Antichrist Shapes Babylon of Old (Revelation 13:11)

Iraq’s Sadr calls for technocratic government, swift reform

Powerful Iraqi Shi’ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said on Saturday the country needed a technocratic government, threatening to quit politics if Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi failed to carry out promised reforms.

• Posted 13 Feb 2016 19:15

Prominent Iraqi Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr delivers a statement in Najaf, Iraq 

 

February 13, 2016. REUTERS/Alaa Al-Marjani

 

BAGHDAD: Powerful Iraqi Shi’ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said on Saturday the country needed a technocratic government, threatening to quit politics if Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi failed to carry out promised reforms.

The remarks by Sadr, whose Al-Ahrar bloc holds 34 seats in parliament and three cabinet posts, were the first high-level reaction to the premier’s call for politically appointed ministers to be replaced with technocrats.

Struggling to show results from reforms he announced six months ago, Abadi said this week he wanted to make the replacements in a cabinet reshuffle, a shake-up that would alter the delicate balance of government in place since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Abadi provided few details of the planned reshuffle but he is expected to move forward with changes this week after returning to Iraq from a European trip.

Sadr called for “forming a technocrat government away from partisanship that should include all.”
He added that withdrawing from politics would become “a duty” if the government did not make swift progress to implement reforms such as purging the judiciary and curbing corruption. “There is no room for slacking off,” he said in a televised address.

Sadr’s opinion holds sway over tens of thousands of supporters, including fighters who once controlled parts of Baghdad and helped defend the capital after Islamic State swept across the Syrian border in June 2014.

A few hundred followers gathered in central Baghdad following his speech to show their support.
Corruption and mismanagement in Iraq’s political system have made the country nearly impossible to govern and undermined the fight against Islamic State militants controlling swathes of territory in the north and west.
Public demonstrations and calls by another prominent Shi’ite cleric last summer spurred Abadi to start dismantling the country’s patronage system and root out corruption. Sadr endorsed those reforms at the time.

Abadi’s drive, however, got bogged down by legal challenges and opposition from sectors resisting change. He has since been criticised for failing to take decisive action.

The proposed reshuffle is expected to face resistance from major political blocs and could end up costing Abadi his job, politicians and diplomats say.

(Reporting by Ahmed Rasheed; Writing by Stephen Kalin; Editing by Helen Popper)

– Reuters

Antichrist’s Protests Grow In Iraq (Rev 13:18)

 
ANTI-CORRUPTION PROTESTS GROW IN IRAQ

NRT

BAGHDAD – Tens of thousands of demonstrators protested in Baghdad and Iraq’s southern provinces on Friday, calling for real reforms and an end to political corruption.

Thousands more rallied in Najaf, Basra and other cities across the Shia southern heartland following a call from powerful Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, in what a senior security official called the biggest protest of the summer.

The capital and many southern cities have witnessed demonstrations in recent weeks calling for provision of basic services, the trial of corrupt politicians, and the shake-up of a system riddled with graft and incompetence.

Protesters’ demands, which initially aimed at improving power supply amid a sweltering heat-wave, have focused more on encouraging Abadi to accelerate reforms, put corrupt officials on trial and loosen the grip of powerful parties over the state.

“What Abadi has done so far is just casual reform. It’s not the real reforms that most of the Iraqis are looking for,” said Mazen al-Ushaiqer, a civil society leader at the Baghdad rally.

Partly in response to protests earlier this month, Abadi began pushing reforms to a system he says has deprived Iraqis of basic services and undermined the fight against Islamic State (IS) militants.
He announced several measures to combat corruption and mismanagement including scrapping layers of senior government posts, cutting security details and other perks for officials, and encouraging corruption investigations.

Likewise, huge protesters filled main streets of the Shia provinces of the south, demanding for real actions to put reforms into effect.

“People aren’t just protesting over services like water and electricity,” said Sabeeh Zuhair, an engineer from the southern oil hub city of Basra. “It is true that they are an important thing, but there are things that are more important than them.”

