Written by Damir Nazarov
In his recent speech, the leader of Hezbollah praised the Iraqi resistance, which disrupted the “American schemes” in the region. The compliments from Hassan Nasrallah should not be taken as a typical moral support for the Iraqis or a tribute to the courage of the resistance fighters, it goes without saying. The words of the Hezbollah leader should be considered in the context of criticism of leading Iraqi political figures who are trying to marginalize the Iraqi resistance.
But first we need to understand the terms, and what is the Iraqi resistance? Just an armed struggle, or including a political battle with the occupiers, which involves a pragmatic trick? If we proceed from a purely armed confrontation with the Americans and their satellites, then in this case all the leading “pro-Iranian” figures of the political establishment of Iraq fall under the criticism of Hassan Nasr-Allah, because Hadi Ameri (the “former” head of BADR), and Maliki (DAWA party), and Ammar Hakim (a former member of ISCI), they criticized the Iraqi resistance and in some places even encouraged and assisted the occupiers in suppressing the resistance. The position of the ayatollahs of Najaf stands out, especially those who are students of Ayatollah Khoei, among whom Ayatollah Sistani stands out. These clergymen welcomed the occupiers and continue to do so to this day.
If we proceed from pragmatism, then the above-mentioned troika of “pro-Iranian figures” instantly finds justification because of their “political struggle” with the occupiers, Hadi Ameri insinuated himself into the confidence of the Yankees and used the opportunity to create a state within a state, Maliki fought with Syrian influence, Ammar Hakim established himself as a bridge of coordination between Tehran and Washington to solve a number of complex issues related to the political structure of Iraq. Moreover, the first two were in contact with the main figures of the Iraqi resistance at different times of the hostilities, for example, the late Muhandis.
In this case, only Ayatollah Sistani, with his endless anti-Iranian position (hence hatred of the leaders of the Iraqi resistance) and support for the American presence, does not find justification. Sistani, through his own persons, still criticizes prominent figures of al-muquwama al-Islamiya, respectively, with regard to the American presence, the head of Najaf also supports the presence of the occupiers. Therefore, drawing some conclusion from the words of the Hezbollah leader, we can assume that the praise of the Iraqi resistance is at the same time an indirect criticism of Sistani and his supporters.
At the same time, we must not forget that the Iraqi resistance embodied a Sunni component and Shiites with a “different ideological coloring” than those who are now called “resistance factions” (Harakat al-Nujaba, Imam Ali Brigade, Kataeb Hezbollah, Asaib al-Haq). “Other Shiites of the Iraqi resistance” are known under the ideological trend – Sadrists, where the most prominent authority is Muqtada Sadr. It was the son of the legendary Ayatollah Sadiq al-Sadr who created the famous Mahdi Army, which was one of the first to fight the invaders, and which has retained its military potential to this day. Therefore, it can be safely stated here that Hassan Nasrallah sent a positive signal to Muqtada.
So, the leader of Hezbollah once again sent a hidden message regarding Iraq and stressed who he sees as the future of this country. Given the frenzied popular popularity of Muqtada Sadr and the presence of influential resistance factions in all spheres of the state, it can be assumed that the future fate of Iraq depends on how successful a compromise between the two political parties will be.
As for Ayatollah Sistani, his pro-American vector should not be surprised, Ayatollah Seyed Ahmad al-Hasani al-Baghdadi said that Marja is connected with US military intelligence. This moment explains why Sistani called on “Shiites to calm down” after the murder of Suleimani and Muhandis by the American-Zionist tandem. It is obvious that the Americans will leave the region and then those who were associated with them will face an unenviable fate.