Juan Cole at his blog, Informed Comment, reports on the recent communique/fatwa issued by Ayatollah Sistani, spiritual leader of Iraq’s Shi’ite community, which impliedly threatens the US with “severe consequences” should Bush continue to block cease fire negotiations in Lebanon (from Cole’s translation of the document):

A communique issued by Sayyid Sistani.

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

Among a series of its continuous attacks on dear Lebanon committed by the forces of the Israeli enemy, today came a new massacre in the wounded town of Qana, in which dozens of innocents perished, a scene of the utmost ugliness and horror.

Words are insufficient to condemn this dastardly crime that appears to have been committed by perons devoid of all human values and principles. Even the women and children in shelters were not safe from them.

The scale of the tragedy that has befallen Lebanon is a result of the continuous Israeli attacks, which have reached the point where patience can no longer bear more. It is not possible to stand with folded hands before them. The international community must take the initiative to impose an immediate ceasefire and to halt this horrific tragedy.

The Muslim world and all peace-loving people will not excuse the parties that put obstacles in the way of this. There will be severe consequences in the entire region.

30 July 2006

Cole claims that last part is a direct shot across the bow of the Bush administration, and I believe him. I doubt it will have any effect on the White House’s strategy regarding Lebanon, however. For all I know, Bush would welcome Shi’a attacks on our forces in Iraq, since he and Rumsfeld would most likely blame Iran for them rather than local Shi’a leaders in Iraq. Part of the reason Bush has supported and defended the Israeli offensive in Lebanon has been the the White House “spin” campaign to make Iran and Syria appear the real villains and threats to Israel, rather than Hizbollah or Hamas.

Nonetheless, I hope someone at the Pentagon or CENTCOM (the US military command responsible for our forces in Iraq) is taking Sistani’s threat seriously. What Professor Cole thinks of Sistani’s statement follows:

(cont.)

Sistani has issued a warning to the United States. He wants Bush to intervene to arrange a ceasefire, i.e. the cessation of israeli air raids on Lebanon in general.

What could he do if he were ignored? Sistani could call massive anti-US and anti-Israel demonstrations. Given Iraq’s profound political instability, this development could be extremely dangerous. US troops in Baghdad and elsewhere are planning offensives against Shiite paramilitary groups, so tensions are likely to rise in the Shiite areas anyway. But big demonstrations could easily boil over into actual attacks on US and British troops. Both depend heavily on fuel that is transported through the Shiite south. Were the Shiites actively to turn on the US for its wholehearted support of continued Israeli air raids, the US military could be cut off from fuel and supplies. The British only have around 8,000 troops in Iraq, and they would be in profound danger if Iraq’s Shiites became militantly anti-occupation. […]

The US is already not winning against a Sunni Arab insurgency, backed by around 5 million Iraqis. If 16 million Shiites turned on the US because of its wholehearted support for Israel’s actions in Lebanon, the US military mission in Iraq could quickly become completely and urgently untenable. In this case, the British troops in particular would be lucky to escape the country with their lives.

Sistani does not issue threats lightly, and he has repeatedly shown a willingness to back them up with action. Bush and US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad will ignore him to their peril.

Bush is playing an ever more dangerous game in Lebanon with his support of Israel. Not only has he brought Syria into play as a potential combatant, but he also risks increased attacks on our troops in Iraq, this time from the majority Shi’a population which at the moment is focused almost exclusively on the Sunni insurgency. I agree with Professor Cole that any Shi’a attacks on our forces could be devastating, both in in terms of our soldiers’ lives but also in terms of our ability to influence events in Iraq (which are already tenuous at best).

Perhaps this is all part of Bush’s “strategery” for the region. Perhaps he is looking for an excuse to widen his “War on Terror” in order to justify attacks on Syria and/or Iran prior to the midterm elections. But whether deliberate or not, it is incredibly reckless. I’m reminded of that scene from the movie The Hunt for Red October where Admiral Painter (played by former GOP Senator Fred Thompson), commander of one of the US Navy Carrier group that is searching for the missing Russian submarine makes the following remark after one of his planes crashes:

“This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.”

That statement seems all too appropos to me, right now.