Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/24/06 7:13 pm:
Interesting points, Tom. I hadn't considered that possibility.

Let's think it through:

Muktada arranges for the bombing to occur, making sure not to hurt any Shia in the blast. (Why? If Shia had been hurt in the blast, the "spontaneuos" attacks against Sunni would have been more convincing.)

His purpose is to start civil unrest that would cause the fall of the democratic reforms. Once the country is in chaos, he can move in and take over, with the help of Iran. (That sort of coup de main is not unheard of in the Third World. Almost every tin-plated dictator in South America has pulled that sort of stunt, and more than one has been successful. But they often fail too, and when they do, they tend to take the perpetrator down in flames as well. Unless Mookie has a long list of cutouts and a good alibi, he's risking a lot on a venture that he has to know only has a slim chance of success. After all, the majority of Iraqis WANT democracy to succeed, and are willing to endure quite a bit to make it happen.)

I agree with you that the deliberately low casualty count is not really Zarkawi's style. He tends to look for maximum bloody effect, not minimization of collateral damage. But what if the intent was really to destroy the Mosque when it was full, but to avoid hurting the tombs. What if the timing was off, or the bombs detonated prematurly due to "bomber error"? That would fit Zarqawi's profile, both as a sick bastard terrorist who wants to maximize damage, and also as a religious nutcase who wants to kill people but without damaging the tombs.

I'm not sure that I buy the Muktada al Sadr connection. But I can't really reject it either. There is enough questions regarding either theory.

Has anyone claimed responsibility yet? Zarkawi likes to take responsibility for the big ones. But if this is coup de main attempt by Al Sadr, we would expect silence in terms of claiming responsibility.

We'll have to see what develops.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 02/25/06 12:29 pm:
I found this editorial which also speculates on the possibility that Al-Sadr was involved .

But there is suspicion in some quarters that the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr may have played a role in the bombing. Al-Sadr, who is allied with Iran's Shiite mullahs, has a vested interest in destabilizing Iraq's emerging democratic government......



It's clear that al-Sadr and his patrons in Iran would like to see a full-scale civil war break out in Iraq. Over the past year, Iraqis have made significant progress toward the establishment of a stable, representative government. Al-Sadr is a marginal figure in Iraqi politics -- the vast majority of Shiites favor the moderate course advocated by the country's most powerful religious leader, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

The radicals have no chance of playing a significant role in a peaceful, democratic Iraq. Violence and disorder are the only paths to power for militant leaders like al-Sadr.

From all indications, most Iraqis continue to place their hopes for the future in the democratic government. A poll conducted late last year by several U.S. news organizations found that 75 percent had confidence in the democratic process.

Even so, al-Sadr is a serious threat to the fledging government. Bush administration officials should acknowledge they erred by letting al-Sadr and his militia off the hook when they were cornered in Najaf. At minimum, coalition leaders should have insisted that the Mahdi Army disarm and disperse. The militia retained the means to fight against Sunnis -- and may now direct its weapons against the Iraqi government.

Iraqi and U.S. forces should crush al-Sadr's militia, before it succeeds in igniting even more widespread sectarian strife. The country has come too far to let a fringe leader disrupt its movement toward democracy.

..............................
And this

The London-based Arabic-language website Elaph carried a report suggesting that Iran’s notorious Ministry of Intelligence and Security may have been behind Wednesday’s bombing of a holy Shiite shrine in the city of Samarra, which destroyed the golden dome of the Askariyain shrine, the resting place of two revered Shiite Imams.

From Iran's point of view ;what could be a better scenario than to have US forces bogged down between two warring factions in Iraq . It would not suprise me if they were behind the bombing if either Al-Sadr or Al-Qaeda in Iraq were the trigger finger .
John Batchelor has been saying that Iran will not wait to be attacked .This could be an opening salvo via surrogates .

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/27/06 1:52 pm:
Tom,

Does it make sense that the Shia leadership of Iran would want to empower the Sunnis and Kurds of Iraq? (This is what the effect of destabilizing the Iraqi government and the coalitions's support would have, even though al Sadr is a Shiite.) I'm not sure that makes sense. Granted, the only hatred that is greater than Shia/Sunni/Kurd is Arab/USA & Israel. But the fact is that every time they try to get together to fight the USA and Israel, their own sectarian hatreds get in the way. Does it make sense that Iran would back such an outcome? I don't know.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 02/27/06 3:16 pm:
Al-Sadr working under Iranian influence is neither in favor of a democratic Iraq or empowering the Sunni . He knows the Sunni are outnumbered in any potential civil war .If reaction to the event gets out of hand, this will keep the Coalition forces pinned down which benefits Iran. Al Sadr will use this as either a lever for getting more of a share in the Iraqi government, or if things go completely south, as a chance to take control of a separate Shia country. Who most benefits from an Iraqi civil war and political break-up? Iran because they can concievably create an Iran dominated buffer state .

We still imagine large scale military assaults and operations to neutralize targets as warfare , not covert and deniable violence on behalf of influencing public attitudes. That is what Iran excels at and is Rumsfeld's lament :

Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but for the most part we -- our government, the media or our society in general -- have not.

I think their campaign to influence events is multi-faceted and has begun .I do not think it a coincidence that the cartoon intafada did not happen until the IAEA referred Iran to the security council.(the current chair of the IAEA is Denmark)>I do not think it a coincidence that an attempt to attack Saudi oil occured at this time ;as well as a coordinated attack on our other oil option in the area ;Nigerian delta oil ...at the same time that Iran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei ..."called for two urgent missions. The first was to do everything possible to drive up oil prices by an additional 30 percent by the first week in April. The second was to intensify the propaganda war against the West in the same period. He stressed that it was important to compel the United States to face at least three crises by the April 8."

All this coincides with a record number of rocket attacks on Israel in the last month from Gaza.

Israel has been saying for several months that Iran is much closer to nukes than we are led to believe. They have identified March as the point of no return. Interesting then that all these events, the cartoon riots and the mosque bombing, have taken place by Feb.

I think Bush is aware of how close to the brink we are with Iran .That I believe is why his first instinct when the Dubai Port deal blew up was to threaten veto of any anti-deal legislation ;completely out of character for him.

Anyway I think they failed and cooler heads are prevailing .

Did you see that the Ronny Reagan was deployed in the region ? I got a chance to see it in Norfolk when it was in training . All the other carriers are puny compared to it !! Peace through strength !!!!

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/27/06 4:25 pm:
G-d bless the USS Ronald Reagan. May she defend her country with the same zeal success as her late, great namesake.

As it says in the Bible (in Psalms, I think), "G-d will give his nation strength, G-d will bless his nation with peace."

Or in colloqueal English: Peace through superior firepower.

Simply put, peace cannot exist without strength. The OT Bible understood this. Strength is required BEFORE peace can come. The scripture is clear.

The Reagan is just one more example of it.

Elliot