Sayyed Abdul Aziz Al Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (the largest political party in the Iraqi Council of Representatives), died of lung cancer on August 26 in Tehran, Iran. His death is expected to have repercussions for politics in Iraq. Bloggers around the region have responded to the news.
In Bahrain, Batool Ebrahim Ahmad is devastated:
يا رب ..
خفف ألمَ هذا المصاب ..
Ease the pain of this misfortune…
In Baghdad, Faris Al Ajrish writes:
At the Iraq and Gulf Analysis blog, Reidar Visser writes:
More than anything, through his political career, Hakim became a symbol of the chaos, the contradictions and the opportunism that have characterised Iraq in the post-2003 period. Having abandoned religious studies at an early level, Hakim made a professional career in the 1980s as a political-military operator in what was then called the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a Khomeinist outfit created by Iran in 1982 in order to maximise its control of the Iraqi opposition during the Iran–Iraq War. He returned to Iraq from Iran after the start of the Iraq War in 2003, and in August that year, after the death of his brother Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim in a terrorist attack in Najaf, was propelled to the top leadership position in SCIRI. […] Hakim chose to be treated for cancer in Iran and it is remarkable that the United States was unable to correctly interpret his physical movements as the most revealing indicator of his true political loyalties. Since 2003 and until today, Hakim, SCIRI/ISCI and members of the Badr brigades have travelled in and out of Iran without any restriction. It was Iranian territory that was used to orchestrate the new INA [Iraqi National Alliance]. It is inconceivable that the authorities in Tehran would have allowed these processes to go on within their own borders had they not felt that right until his death Hakim was pursuing a policy that was in Iran’s best interests. Instead, however, Washington for a long time clung to a rosy scenario in which ISCI was seen as a potential convert to the American cause; ultimately it was the contradictions in this policy that would create the space for Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim’s peculiar political career.
What a let down! This is the first time I am openly disappointed in Nasrallah. He could have kept his mouth shut, or kept the message personal. However, to eulogize the American/Iranian puppet (and his brother before him) as Iraqi “heroes” is a bit much.
On top of that to talk about his struggle for a united and sovereign Iraq! Under the boots of the U.S. occupation, Sayyed Nasrallah? This is a stooge who literally entered Baghdad on an American tank!
Shame on you Sayyed Nasrallah. But again, these are the orders from Tehran; I try to be understanding.