“They have come out today in their millions as requested by [the Prime Minister] Abadi to authorize him to change or amend the constitution,” Zuhair added.

On Friday, Abadi directed military commanders to ease civilian access to the Green Zone, the central Baghdad district which is home to many government buildings and several Western embassies.
Checkpoints and concrete barriers have blocked bridges and highways leading to the neighborhood for years, symbolizing the isolation of Iraq’s leadership from its people and wreaking havoc on traffic in the city of 7 million people.

Abadi also ordered the elimination of no-go zones set up by militias and political parties in Baghdad and other cities in response to more than a decade of car bombings.

Security at Friday’s protests was tight and helicopters circled overhead. At the Baghdad protest at least four people were wounded in clashes and security forces detained a handful of youths carrying weapons.

Abadi ordered on Friday the formation of a legal committee to review the ownership of state properties and return illegally gained assets to the state. Critics say some officials have abused their authority to appropriate state-owned properties for personal use.

Top Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who wields authority few Iraqi politicians would openly challenge, has called on Abadi to “strike with an iron fist” against corruption.
On Friday, he cautioned protesters against letting personal goals distract from their demands while urging politicians to provide tangible results of reform measures.
(Reuters)

Antichrist Demands Change in Iraq (Revelation 13)

Protesters chant slogans in support of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi as they carry a large national flag during a rally in Tahrir Square in Baghdad, Iraq, Friday, Aug. 28, 2015. Friday’s protesters were joined for the first time by followers of Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical, anti-American Shiite cleric. The protesters have staged weekly rallies since last month to press demands for reforms, better services and an end to corruption. (AP Photo/Karim Kadim)

Iraq’s top Shiite cleric says government must show nation it’s seeking genuine change
Aug 28, 2015

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq’s top Shiite cleric said on Friday the government must show it was seeking genuine change to combat corruption and improve services and not just introduce temporary measures to placate the embattled nation.

In a message delivered by a representative in a Friday sermon, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani also cautioned protesters who have staged weekly rallies to press demands for reform that they must guard against groups seeking to hijack their movement to further other interests.

Hours later, tens of thousands of Iraqis rallied in Baghdad and a string of cities south of the capital in support of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s reform drive and to press demands for the dissolution of parliament and an end to corruption. The Baghdad rally, in central Tahrir square, was the largest by far, attracting at least 20,000, many of them waving the national flag. It was held under tight security measures but ended peacefully shortly after nightfall.

Followers of a radical, anti-American Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, joined the Baghdad rally for the first time on Friday. The smaller rallies were held in cities south of Baghdad, including the holy Shiite city of Karbala, the southern port of Basra and Babil.

Al-Sistani’s comments, delivered in Karbala, challenged the government to show that it is “truthfully and seriously” responding to demands for change. “Citizens have experienced past promises that were never realized on the ground,” he cautioned.

“Officials must work differently this time around and win the trust of the citizens,” he said.

The weekly rallies, which began last month, have been pressing for better basic services like power, water and medical care, as well as an end to corruption and sectarian politics. The graft is widely believed to be rampant, involving hundreds of millions of dollars in the 12 years since Saddam Hussein’s regime was toppled.

Al-Abadi has responded to the rallies with a package of reforms that reduced the size of his Cabinet, and eliminated the three vice presidencies and the three deputy prime minister posts. He has also ordered a revision of the government’s pay scale and the annulment of financial perks enjoyed by senior officials, lawmakers and consultants.

His actions raised questions about the legality of his reforms and whether they violate the constitution.

“I will not back down,” al-Abadi vowed in televised comments this week. “There is no going back on reforms. Our political system needs popular pressure to reform itself,” said the Shiite prime minister who has said he would seek a popular mandate to amend the constitution, which he described as “incomplete.”

Separately, an explosion on Friday ripped through the parking lot of a police station in southeast Baghdad when a police bomb squad tried to defuse a car bomb while colleagues looked on, killing six and wounding 10, according to security and hospital officials.

