OP-ED: Bush's Lost Iraqi Election, By David Ignatius, Washington Post, August 30, 2007; Page A21

To me, it's Ignatius' analysis that's naive here. Iraq is 60 percent Shia, so Shia are going to dominate in any free election. Right up to that election we've got Sunni regional powers supporting the anti-Shia insurgency and AQI activity (right down to sending suicide bombers to massacre Shia). To expect Iran not to match Saudi meddling is very naive. And when America floods the landscape with money for its desired outcomes, citing Iranian funding flows to influence an election is oddly hypocritical.

Also, when Ignatius casts aspersions against Sistani, he fundamentally misrepresents the ayatollah's role and profound (I mean, going back decades) independence vis-a-vis Khomeinist Iran (and yes, I know Sistani is Persian).

To me, this is a very crude and subpar piece from Ignatius, usually one of the most intelligent and sophisticated analysts of the region.

But alas, the rush to demonize Iran is widespread. Join it or be labeled soft on radical Islam. Inaccurate and even historically and strategically counter-productive, but our knee-jerk habit of aligning our strategic interests with Riyadh and Tel Aviv is a long one, despite failing us completely for decades now.

You push democracy in the Middle East, and Sistani's mantra of "one man, one vote" will get you Shia power in Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain. Sure that makes the House of Saud and the Hashemite king in Amman nervous, but let's skip the naivete on the subject on our end.

Again, some serious growing up on our part is in order.