Middle East Politics

Nikhil said:
What does religion have to do with Kashmir and Bangladesh? It is more about groups in power that are also in the majority (in this case religion, political and regional), oppressing and persecuting communities with less power. Kashmir is as much a proxy war than something Kashmir valley people want genuinely in a religious sense. True, in the Indian subcontinent religion has played a tragic part in history. India being one of the countries in the world being divided because of religion. But Arabs are an ethnicity, comprising of Christians, Druze and Baha'i as well. Even though they are having an incredibly tough time in that part of the world.

They could have a two state solution. But for that, Fatah and Hamas will have to sign a peace deal with Israel, the same way Jordan and Egypt did. Egypt and Jordan have good relations with Israel after they signed a peace deal. Israel even gave the Sinai to Egypt. Hamas will have to lay down arms though and the Palestinian leadership will have to recognise Israel as a country. Also, Iran will have to stop using the Syrian War as a smokescreen to be belligerent to Israel. It's just the way it works. There's no way that will happen now though with neocons like Bolton and Pompeo in office.
Click to expand...

Israel has never offered the Palestinians a state
 
Kaos said:
He’s awful but I’d probably still prefer him to Abadi.
Click to expand...

Abadi is easily the best choice among the 5 Shi'a blocks. Other options being Maliki, Amar Hakim, Hadi al-Amri, and Muqtada.

Maliki wanted to be an authoritarian, Hakim and Amri are Iran stooges, and Team Muqtada are probably not ready for the big stage.

Edit. Muqtada and Amri now ahead after overnight vote counting.

 
Last edited:
berbatrick said:
If you have time, can you explain the election (as you see it)?
Click to expand...

Yeah sure.

So this is the fourth general election since Iraq has become a ‘democracy’. It’s a PR system using 18 of Iraq’s governates as the constituencies. And as such Iraqi politics has relied on a coalitions and alliances compromising of broad groups to form governments.

Considering Iraq is a majority Shia nation, the bigger blocs are Shi’a affiliated. This year the key players are the bloc led by the incumbent Prime Minister Abadi, a bloc made up of the Iranian-backed Shi’a Miltias led by Hadi Al-Ameri, and then there’s the bloc led by the firebrand nationalist cleric Muqtada Al Sadr. There are some smaller coalitions comprising of Sunnis and Christians but the best they can hope for is to negotiate a position of power should the other coalitions come up short. The Kurds meanwhile are doing their own thing in the north where they’re trying to consolidate their strongholds, completely disinterested in Baghdad.

The mood going into this election is complete disillusionment and apathy, and from what I hear the turnout is as low as 21%. Think it’s just gotten to the point Iraqis are sick of the corruption, perpetual war and economic collapse.

I think Abadi expected a relatively comfortable victory because of his tenure overseeing the defeat of the Islamic State in Iraq but corruption has pretty much damaged his chances. He’s also seen as the most friendly towards the US (he’s the US’ preference) which you could argue has also done him no favours, especially considering the sentiment towards Trump in Iraq (him saying we’re not a proper country and how he was going to take our oil as compensation), and with the ripping up of the Iran deal and moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, it’s not a good time to be a US stooge. As of now Abadi seems to be in third place behind the Shia militia coalition (PMF) and Al-Sadr’s coalition.

So right now it seems to be between the PMF and Al-Sadr. The PMF is unsurprisingly Iran’s preference, and enjoy a substantial core of support from Iraq’s Shia population since their militias have been credited as the genuine bulwark against ISIS, but are met with apprehension from the Sunni and secular demographic who fear their sectarian inclination. Needless to say the US isn’t too hot on them either considering their close ties to Iran and the faction’s general hostility towards the US (one of their leaders even suggested turning on the US military personnel in Iraq after the Jerusalem embassy fiasco).

Then there’s the wildcard candidate Moqtada Al Sadr and his alliance who as of now are currently leading. Sadr is an interesting one, he’s a Shia cleric who is the son of a very influential Shia cleric in Iraq that Saddam had assassinated. He really came to prominence during the early occupation of Iraq where his faction served as the main insurgency in the South where they battled US forces in a guerilla campaign. However despite being a Shia cleric, he’s a staunch nationalist that appears to run on a non sectarian banner and claims to be independent of Iran, at times publicly condemning the excessive influence they hold in the country. I’d imagine he’s become popular because he’s run on an anti corruption platform (his party managed to temporarily shut down government last year to protest rampant corruption), and because he boasts appeal from Iraq’s minorities on account of his seemingly secular nationalism (his main partner in the alliance is Iraq’s communist party if that’s any indication). The trouble is the guy is an absolute unpredictable headcase and I’m pretty sure he’s somewhere on the autistic spectrum, so he’s about as qualified to be Iraq’s prime minister as any of us.

