan to strengthen its armed forces and possibly seek nuclear capability? Obviously not now, but what about in five, ten or fifteen years?
Lord Byron stated that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"!
I suspect that as the political power of the Grand Ayatollah grows and his hold over the masses strengthens; we will see the beginning of the rise of the theocratic state. With this will come the desire to maintain that political power. Another question: have we replaced one dictator with possibly another dictator, even if a benevolent one?
Regards.