America erred in Iraq by seeking democracy rather than traditional consensus. Multi-religious countries such as Lebanon or Iraq cannot afford democracy: when majority rules, minority fights. These countries maintained shaky balance by governing through consensus: liberal in Lebanon, authoritarian in Iraq. The West loves tales of Saddam’s totalitarian regime, but Saddam actually imposed consensus: he rejected Shia’s right of majoritarian rule and insisted that Sunnis have an equal say. That seemed undemocratic to America, but was the only prescription against Shia-Sunni violence.

America, on the contrary, did not invite Sunnis to negotiation table immediately after invasion – and they revolted. Sunnis are not a negligible minority, but native population of the land; Iran flooded Iraq with Shiites to create instability. Sunni Arabs, moreover, can get along with Sunni Kurds for a while. Sunnis welcomed the US troops in Fallujah, Baghdad, elsewhere, but were democratically excluded from the political process.

Minor thug Muqtada Sadr makes headlines but real Iranian support goes to Sistani and Mahdi army, named after the twelfth prophet who would lead Shiites to the final victory against infidels and Sunnis. Ayatollahs won’t shake hands with the likes of Sadr, the aim much higher – at Shiite revolution in Iraq, not terrorist insurgency. Sadr only paves the way for the real action to happen after the US withdrawal leaves Iran a failed state of Iraq to annex into its sphere of influence. Wise and cynical monsters in Saudi Arabia understand the situation, and express full support for Iranian “peaceful” nuclear program. They cannot beat Iran and accept to befriend it. Likely, Saudi Arabia will support Iran financially and logistically against sanctions. Buying off an enemy is their standard policy: recall the construction contract for the Medina mosque the Saudis offered bin Laden to keep him away from Yemen. At the same time, Saudi Arabia unwinds its nuclear program and reportedly hides some of the missing Pakistani nuclear warheads.

America defended Kuwait but got none of its oil free or even cheap; defended Iraq similarly unfeasibly. The invasion of Iraq was profitable to Saudis: getting rid of a militant neighbor, dangerous whether under Sunni totalitarian regime or Iranian Shiite influence. Saudis also profited tremendously from the predictable rise in oil prices after the Iraqi debacle. War in Iraq and protracted confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program are immensely profitable to oil corporations which enjoy rising prices. American soldiers die defending Saudi Arabia; American taxpayers finance the conflict which makes American consumers pay unreasonably high prices for gasoline. Ain’t the Saudis smart?

Ahmadinejad, uniquely in the Muslim world and elsewhere, walks without guards, sits among people in mosques during Friday sermons. Muslims are used to Mubarak being glassed away from common Egyptians at the events down to football matches, with army patrolling the streets and helicopters hovering in the air; they admire Ahmadinejad as a symbol of freedom and non-corruption. Khatami, whom the US touts as a moderate, frantically traverses Africa and Islamic countries to establish Shiite footholds. Wahhabites fund madrassas while Khatami funds also schools and hospitals to draw the population to madrassas, but otherwise Iran spreads Shiism like Saudis spread Wahhabism.

Sunni Arab countries don’t care about Iranian nuclear bomb. It is unlikely that Iran would nuke Egypt or Saudi Arabia, though a good reason to do so can spring anytime: recall the unexpectedly savage Iran-Iraq war over nothing. Sunni rulers care a lot about Shiite enclaves created in their countries through Khatami’s efforts because Shiites are loyal to the chief imam in Iran, ayatollah, not to the country of citizenship. Sunnis lack such centralized religious authority. Iran is like the eleventh-century Vatican with a nuclear bomb: both exert vast religious control over others’ subjects.

Iran waited for America to invade Iraq and then announced its latent nuclear program, figuring out that America cannot prosecute wars in Iran and Iraq simultaneously and would hesitate to attack Iran which shapes the war in Iraq. When Iran warned Americans that it can make Iraq burning under their feet, that was true. Shiites will obey the ayatollah’s orders. Shiites are much more militant and suicidal that Sunnis, possibly a function of living under Sunni siege for centuries but also a matter of apocalyptic doctrine. Iran marched its teenager soldiers through minefields to clear them cheaply, and can similarly swarm enemy states with suicide bombers; Saudi knows that well. Iran controls Syria and therefore borders Israel. Iran quietly builds a far-flung Shiite empire that spans continents and moderate Khatami whom the US supports to replace Ahmadinejad spearheads that drive. The West finances spread of Shiism, more dangerous that Wahhabism, with oil purchases. The West “slaps” Iran with meager sanctions, but showers it with oil revenues. Iranians easily circumvent the sanctions by routing their shipments and finances through Dubai and other countries. Iran needs a nuclear bomb to become a full-fledged empire. Iran cooperates with outcast Sunni states, particularly the nuclear Pakistan. Shiites are apocalyptic, consider the name of Mahdi army, and blindly trust the ayatollahs. Iranian secularism erodes the fervent religiosity that Khatami works to expand, but nuclear imams won’t easily give the power away. Threatened with domestic unrest, they will start a foreign war, invade Iraq on the request of its Shiites or Saudi Arabia to claim the holy mosques. By promoting insurgency in places like Baluchistan, America pushes Iran into a full-scale war whose fronts are unpredictable.

And Bush announced the security situation in Iraq continues to improve - with 1,800 dead in August.