I can’t really you tell how it’ll end, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Abadi clutches on to power even if his coalition loses.

Edit: Just realised Al-Sadr himself cannot become prime minister. Will be interesting to see who he choses though, the Iranian or US stooge?
 
Last edited:
Kaos said:
Yeah sure.

So this is the fourth general election since Iraq has become a ‘democracy’. It’s a PR system using 18 of Iraq’s governates as the constituencies. And as such Iraqi politics has relied on a coalitions and alliances compromising of broad groups to form governments.

Considering Iraq is a majority Shia nation, the bigger blocs are Shi’a affiliated. This year the key players are the bloc led by the incumbent Prime Minister Abadi, a bloc made up of the Iranian-backed Shi’a Miltias led by Hadi Al-Ameri, and then there’s the bloc led by the firebrand nationalist cleric Muqtada Al Sadr. There are some smaller coalitions comprising of Sunnis and Christians but the best they can hope for is to negotiate a position of power should the other coalitions come up short. The Kurds meanwhile are doing their own thing in the north where they’re trying to consolidate their strongholds, completely disinterested in Baghdad.

The mood going into this election is complete disillusionment and apathy, and from what I hear the turnout is as low as 21%. Think it’s just gotten to the point Iraqis are sick of the corruption, perpetual war and economic collapse.

I think Abadi expected a relatively comfortable victory because of his tenure overseeing the defeat of the Islamic State in Iraq but corruption has pretty much damaged his chances. He’s also seen as the most friendly towards the US (he’s the US’ preference) which you could argue has also done him no favours, especially considering the sentiment towards Trump in Iraq (him saying we’re not a proper country and how he was going to take our oil as compensation), and with the ripping up of the Iran deal and moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, it’s not a good time to be a US stooge. As of now Abadi seems to be in third place behind the Shia militia coalition (PMF) and Al-Sadr’s coalition.

So right now it seems to be between the PMF and Al-Sadr. The PMF is unsurprisingly Iran’s preference, and enjoy a substantial core of support from Iraq’s Shia population since their militias have been credited as the genuine bulwark against ISIS, but are met with apprehension from the Sunni and secular demographic who fear their sectarian inclination. Needless to say the US isn’t too hot on them either considering their close ties to Iran and the faction’s general hostility towards the US (one of their leaders even suggested turning on the US military personnel in Iraq after the Jerusalem embassy fiasco).

Then there’s the wildcard candidate Moqtada Al Sadr and his alliance who as of now are currently leading. Sadr is an interesting one, he’s a Shia cleric who is the son of a very influential Shia cleric in Iraq that Saddam had assassinated. He really came to prominence during the early occupation of Iraq where his faction served as the main insurgency in the South where they battled US forces in a guerilla campaign. However despite being a Shia cleric, he’s a staunch nationalist that appears to run on a non sectarian banner and claims to be independent of Iran, at times publicly condemning the excessive influence they hold in the country. I’d imagine he’s become popular because he’s run on an anti corruption platform (his party managed to temporarily shut down government last year to protest rampant corruption), and because he boasts appeal from Iraq’s minorities on account of his seemingly secular nationalism (his main partner in the alliance is Iraq’s communist party if that’s any indication). The trouble is the guy is an absolute unpredictable headcase and I’m pretty sure he’s somewhere on the autistic spectrum, so he’s about as qualified to be Iraq’s prime minister as any of us.

I can’t really you tell how it’ll end, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Abadi clutches on to power even if his coalition loses.

Edit: Just realised Al-Sadr himself cannot become prime minister. Will be interesting to see who he choses though, the Iranian or US stooge?
Click to expand...

If Baha al-Araji had played his cards right he could've been in the mix as PM now.
 
@Kaos who was the Shi'i guy you liked a few years back, seemed a thoroughly decent sort and so perhaps not quite cut out for Iraqi politics?
 