The six killed were three bomb squad members and three policemen.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

Baghdad has for years seen near daily attacks targeting civilians and security forces by car bombs, suicide attacks and roadside explosions. The attacks are mostly blamed on Sunni militants.

What Nobel Peace Prize? The Real “Change” (1 Corinthians 15:52)

Is Obama Changing His Mind about Nuclear Weapons
 

What Nobel Peace Prize?

Politico

Since the start of his presidency, Barack Obama has been clear that one of his major goals was to secure nuclear weapons and materials. As recently as March, at the Nuclear Security Summit in Holland, the president declared: “It is important for us not to relax but rather accelerate our efforts over the next two years.”

Instead, to little notice, the administration has decided to spend money at an even greater rate than before to refurbish and modernize nuclear weapons while slashing the amount it is spending to prevent terrorists from getting or making their own.

According to a new analysis of nuclear security spending by a bipartisan group at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, the administration in its 2015 budget chose to cut nuclear nonproliferation programs in the Energy Department by $399 million while increasing spending on nuclear weapons by $534 million.

In addition, despite missing a self-imposed deadline of April 2013 for ensuring that nuclear materials were safe from terrorists across the globe, the White House at about the same time rejected a confidential Energy Department-sponsored plan to accelerate those efforts by 2016, the year Obama is slated to convene a fourth international summit on the issue.

The proposal, which appears in a May 2013 report obtained recently by the Center for Public Integrity, was intended to address the huge amount of unfinished work in the Obama administration’s nonproliferation plan. It said that more than two tons of portable, easily weaponized uranium were still being held in scores of nuclear research reactors while the world’s supply of another nuclear explosive, plutonium, was growing at a rate of about 740 bombs’ worth a year.

Despite progress, the Energy Department found, there remained enough nuclear explosive material in the hands of civilians to cobble together 40,000 atomic bombs.

The 12-page report in 2013 called for an acceleration of efforts to lock down or eliminate more of these dangerous materials — as well as radioactive isotopes that could be used in bombs that could contaminate large urban areas. But after an interagency struggle that climaxed at a Cabinet-level meeting in January, the White House produced a 2015 budget proposal that slighted many of the report’s key recommendations and reduced spending on nonproliferation programs.

It did so with the approval of Sylvia Burwell, director of the Office of Management and Budget, officials and experts say, after officials decided to prioritize spending on the refurbishment and modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Matthew Bunn, a former White House official and one of the authors of the Kennedy School of Government analysis, described the internal administration discussions this way: “Should they provide more money for nonproliferation, or more money for weapons? It’s clear that weapons won that debate.”

Laura Holgate, the White House senior director for weapons-of-mass-destruction terrorism, did not dispute the budget analysis, but she said the administration’s commitment to nuclear security “remains strong and unparalleled” and the reductions in nonproliferation spending reflected the achievement of many of President Obama’s goals.

“The president’s nonproliferation and nuclear security priorities were protected,” she wrote in an email. “The decreased budget reflects natural and predictable declines based on project completion.”

The report describing urgent unfinished business in nuclear security was prepared by the staff of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, part of the National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-independent arm of the Energy Department. The NNSA also oversees the production of nuclear warheads, so internal budget skirmishes between those who favor nonproliferation and those who seek more spending on the nuclear arsenal are frequent.

For the current year, fiscal 2014, Congress authorized $1.95 billion in spending by the NNSA on nonproliferation programs. The White House budget for 2015 proposes $1.56 billion — a 20 percent reduction.

In fiscal 2010, NNSA spending on nuclear weapons was about three times as high as for nonproliferation. Under the proposed White House budget, weapons spending would outstrip nonproliferation spending by over five-to-one—$8.3 billion to $1.56 billion.

The NNSA report found that because of the administration’s four-year effort, “the world today is unquestionably more secure from the threat of nuclear terrorism than it was four years ago.” But, the report added, there are “still serious threats that require urgent attention.”

