Yes, the shiites need to make a compromise with at least one other group, which is a good thing (balance of power). Maybe its karma that the political destiny of Iraq is now in the hands of Shiites and Kurds, but hopefully they will be more wise than Saddam, and create a responsible ledership. Ofcourse the Shia religious ledership and the Kurdish nationalist leadership will have their own agenda, but they have much more to loose from chaos, than from compromise.
Kurds will probably demand a high level of autonomy in a Kurdish "secular state" - prehaps even with its own "capital" and "veto power". They will probably called it something else to not piss off Turkey, but this must be the goal of the Kurds. EU could put pressure on Turkey to make them accept that the Kurds gets even more power in north Iraq (possible EU membership will come with a price).
The shiites will probably push for a more religious state, however Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani (iraqi religious leader) is more moderate than dead iranian Ayatollah Khomeini, and al-Sistani is aware that if the shiites do not find a way to balance power between the different groups in Iraq (including Sunnis), then shiites will see more death and destruction.
Sunnis will have to play their cards better... The Baath Party terror campaign is not working. US has not withdraw, and it has not trigger a civil war. The boycot of the election left Sunnis without any political influence. Maybe peaceful negotiation and dialogue is possible with the Sunni, but its something a new goverment should do, and not US military or the present goverment.
But I have mostly scandinavian genes in my body, so there are probably thousands of things, which can and will prevent the most obvious solutions and compromises from happening between the people in the middle east... ;-)))
02-13-2005
Hybrid Mode