2cents said:
@Kaos who was the Shi'i guy you liked a few years back, seemed a thoroughly decent sort and so perhaps not quite cut out for Iraqi politics?
Click to expand...
Ayad Jamal Al-Din. I actually voted for him in 2010, ran on a genuinely secular platform, rejecting close ties with Iran and choosing to focus on infrastructure.

I genuinely think he was the legit benevolent type, but unfortunately I don’t think secular tickets do particularly well in Iraq’s democratic model. The sad reality is voters will default to their tribal/sectarian allegiances.
 
Isn't Al Sadr a fecking militant?
His men were responsible for some fecking atrocities during the hight of the war and during the Maliki years.
 
Raoul said:
Yes. He was Muqtada's guy until a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...
The trouble with Muqtada is he’s both extremely fickle and impulsive. I mean he’s even now getting cosy with MBS and the Saudis ffs. Give it another four years and he’ll probably have classic Ba’athis running on his platform.
 
Adisa said:
Isn't Al Sadr a fecking militant?
His men were responsible for some fecking atrocities during the hight of the war and during the Maliki years.
Click to expand...
His movement served as the main Shia insurgency in the early years of the occupation, where they’d fight coalition troops in the South.

Not sure about atrocities though. I’d say the Shi’a deathsquads were more extremist fringe groups not really part of the Sadrist/Mahdi army umbrella.

Nowadays the Sadrist movement isn’t so much a militant one. It’s the PMF who are the most active militarily.
 
Kaos said:
The trouble with Muqtada is he’s both extremely fickle and impulsive. I mean he’s even now getting cosy with MBS and the Saudis ffs. Give it another four years and he’ll probably have classic Ba’athis running on his platform.
Click to expand...

He has apparently shacked up with the Iraqi Communist Party on a strong anti-corruption platform. He's done a pretty good job of casting himself as a populist/nationalist/anti-corruption crusader - and has in the process outflanked both the Dawa Party as well as Badr and the Hakim's. He will however need a good PM candidate if he winds up on top this time.
 
Kaos said:
Ayad Jamal Al-Din. I actually voted for him in 2010, ran on a genuinely secular platform, rejecting close ties with Iran and choosing to focus on infrastructure.

I genuinely think he was the legit benevolent type, but unfortunately I don’t think secular tickets do particularly well in Iraq’s democratic model. The sad reality is voters will default to their tribal/sectarian allegiances.
Click to expand...

That’s the guy, what happened there? I take it Sunni parties are an irrelevance right now? It’s weird because it seems like a united Sunni front could potentially do quite well given the divisions among the Shi’a.
 
2cents said:
I take it Sunni parties are an irrelevance right now? It’s weird because it seems like a united Sunni front could potentially do quite well given the divisions among the Shi’a.
Click to expand...

They have always been a bit irrelevant due to the sectarian demographics of the country and are probably even more so today because Muqtada, as Iraq's most populous figure, has made political alliances with specific political parties (Communists and Nationalists to be precise) instead of forming cross sectarian coalitions, and is in the process campaigning on a strong anti-corruption platform. By avoiding getting into a sectarian coalition, he has deprived both Sunni and Shi'a groups from portraying him as being on one side of the other. In this case the Hakim/Badr pro-Iranian groups can't brand him as cozying up to Saudi (despite his meeting with MBS) and the Sunni groups inside Iraq can't brand him as being lopsidedly pro-Iranian. Other than security, corruption is the country's biggest problem at the moment and he has appropriately branded himself as the person to fix it.
 
Kaos said:
Yeah sure.

So this is the fourth general election since Iraq has become a ‘democracy’. It’s a PR system using 18 of Iraq’s governates as the constituencies. And as such Iraqi politics has relied on a coalitions and alliances compromising of broad groups to form governments.

Considering Iraq is a majority Shia nation, the bigger blocs are Shi’a affiliated. This year the key players are the bloc led by the incumbent Prime Minister Abadi, a bloc made up of the Iranian-backed Shi’a Miltias led by Hadi Al-Ameri, and then there’s the bloc led by the firebrand nationalist cleric Muqtada Al Sadr. There are some smaller coalitions comprising of Sunnis and Christians but the best they can hope for is to negotiate a position of power should the other coalitions come up short. The Kurds meanwhile are doing their own thing in the north where they’re trying to consolidate their strongholds, completely disinterested in Baghdad.

