Sistani in London: Some of you have sent me the analysis by Juan Cole of Sistani's London trip. While I respect Juan's knowledge on Shi`ite matters (although I do not necessarily always agree with his political interpretations--but than again I do not agree with anybody, and barely with myself sometimes) this particular post is based on an article in Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat (cited by Juan). But dispatches from or on Iraq in Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat or in Al-Hayat always carry the interests and perspectives of US occupiers. Both newspapers are Saudi-owned and financed, and Saudi Arabia (especially as of late) is trying so hard to please the US administration. Their obsolete initiative for a Muslim/Arab force in Iraq (there were no takers) was just one example of Saudi desperate attempt to please US government. Al-Hayat also carried a story today on Sistani's visit in which it wanted to send a message of Sistani's strong opposition to As-Sadr, which is not untrue. But both Al-Hayat and Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat gloss over Sistani's rejection of US occupation, and his adamant refusal to meet with any American envoy or messenger. The criticisms of the Americans by two former members of the Iraqi puppet government council (Salamah Al-Khaffaji and Muwaffaq Ar-Rubay`i--both were very close to occupation authority) yesterday reveal a rising displeasure of the Americans among "moderate" Shi`ite ranks, and perhaps a rise in As-Sadr's popularity. The New York Times has an article today about the police role that As-Sadr's militia has been playing after month of earning a reputation for thuggery. Even As-Sadr complained publicity a few weeks ago that his own men have "filled my heart with pus"--not a lovely image or expression but refers in Arabic usage to a case of deep pain. But remember that US-commissioned polls in Iraq reveal that As-Sadr's popularity is quite significant, and he cannot be simply dismissed as an insignificant voice in Iraq. If Sistani has left An-Najaf to allow the Americans to take over the city (as both Al-Hayat and Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat have implied) his leadership would for all intents and purposes be severely shattered or undermined. Al-Hayat today states that Hizbullah boycotted the visit of Sistani to Beirut (he passed through the airport and stayed for no more than 3 hours) due to deep ideological differences while I found that Hasan Nasrallah was very respectful of Sistani and defended him against his Shi`ite and non-Shi`ite critics in the Arab world when I interviewed him in June. Certainly Sistani's exit is significant especially when you remember that the man has not left his house in 6 years, but it may make things more difficult--not more easier--for the occupiers. And Ishaq Fayyad, perhaps the 2nd most influential Grand Ayatollah in Najaf, is less politically passive than Sistani. The New York Times today on its first page carried a headline that "Najaf cemetery cleared." What a victory? What a resounding victory against...the Najaf cemetery. Hail the chief and salute the troops, NOW.