Commentary
In an interview, Roger Diwan discusses where the global economy may be going in the third week of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.
Nur Arafeh
{
"authors": [],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "MEP",
"programs": [
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Iraq",
"Gulf"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
De-Baathification Decision Postponed Until After Election Results
While an ad hoc committee has lifted the ban barring candidates suspected of ties to Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party from participating in the Iraqi elections, it did not dismiss the charges against those candidates and is widely seen as the result of internal and external political pressures.
Published on Feb 4, 2010
Source: Analysis of the 2010 Iraqi Parliamentary Elections
On February 3, the ad hoc committee set up by the Iraqi parliament lifted the ban on the candidates previously barred from participating in the elections because they were suspected of ties to Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party. Still unconfirmed reports indicate that the committee was composed of four Shia Islamists, two Kurds, and a single Sunni Islamist, with no representation for the secular nationalists who were hit hardest by the ban. The committee did not dismiss the charges against the candidates, instead ruling that they be allowed to run in the elections. If successful, however, such candidates will not automatically take their seats in parliament. Instead, each case will be re-examined—it is unclear by whom—to determined whether that person’s ties to the Baath Party warrant exclusion from political life. The February 3 decision thus removes an obstacle to the elections in the short run—some parties were threatening to call for a boycott of the vote—but could create an even more dangerous crisis later if candidates chosen by the voters are disqualified from serving .
The lifting of the ban is the result of internal and external political pressures. President Jalal Talabani raised questions about the legality of the Justice and Accountability Commission, which originally banned the candidates; U.S. Vice President Joe Biden flew to Baghdad to urge a compromise that would allow the elections to proceed as scheduled. The decision has already been greeted by a chorus of protest in Baghdad, with many accusing the United States of interference and even calling into question the legality of the reversal. There is no doubt that political rather than legal considerations played the key role in the decision to lift the bans.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
- What Does the Strait of Hormuz’s Closure Mean?
- Tehran’s Easy TargetsCommentary
In an interview, Andrew Leber discusses the impact the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran is having on Arab Gulf states.
Michael Young
- The Gulf Conflict and the South CaucasusCommentary
In an interview, Sergei Melkonian discusses Armenia’s and Azerbaijan’s careful balancing act among the United States, Israel, and Iran.
Armenak Tokmajyan
- Shockwaves Across the GulfCommentary
The countries in the region are managing the fallout from Iranian strikes in a paradoxical way.
Angie Omar
- The U.S. Risks Much, but Gains Little, with IranCommentary
In an interview, Hassan Mneimneh discusses the ongoing conflict and the myriad miscalculations characterizing it.
Michael Young
