Iraqi officials say 13 anti-government protesters have been wounded by security forces amid ongoing clashes in central Baghdad. In the country’s oil-rich south, demonstrators were seen burning tires, and have cut main roads.
Early on I read that the killers were Iranian-backed militias. I am not sure if that means 100% or something over 50% of the deaths have been caused by the Iranians, essentially. And maybe even that isn't accurate. The news mostly doesn't say. Given the anti-Iran feelings of many of the protesters, that would be important news to lock down. Although that percentage may be irrelevant if the government is ordering the killings on behalf of Iran.
Although with some protesters calling for a revolution, Iran's hand seems clear:
Whatever reasons protesters in Iraq originally took to the streets to express their frustration with the government [have] now been tossed aside and outright revolution has become their goal.
The demonstrations all across Iraq began last month, triggered by the graft and corruption of the political class. But as many of their number were gunned down in the streets by snipers believed to be a part of the Iranian-controlled Shia militias, the crowds are now demanding nothing less than an overturning of the entire political system, starting with election laws that perpetrate the corruption.
It's hard not to blame the Shias for being angry. Saddam's Sunni Arab minority oppressed them. The insurgencies and then the fight against ISIL muffled the desire for improvements as wars were fought. But the failure of the Shia-dominated government--seen as too friendly to Iran--is too much to bear now. Yet still the government ignores them, preferring to enrich themselves.
I've wanted Iraq to defang those Iranian militias for a while now. Stop them before it is too late, I begged. I wasn't happy they were created after the rise of ISIL. But even if necessary to battle ISIL, they need to go now. Before the body count of Iraqis gets much higher.
Will the people risking their lives for better governance and jobs decide revolution is the way to change their government rather than the elections they can use now? The death toll shows a certain dedication, you must admit (and do read the whole, wide-ranging post which provides far more information and context than the news stories are providing):
The anti-corruption demonstrations have, since October 1st, left nearly 400 dead and over 18,000 injured. The protest is not just about corruption but also the Iranian efforts to control Iraq and exploit the corruption to do so. Protestors consider the current government crippled by politicians who are pro-Iran or have been bribed to do what Iran wants. Both the Iraqi and Iranian governments were caught by surprise at the size, ferocity and persistence of the protests. This eventually included the most senior Iraqi Shia clerics backing the protestors, which was a major embarrassment for the senior Iranian Shia clerics, who have been running Iran since the 1980s and had hoped to persuade their Iraqi colleagues to adopt the same system. The Iraqi Shia clerics considered the idea after the Sunni dictatorship and Saddam Hussein were overthrown in 2003, but gradually realized that this form of religious dictatorship wasn’t working in Iran and was definitely not going to work in Iraq. The Iraqi Shia clerics tried to explain to their Iranian peers that Iraqi Shia were eager to worship together with other Shia, including Iranians, but were generally opposed to Iranian politics or political control.
If this pressure on the government leads to a government in the existing system that rejects Iranian influence and reduces corruption, or if there is a revolution that provides that, Iraq may yet set a good example for democracy and rule of law in the Middle East.
Remember, the fight is not only about Iraq's future, it is a fight against Iran in Iraq.
But while the hopes vocalized by some of the protesters are a hopeful sign, I don't assume that Iran can't exploit unrest and a weak Iraqi government to completely take over. For a while anyway.* Who knows if Iran can afford the added expense of running Iraq under American sanctions?
I'm hoping that Pence did more than argue against killing protesters. I hope he put some spine (and backing) for rejecting Iran's horrible and deadly influence in Iraq.
In a vital way, the Iraq War continues. Which is an angle I've droned on about for a long time. Corruption in Iraq is an invitation to Iranian bribery and influence.
PRE-PUBLICATION UPDATE: Protesters burned an Iranian consulate, prompting Iraq to create special "crisis cells" to combat the protests; and security forces have killed 20 protesters in the last 24 hours. We should side with the government only as far as getting them to address the protesters' concerns. Otherwise the protesters are the good guys in this struggle. And continue to pressure Iran across the board.
UPDATE: This is a start:
Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi said Friday he would submit his resignation to parliament, a day after more than 40 people were killed by security forces and following calls by Iraq’s top Shiite cleric for lawmakers to withdraw support.
It should have been obvious that taking bribes--and from the Iranians, too, of all people--does not justify shooting people angry at your bribe-taking and general disregard for the welfare of the people.
*And the Iraqi media is bravely reporting on the protests and violence. The government is trying to silence the media. If you want a place where the self-important slogan adopted here of "democracy dies in darkness" applies, it is Iraq.
