LONDON: As Israel and Hezbollah continue to trade deadly blows, the Bush administration may have to brace itself for the possibility that the shock waves from the war in Lebanon could wreck its partnership with Iraq’s Shias and make Iraq’s fragmentation well-nigh unavoidable. Anger over Israel’s bombing of Lebanon has reached Iraq, whose population is roughly two-thirds Shia. Muqtada Sadr, the firebrand Shia cleric who heads the Al Mahdi militia, was first to rail against the Israeli bombardment and Washington’s fulsome support of it. He continues to do so. On Friday, hundreds of thousands of pro-Sadr supporters flooded Baghdad’s streets, chanting slogans of solidarity with Hezbollah and denouncing Israel and the United States.

Sadr is driven by more than religious solidarity with Hezbollah. He also seeks to outflank moderate Shia leaders, particularly Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, perhaps even Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, and he knows that the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon could boost his already substantial political stock. Maliki and Ayatollah Sistani are well aware of this, of course, and they are not about to let that happen. They view Sadr as a dangerous demagogue and, unlike him, favour a continued American military presence in Iraq. But Sadr’s rabble-rousing gambit has left them with no choice but to follow his script.

Not surprisingly, then, Maliki was quick to condemn Israeli attacks in the wake of Sadr’s statements. Other senior Shia clerics and Iraq’s main Shia parties, Dawa and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, weighed in, expressing solidarity with Lebanon and lambasting Israel. After some delay, Ayatollah Sistani also pilloried Israel’s “flagrant aggression” and “outrageous oppression” and, while not specifically naming the United States, accused the world of “turning a blind eye” to Lebanese suffering.

After Israel’s July 30 attack on a residential building in Qana, which killed at least 28 people (half of whom were said to be children), Ayatollah Sistani issued a fatwa condemning the “dastardly crime” by the “Israeli enemy.” He called for an immediate cease-fire and warned that Muslims “will not excuse parties that put obstacles in the way of this.” (What he left unsaid, but that was nevertheless clear to all who read the fatwa, was that it is the United States that opposed the cease-fire for several weeks in hopes of giving Israel time to destroy Hezbollah’s bastions in southern Lebanon.) What remains unclear is whether a competitive process will begin, with Shia leaders each ratcheting up anti-Israeli statements. That could produce a breach with the United States -— one that could have lasting consequences. Shia leaders cannot continue condemning Israel’s war in Lebanon without coming out against the United States. That’s because, in Arab eyes, American arms supplies and political backing are what enable Israel to persist with its military campaign. An open rift between the Shias and the US is hardly inevitable. But it’s certainly possible if the war in Lebanon drags on and if Iran starts stirring the pot, which it can, given its substantial sway with Iraqi Shia parties.

With Gen. John P. Abizaid testifying before the Senate last week that Iraq’s sectarian violence is getting worse, the United States can ill afford to forfeit Shia support. It is one thing for the United States to have Sadr as an enemy; it’s altogether different to lose the support of “moderate” Shia leaders such as Maliki and Ayatollah Sistani, without whom the US will be unable to hold Iraq together. —Dawn/The Guardian News Service

(Rajan Menon is a professor of international relations at Lehigh University and a fellow at the New America Foundation)