The mood going into this election is complete disillusionment and apathy, and from what I hear the turnout is as low as 21%. Think it’s just gotten to the point Iraqis are sick of the corruption, perpetual war and economic collapse.

I think Abadi expected a relatively comfortable victory because of his tenure overseeing the defeat of the Islamic State in Iraq but corruption has pretty much damaged his chances. He’s also seen as the most friendly towards the US (he’s the US’ preference) which you could argue has also done him no favours, especially considering the sentiment towards Trump in Iraq (him saying we’re not a proper country and how he was going to take our oil as compensation), and with the ripping up of the Iran deal and moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, it’s not a good time to be a US stooge. As of now Abadi seems to be in third place behind the Shia militia coalition (PMF) and Al-Sadr’s coalition.

So right now it seems to be between the PMF and Al-Sadr. The PMF is unsurprisingly Iran’s preference, and enjoy a substantial core of support from Iraq’s Shia population since their militias have been credited as the genuine bulwark against ISIS, but are met with apprehension from the Sunni and secular demographic who fear their sectarian inclination. Needless to say the US isn’t too hot on them either considering their close ties to Iran and the faction’s general hostility towards the US (one of their leaders even suggested turning on the US military personnel in Iraq after the Jerusalem embassy fiasco).

Then there’s the wildcard candidate Moqtada Al Sadr and his alliance who as of now are currently leading. Sadr is an interesting one, he’s a Shia cleric who is the son of a very influential Shia cleric in Iraq that Saddam had assassinated. He really came to prominence during the early occupation of Iraq where his faction served as the main insurgency in the South where they battled US forces in a guerilla campaign. However despite being a Shia cleric, he’s a staunch nationalist that appears to run on a non sectarian banner and claims to be independent of Iran, at times publicly condemning the excessive influence they hold in the country. I’d imagine he’s become popular because he’s run on an anti corruption platform (his party managed to temporarily shut down government last year to protest rampant corruption), and because he boasts appeal from Iraq’s minorities on account of his seemingly secular nationalism (his main partner in the alliance is Iraq’s communist party if that’s any indication). The trouble is the guy is an absolute unpredictable headcase and I’m pretty sure he’s somewhere on the autistic spectrum, so he’s about as qualified to be Iraq’s prime minister as any of us.

I can’t really you tell how it’ll end, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Abadi clutches on to power even if his coalition loses.

Edit: Just realised Al-Sadr himself cannot become prime minister. Will be interesting to see who he choses though, the Iranian or US stooge?
Click to expand...


Thanks a lot!

From your write-ups, especially concering sectarianism, al-Sadr seems to be the least bad among many bad options.
 
2cents said:
That’s the guy, what happened there? I take it Sunni parties are an irrelevance right now? It’s weird because it seems like a united Sunni front could potentially do quite well given the divisions among the Shi’a.
Click to expand...
People often forget that a large proportion of Iraqi Sunnis are Kurds, almost all of which are Sunnis and almost all of which will vote Kurdish. So a united Arab sunni front would still likely be dwarfed by any of the major Shi’a dominated blocs. Also, as far as power sharing prospect go, Kurds have historically been reluctant to get into bed with Arab nationalists, especially those with sympathetic Ba’athi leanings considering the atrocities they’d suffered under Saddam.

Divisions even exist amongst Iraqi Sunnis, namely on a tribal and religious level. You have your Turkmen, Islamic conservatives and secular nationalists often at odds with one another.

So in essence, the Sunni Arabs will tend to flock towards secularists like Ayad Allawi, who despite being Shi’a, is a secular classic ba’athist. Interestingly Allawi’s bloc got the most votes in 2010, thanks largely to the Sunni vote. Granted, Maliki still held on to power but it does show that when mobilised, Sunni Arabs can still make the difference. I think Moqtada’s surge is partly down to that too.
 
berbatrick said:
Thanks a lot!

From your write-ups, especially concering sectarianism, al-Sadr seems to be the least bad among many bad options.
Click to expand...

It depends who you ask really. Looking from the outside I could see why Moqtada would be the ‘sensible’ choice, but as someone who’s a staunch secularist I’d still prefer the PMF over him and Abadi on account of the latter two’s closeness to Saudi Arabia and the US respectively. I don’t like Iranian meddling in Iraqi politics, but i see it as a lesser evil than being associated with Trump or the Saudis. Though others will have different perspectives.

