Earlier today I posted denials from the Iraqi press, via Gateway Pundit, that Ayatollah Sistani was issuing anti-American fatwas. I did not, however, look closely at what the denials actually said. The ever-perceptive Diana West did, however, and she kindly sent in the following comments on the Iraqi announcement: …

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021167.php

…And then…

…
Some analysts are saying that the debate seems to center around whether Sistani is issuing formal fatwahs or simply private opinions, while noting that Sistani is such a power in Iraq that even his private opinions are ignored at the occupier’s peril – as Paul Bremmer and others found out duing Sistanis last active phase.

By a remarkable co-incidence, Ambassador Crocker was in Najaf just yesterday, pressing flesh although he didn’t meet with Sistani. Maliki was in Najaf to talk with the Grand Ayatollah just a couple of days ago. Iranian PressTV is reporting that Sistani told Maliki he will not allow a deal with the US for extended basing agreements.

Iraq’s most revered Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has strongly objected to a ’security accord’ between the US and Iraq. The Grand Ayatollah has reiterated that he would not allow Iraq to sign such a deal with “the US occupiers” as long as he was alive, a source close to Ayatollah Sistani said. [This is an insert by doug: Time Magazine's Bagdad reporter also tells us: Maliki's visit Thursday to Najaf, where he met with Sistani, seemed to be acknowledgment of just that change in status, one that the Ayatollah did not appear to shrink from. "Sistani emphasized that everything should be done to get back total sovereignty on all levels," said Sheik Abdul Mehdi al-Karbala'e, who summed up Sistani's meeting with Maliki in a speech to Shi'ite follower attending Friday prayers in Karbala.] The source added the Grand Ayatollah had voiced his strong objection to the deal during a meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the holy city of Najaf on Thursday.

And another PressTV report says that Abdel-Karim al-Anzy, head of Maliki’s own Dawa Party in the Iraqi parliament, has also spoken out against the agreement.

“Since Iraq is still administrated under the Chapter VII of the UN Charter no Iraqi is allowed to sign any security deal with the US,” Iraqi lawmaker Abdel-Karim al-Anzy told Fars News Agency on Sunday. His remarks came amid reports that the Iraqi government might sign a long-term framework agreement with the United States, under which Washington would be allowed to set up permanent military bases in the country and US citizens would be granted immunity from legal prosecution in the country. Al-Anzy stated that “the security accord would be detrimental to the country and Iraq would become a US colony under the deal”. The mandate of US troops in Iraq will expire in December 2008 and al-Maliki’s government is under US pressure to sign ‘a mutual security agreement’ which would allow the long-term presence of US troops in Iraq. The lawmaker said that Iraqi nation and political and religious figures are against the accord and Iraqi MPs will never sign such a deal.

The best lesson this flurry of stories teaches, so far, is that Nouri al-Napoleon and his allies aren’t the be all and end all of Iraqi power yet – and probably never will be, no matter how many Basrah and Mosul offensives are conducted to consolidate the central government’s current elites’ political power. That message has certainly been received loud and clear by coalition commanders. Sistani is definitely back in the driving seat.

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/05/sistani—fatwa.html

There can now be little doubt that Sistani is now stepping back into the public square and does want the drivers seat before December. Perhaps, he will go farther and push for elections to be carried out before the end of the year, as they appear to now be post-poned. Time will tell how deeply he enters into the public square.

Therefore, depending on how one splices the AP story on Sistani’s “private” “fatwas” is now largely irrelevant; it is now a story within a larger story of how Sistani is beginning to wrestle back Iraq’s sovereignty from the “foreign occupiers”. We can now conclude that Sistani is back in the game and he’s interested in what happens regarding the US-Iraqi security accord.

Tom