Cole on Sistani and Mudarrisi

Okay, I know I just criticized Juan Cole for his reading (or, non-reading) of the Brahimi report. But his blog is, in general, just the most amazing resource for everyone around the world who is interested in, and cares deeply about, Iraq. I was so happy that he won the 2003 Koufax Award for “Best expert blog”. (I hope that the rest of you all voted for him there, as I did.)
Today, in addition to his post about the Brahimi report, he had two interesting posts that were up to his usual standard of careful, well-informed analysis. In this one he cites a statement that Grand Ayatollah Sistani issued on Monday, in which Sistani spelled out yet again his view that, “the UN should play a central role in the transfer of power to the Iraqis.”
In this post, he wrote about a statement from another Iraqi Grand Ayatollah, Muhammad Taqi al-Mudarrisi, the leader of the Organization of Islamic Action, which Cole describes as “a mostly Karbala-based party”. Notable in Mudarrisi’s statement was a strongly worded warning that any undue delay in holding direct elections in Iraq would be,

“a time bomb that could explode at any minute… Without elections, our national institutions will remain shaken, unrecognized and distrusted by the people.”

The contrast between (the reported versions of) these two statements–both issued on the day the Brahimi report was being unveiled in New York–seems significant to me.

Sistani’s statement–at least, as reported in the UAE-based Khaleej Times, which was where Juan’s link sent me to (NOT, as advertised, al-Sabah newspaper in Kuwait)– makes no mention of the need for urgency in the holding of the elections. But the urgency of the elections was precisely what Sistani brought the 100,000 people out into the streets for, just over one month ago!
All of which makes me conclude that my friend and colleague Abdul-Aziz Sachedina got it substantially right when, as I reported here on Jan. 27, he told me of (mainly) the Sistanists: “They want the U.N. to come in… The call for elections is in part being used as a tactic to bring that about.”
People who did not read that earlier post might want to go back and see some of the other interesting things Sachedina said there. I mention this in particular because one recent commenter there described the post–without producing any supporting evidence– as, “one of the most biased and unenlightened articles I have read by an American reporter.”
Really?