Old footage of fast-food intellectual Thomas Friedman circa 2003, shows the masquerading liberal confirm that the war on Iraq was absolutely worth it to burst the Middle East’s terrorism bubble. Though of course Baghdad had no links the 9/11 attacks. Bu that is of no import to the likes of the syndicated columnist; who in rare moment of honesty confirmed that the Americans launched a war of aggression on Iraq simply because “we could”. Well, then. Preliminary results of the Iraqi parliamentarian elections are now in. And it seems that the people have taken Mr Friedman’s words and turned them back on him: suck on this. For the clear winner is none other than Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr. Though he did not contest elections personally, his Sairoon alliance — representing a joining of hands between his Sadrist Movement and Iraq’s Communist Party — did. In real terms, it secured: 1.3 million votes or 54 out of 329 parliamentary seats; and six out of 18 provinces, including Baghdad. Back when sectarian and ethnic strife first exploded on the Iraqi scene — that is, in the aftermath of the US-led invasion — al-Sadr was labelled by much of the western media as a young firebrand cleric. His Mahdi Army fought foreign troops fire with fire. And so much of a threat did Washington deem him that it reportedly gave orders to capture or kill him. Today, al-Sadr is not only still standing but he is the man with whom the Americans will now have to do business. Many international pundits are trying to put a ‘positive’ spin on this win; pointing out that a low voter turnout of 44.52 percent swung things in his favour. Yet this is to overlook how some 2.3 million IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons) were unable to cast ballots. That this is the prevailing scenario some 15 years on from US-UK military aggression may say more about that mammoth misadventure than anything else. For before that, there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, no ISIS, and no IDPs. This of course is not to whitewash the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime. But it is to suggest that Iraqis have been made to unduly suffer in democracy’s name. So, where does Iraq go from here? With Sairoon now calling the shots- all eyes ought to be on two foreign players, the US and Iran. Some experts have pooh-poohed notions that the al-Sadr victory represents a severe blow to continued Iranian ambitions in Iraq. They highlight the fact that the cleric may be the preferred choice to outgoing Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi who had smoothly positioned himself in both camps. Meaning that Tehran may just be able to live with a figure that is resoundingly anti-external interference on all counts; given that this will keep the US out of the picture. As for the Iraqis, they have voted in an alliance that ran on an anti-corruption and pro-poor platform. And one that is willing to talk to all stakeholders who do not take orders from abroad, including the newly established Kurdish parties. All of which has to be good news for a people that have endured so much. * Published in Daily Times, May 19th 2018.