Granted it’s abit hyperbolic to call Moqtada a Saudi Scrooge considering he met him just the once, but I have to stress the guy is an absolute loose cannon who’s pathologically inpulsive. If you don’t believe me then research his activities over the last 20 years. None of these candidates are particularly great but what Iraqi doesn’t need is an unstable eccentric like him.
 
Kaos said:
It depends who you ask really. Looking from the outside I could see why Moqtada would be the ‘sensible’ choice, but as someone who’s a staunch secularist I’d still prefer the PMF over him and Abadi on account of the latter two’s closeness to Saudi Arabia and the US respectively. I don’t like Iranian meddling in Iraqi politics, but i see it as a lesser evil than being associated with Trump or the Saudis. Though others will have different perspectives.

Granted it’s abit hyperbolic to call Moqtada a Saudi Scrooge considering he met him just the once, but I have to stress the guy is an absolute loose cannon who’s pathologically inpulsive. If you don’t believe me then research his activities over the last 20 years. None of these candidates are particularly great but what Iraqi doesn’t need is an unstable eccentric like him.
Click to expand...

Talked to a semi-ITK type yesterday who seems convinced that Muqtada's results will somehow result in Hadi al-Amiri becoming PM.
 
Raoul said:
Talked to a semi-ITK type yesterday who seems convinced that Muqtada's results will somehow result in Hadi al-Amiri becoming PM.
Click to expand...

In what sense? Was he insintuating that he was Moqtada's preference or alluding to more of a compromise?
 
Kaos said:
In what sense? Was he insintuating that he was Moqtada's preference or alluding to more of a compromise?
Click to expand...

He seemed to think that once the dust settles that al-Amiri will emerge after negotiations on a governing coalition take place. Personally, I would think Muqtada would want to gravitate towards Abadi given that Muqtada is generally more in the nationalist vein and al-Amiri is obviously regarded as Iran leaning.
 
Raoul said:
He seemed to think that once the dust settles that al-Amiri will emerge after negotiations on a governing coalition take place. Personally, I would think Muqtada would want to gravitate towards Abadi given that Muqtada is generally more in the nationalist vein and al-Amiri is obviously regarded as Iran leaning.
Click to expand...

Nevermind that, the man fought on the Iranian side during the Iraq-Iran war. Can't see that going down well with the nationalists.
 
Kaos said:
Nevermind that, the man fought on the Iranian side during the Iraq-Iran war. Can't see that going down well with the nationalists.
Click to expand...

Seeing that it was that tyrannical rat Saddam who started the Iran - Iraq wars, maybe people will agree with his decision to fight alongside the Iranians? Or do the nationalists there think favourably of SH now?
 
Nikhil said:
Seeing that it was that tyrannical rat Saddam who started the Iran - Iraq wars, maybe people will agree with his decision to fight alongside the Iranians? Or do the nationalists there think favourably of SH now?
Click to expand...
It’s not really to do with Saddam. I mean I’m both of a Shia and Kurdish background so I despise Saddam as much as his most vehement haters, but something about an Iraqi actively fighting against his own country, helping kill Iraqi servicemen (most of which were Shia anyway) leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. And I’m pretty sure many Iraqis will feel the same irrespective of their sectarian leaning and what they think of a Saddam.
 
Kaos said:
It’s not really to do with Saddam. I mean I’m both of a Shia and Kurdish background so I despise Saddam as much as his most vehement haters, but something about an Iraqi actively fighting against his own country, helping kill Iraqi servicemen (most of which were Shia anyway) leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. And I’m pretty sure many Iraqis will feel the same irrespective of their sectarian leaning and what they think of a Saddam.
Click to expand...

It also has to do with diverging perceptions among Iraqi Shi'a of the Sadr and Hakim families as it relates to Iraq. Muqtada, Muhammad Sadeq, and Muhammad Baqir have strong reputations as having fought both Saddam and in Muqtada's case, the Americans from within Iraq - the latter two losing their lives to the cause. Those are strong nationalist credentials, even among those from different Iraqi political viewpoints.

On the other hand the Hakims (primarily Abdul Aziz) are better known as having fled Saddam to work with Iran to confront Saddam from the outside and then later cozy up to the Americans. So its easy to see why Muqtada is seen as the more attractive of the options among himself - Ammar and Hadi al-Amiri. While the others left the country, his family stayed and fought and are now reaping the rewards.
 
