By Simon Tisdall (THE GUARDIAN, 24/02/06):
Sectarian revenge attacks and widening divisions in the wake of the Samarra mosque bombing have intensified fears of irreversible descent into all-out civil war in Iraq. But it is unclear what the US and Britain, lacking new ideas and facing a perfect storm of troubles across the Middle East, can do to stop it.
Among yesterday's many ominous developments, accusations of deliberate trouble-making levelled at Iraq's Shia leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, stood out. A spokesman for the Muslim Clerics Association, the country's most influential Sunni religious body, said it held "certain Shia religious authorities" responsible for continuing attacks on Sunni civilians, clerics and mosques.
In European terms, that would be like the Pope attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury after St Peter's had been blown up. Coinciding with the breakdown of talks on forming a "national unity" coalition government, it marked a new low in efforts to bring the two communities together
US and British offers to help rebuild the Samarra shrine only seem to have infuriated Shias, highlighting the west's inability to direct events in a land apparently moving ineluctably beyond their - or anyone's - control. Most Iraqis say they want foreign troops to leave. But, perversely, Shias blamed the US yesterday for failing to protect Samarra. Sunnis accuse the allies of turning a blind eye to militia death squads. All sides criticise western reconstruction efforts.
Returning British soldiers, painting a picture of low morale, chronic insecurity and unreliable Iraqi army units, complain that the coalition is failing to achieve anything substantive. In most cities and much of the countryside, they say, there is only an illusion of control. The recent decision by local authorities in the south to freeze cooperation with British forces reflects this growing sense of mutual alienation.
Official frustrations are beginning to show. Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Baghdad, came under fire this week for threatening to cut US funding. Mr Khalilzad's talk of protecting Washington's financial "investment" was a humiliating reminder of continuing national subservience. Free tips by Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, on non-sectarian coalition-building visibly irritated Iraq's prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who said he did not need his advice.
The US and Britain laud Iraq's elections as evidence of progress. But democracy has not yet brought tangible improvements in the impoverished lives of many Iraqis. Like many in Britain, Americans are becoming increasingly sceptical of their own government's judgment and statements on this issue.
President George Bush's repeated insistence that America will not "cut and run" has not concealed a loss of nerve in Washington about where US policy is heading. Under pressure from falling poll ratings, and with elections looming, Mr Bush has steadily scaled back US ambitions in Iraq as well as, prospectively, US troops levels. There is less talk of victory now - more of "honourable" exits. The neoconservative theorists behind the Iraq intervention and the drive for democracy in the Middle East are in intellectual retreat or - like Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton - have been shifted to new jobs.
The author Francis Fukuyama applied a verbal coup de grace this week, rejecting neocon methods and asserting that the US "didn't know what it was doing in trying to democratise Iraq". Peter Galbraith, a former US envoy writing in the New York Review of Books, said: "Much of the Iraq fiasco can be directly attributed to Bush's shortcomings as a leader ... He conducted his Iraq policy with an arrogance not matched by political will."
Washington's floundering policy in Israel-Palestine, Syria and Egypt is also feeding a regional storm of its own making. The main beneficiary, said Mr Galbraith, was an emboldened Iran that may ultimately pose a greater danger to US interests than even civil war in Iraq. "We invaded Iraq to protect ourselves against non-existent WMDs and to promote democracy. Democracy in Iraq brought to power Iran's allies who are in a position to ignite an uprising against American troops that would make current problems with the Sunni insurgency seem insignificant.
"Iran in effect holds the US hostage in Iraq and as a consequence we have no good military or non-military options in dealing with Iran's nuclear facilities. Unlike the 1979 hostage crisis, we did this to ourselves." In short, there soon may be no helping Iraq. Yet US and British troops are stuck, with no obvious way back, forward or out.