Bloodless Coup

Grand Ayatollah Sistani on Executing Gays

Ah, you knew the right-wing had to have something special in mind when they started to realign the Middle East in a way that would strengthen the power of Islamic religious figures and the Islamic theocracy in Iran (not things that would obviously seem to be in their interest). Perhaps what they had in mind was making it easier and more legitimate to kill the gays. At least that effeect of our invasion is what this post on Pandagon pointed out as one of the consequences of our work in Iraq.

Juan Cole's responded to it, apparently in an attempt to defend Sistani. But it's a peculiar attempt at a defense. It's cluttered with largely irrelevant historical data, and then points out that Sistani doesn't want to be in the government and making laws himself. Still, it's abundantly clear where Sistani is on this issue, and in the end Cole is entirely straightforward.

But there isn't any doubt that Sistani does advocate making gay relations a capital crime. If Iraq took a strong turn toward implementation of religious law, which is entirely possible given that the December 15 election mainly put religious fundamentalist parties in parliament, then such severe penalties for homosexual relations could be imposed, despite the human rights language in the constitution.

Cole rightly notes that this turn was entirely predictable - "I don't know what people were expecting to happen if the secular Baath was overthrown and replaced by primordial ethnic identities". Uh, well, it seems plausible to think that maybe some people were expecting this to happen. True, they could have been complete bumbling idiots and not noticed that outside of the Kurdish areas of the country all the organizational powers and political groups of any size and influence that would fill the political void in Iraq were extremely conservative religious entities, most of which were allied with Iran. And true, some of our leaders were possibly just that clueless. But not everyone in DC is a complete moron (thankfully), so maybe this isn't the biggest surprise in certain corners of the Republican leadership after all. And the sweet air of freedom that they sought to send sweeping over the sands of the Middle East was a particular sort of air of freedom - one that our country's reactionary right would be particularly supportive of. And if this wasn't a desired outcome (at least by part of the pro-war coalition),and part of a cunning plan, the people in charge of setting US foreign and security policy really are dangerously inept.