“Experts continue to believe that terrorists are seeking a nuclear or radiological weapon — either by making one or stealing one,” the NNSA report says. “A handful of highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium the size of a grapefruit is all that is needed to make a nuclear bomb with the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of people. A small capsule of cesium the size of a pencil is enough for a radiological ‘dirty bomb’ that could contaminate an entire city and result in billions of dollars in economic devastation.”

To blunt these threats, the NNSA report — marked “For Official Use Only” — sought to set the following ambitious new goals, to be achieved by December 2016:

- It called for removing or eliminating 1.1 metric tons of weapons-grade uranium and 400 kilograms — over 880 pounds — of plutonium from sites around the world.

- It urged the removal of all highly enriched uranium — that is, uranium that could be fashioned into a bomb — in eight more foreign countries by the same date.

- It proposed that the administration make a better accounting of existing plutonium stocks, decide on ways to dispose of it, and persuade other countries to balance production with consumption so that the net global stockpile will finally begin to shrink. This would be a major accomplishment, since the world’s total accumulation has instead been rising steadily, by 100 metric tons since 1998.

- It proposed accelerating U.S. efforts to convert research reactors that use weapons-grade uranium to burn a form of uranium that cannot easily be used to fuel weapons — calling for 13 more such reactor conversions by the end of 2016.

None of these proposals was adopted.

“Despite President Obama’s well-deserved reputation as an advocate for nuclear security, the Obama administration has been cutting nuclear security programs year after year for most of its term in office,” wrote Bunn, a Harvard professor; William Tobey, deputy administrator for the NNSA’s Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation office during the Bush administration; and Nickolas Roth, a Harvard researcher, in their 32-page analysis.

In addition, the Harvard analysis anticipates reduced spending on nonproliferation programs in the State and Defense departments, based on congressional reports and briefing notes, discussions with agency officials and internal documents, including a copy the NNSA report — which the Center for Public Integrity obtained separately.

Regime Change Expected In Iraq

The Crisis In Iraq: Root Causes And Future Outlook – Analysis

Al Sadr and Al Hakim

Eurasia Review
Saeid Jafari
Expert on Middle East Issues

When the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki and his colleagues in the State of Law Coalition were occupying all government posts in an totalitarian manner and at all levels of the government, it was quit predictable that the situation in Iraq will become as critical as it is right now. However, it would be also too simplistic to blame Nouri Al-Maliki for all the problems with which Iraq is currently faced. Perhaps, major factors that have brought Iraq to its current critical state can be summarized as follows.

Nouri Al-Maliki and State of Law Coalition

Since he came to power, the prime minister of Iraq has been following a totalitarian approach and did not believe in consulting other parties or showing respect for the opposition views. As a result of sticking to this attitude by Maliki, the political gaps continued to widen not only between the prime minister and Sunni politicians, but even with Shias as well following the second parliamentary elections in Iraq that were held after the fall of the country’s former dictator, Saddam Hussein. If it were not for consultations by Tehran, two powerful Shia clerics, Muqtada Al-Sadr and Ammar Al-Hakim would not have conceded to a repeated term for Maliki as prime minister and he would have not been able to become the country’s prime minister for a second time. However, Maliki continued with his totalitarian policies and as time went by, he became even lonelier than before. The policies he adopted in Sunni-dominated areas were even worse. Those affiliated with the Baath party, the relatives of Saddam and even other Sunni groups had developed a strong hatred toward Shias, in general, and Nouri Al-Maliki, in particular, after they were set aside from the power structure. The prime minister of Iraq, however, continued his discriminatory policies in those areas dominated by Sunnis and further enraged them by not allowing them to take part in the political game. As a result, it is very natural for a powder keg to be set off with the first spark.