Last edited:
He’s desperately trying to pin himself as the anti Iranian Shi’a nationalist.

It’s a hell of a gamble, by distancing himself from both the US and Iran he’s going to be heavily isolated. There’s also the complication that his Sadrist Movement has essentially disarmed with the most powerful militant faction being the pro Iranian PMF who will almost certainly take issue with his sentiments toward Assad.
 
Kaos said:
He’s desperately trying to pin himself as the anti Iranian Shi’a nationalist.

It’s a hell of a gamble, by distancing himself from both the US and Iran he’s going to be heavily isolated. There’s also the complication that his Sadrist Movement has essentially disarmed with the most powerful militant faction being the pro Iranian PMF who will almost certainly take issue with his sentiments toward Assad.
Click to expand...

I don't know how distant he will be with the US. Trump doesn't seem to care about Iraq as long as ISIS aren't in charge and Muqtada is forging relationships with his buddy MBS (who is in turn in good terms with Kushner/Trump et al), so he is likely to have amicable relations with the gulf states which act as a hedge if he were to run a-fowl with Tehran and Damascus.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
I don't know how distant he will be with the US. Trump doesn't seem to care about Iraq as long as ISIS aren't in charge and Muqtada is forging relationships with his buddy MBS (who is in turn in good terms with Kushner/Trump et al), so he is likely to have amicable relations with the gulf states which act as a hedge if he were to run a-fowl with Tehran and Damascus.
Click to expand...
If he cosies up with the Saudis while doubling down on his anti Iranian sentiment he won’t last very long. The Saudis are bitterly resented amongst Iraq’s Shi’a population.
 
Kaos said:
If he cosies up with the Saudis while doubling down on his anti Iranian sentiment he won’t last very long. The Saudis are bitterly resented amongst Iraq’s Shi’a population.
Click to expand...

Iraqi Shi'a perception of neighboring states is (imo) heavily influenced by their domestic leaders. Muqtada has over the past 12-13 years held incredible cult of personality type sway of how his followers regard the likes of the US, Iran, Saudi etc. If he comes out as conciliatory with MBS and they agree to a new era of bilateral political and economic cooperation, then a vast majority of the Sadrists will follow that. Conversely, if things sour between Muqtada and MBS then they will follow that as well.

What seems to be clear is that its in Muqtada's interest to not be perceived as in any way Sectarian (hence his running on a nationalist and not a sectarian agenda). If his block actually govern in this way then they will have a lot of credible influence across the region.
 
Last edited:
I'll post this here since most people with a sustained interest in the Middle East will have come across his writings at some stage over the years:

 
I have grown up reading Fouad Ajami, Shabtai Teveth, Martin Gilbert ("Israel A History"), and Bernard Lewis. Hard to believe all four have now passed away.



 
Last edited:
Whoopi-Doo! I grew up reading Enid Blyton, Captain W.E. Johns, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien.
 
This legit?

Muqtada al-Sadr gives Qasem Soleimani 48 hours to leave Iraq and promises his forces to collapse in Syria

The leader of the Sadrist movement, Moqtada al-Sadr, attacked the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guardsthe-led Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani, and promised that his militias would soon collapse in Syria and Iraq.

"The time of the Wilayat al-Faqih is dying in Iraq, and the coming months will witness the degradation of the Iranian mercenaries in Syria and Yemen," Sadr addressed Sulaimani in a press statement.

http://nedaa-sy.com/en/news/6242
 
2cents said:
This legit?

Muqtada al-Sadr gives Qasem Soleimani 48 hours to leave Iraq and promises his forces to collapse in Syria

The leader of the Sadrist movement, Moqtada al-Sadr, attacked the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guardsthe-led Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani, and promised that his militias would soon collapse in Syria and Iraq.

"The time of the Wilayat al-Faqih is dying in Iraq, and the coming months will witness the degradation of the Iranian mercenaries in Syria and Yemen," Sadr addressed Sulaimani in a press statement.

http://nedaa-sy.com/en/news/6242
Click to expand...
Lol he’s on a mad one.

I’m all for telling the Iranians to feck off out of Iraq but he’s got to pick his battles more smartly. Pissing off Soleimani who happens to garner the loyalty of the most well armed and mobilised militant factions in Iraq is suicidal. No idea why he’s getting involved in Syrian affairs too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.