Saudi Arabia

The theory of Salafism and Wahhabism enjoys a high amount of potential for the promotion of violence and radicalism. This ideology, which is specifically fostered by Saudi Arabia, has found a powerful fan base among Sunni groups in the Middle East region, especially in those parts when Sunni people are disgruntled with their governments. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, regional power equations have taken a positive turn in favor of Iran’s national interests. Therefore, it is quite natural for Saudi Arabia to try to turn the table. Acting in a sinusoidal manner, this country has tried all existing options to bring about a major change in the existing conditions in Iraq. Riyadh, as such, has spared no effort from lending its support to violent acts by groups that oppose the central government to making recourse to civil mechanisms and providing spiritual and material support for political groups that oppose Nouri Al-Maliki. Undoubtedly, the government of Saudi Arabia as well as part of the Saudi society has played a crucial role in supplying military equipment to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Iraq. In the absence of that support, the ISIS would not have progressed as far as it already has.

The question is what are the viewpoints of Turkey and Iran, which have always followed the developments in Iraq with a lot of sensitivity?

Turkey

Perhaps the most eccentric policy toward the ongoing developments in Iraq has been taken by its northern neighbor, Turkey. Despite the fact that Ankara has been always greatly concerned about the emergence of an independent Kurdish entity in the region, it is currently supporting the independence of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. In reality, however, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been taking great risks in Iraq. The fact that the next presidential election in Turkey is forthcoming and due to the considerable effect that the votes cast by Turkish Kurds will have in determining the final result of the election, Erdogan has decided to embark on a very dangerous game in Iraq. By trying to pass himself as a major support base for Massoud Barzani [the president of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region] and Iraqi Kurds, Erdogan is trying to attract as many of Turkish Kurds’ votes as possible. On the other hand, Erdogan believes that by supporting the establishment of an independent Kurdish state in Iraq, he will be able to sway a great degree of influence on that state in the figure. This will be a newly established country with a lot of crude oil for exports. However, almost all analysts know that this is a very dangerous game in which the possibility of Erdogan losing the game is tantamount to his chances for winning it.

Iran

Out of all regional countries, Iran benefitted most from the fall of Saddam. Perhaps, the overthrow of Saddam was more beneficial to Iran than even the United States. Therefore, it is no surprise that Tehran is now very concerned about the ongoing developments in Iraq and is opposed to any form of disruption in stability of Iraq as well as any obstacle that may prevent establishment of a powerful central government in its western neighbor. Iran has good friendly relations with all Shia groups in Iraq. However, the charismatic personality of Maliki and the way he ran the government had caused Iran to prefer Maliki over other Shia groups up to the present time. However, it goes without saying that if the need arises, Iran will be ready to prefer a more moderate person over Maliki in order to guarantee the survival of an integrated Iraq. From the viewpoint of Iran, such ideas as disintegration of Iraq, permanent occupation of part of Iraq by the ISIS as well as the establishment of an independent Kurdish state in Iraq are unacceptable ideas.

What will come next?

Following the inauguration of the new Iraqi parliament and appointment of a moderate figure out of Sunni groups as speaker of the new parliament, it seems that Maliki will have to say goodbye to power. Perhaps, this is one of the few chances that Iraq will have to overcome the ongoing crisis for which no short-term solution is perceivable. Kurds will not lose what they have gained so far and any central government coming to power in Iraq will possibly have to accept that the city of Kirkuk will never return under Baghdad’s control. Kurds, on the other hand, are well aware that those parties that are positive to independence of Kurdistan sway less power and influence in the country than those parties that are opposed to this process. In other words, under present circumstances, Turkey and Israel are the main parties supporting independence of Kurds, while two major foreign powers with influence in Iraq; that is, Iran and the United States have already indicated their opposition to any demand that would lead to disintegration of Iraq. Iran and the United States are also in agreement over another issue, which is annihilation of the ISIS. Both countries are wary about further growth of Salafi fundamentalism and a worst-case scenario for both Tehran and Washington is further advances of this terrorist group. Therefore, it seems that all the roads lead to Iran and the United States again, of course, provided that officials in both countries decide to strive toward the same goal and cooperate with each other away from longstanding problems that have marred their relations.