Enter the ayatollahs

In the foyer of Bashir's headquarters, we were thoroughly searched by men carrying guns of various sizes. They temporarily confiscated a small pocketknife from my bag and led us to the office of Abu Saduk, Bahir's spokesman. We passed along the edge of an empty room with a well-worn carpet that was used for prayer. At the open door of the office I paused to take off my boots before entering. I had planned poorly for the trip, wearing high boots that required me to perform some spastic gymnastics to remove them. Eventually I freed myself and entered the room from which Abu Saduk had been watching me with a granite expression. He nodded in greeting as I came in -- a solid man with an oval platter face and thick black beard who looked to be in his 30s. He sat on the floor behind a legless desk and I sat on the floor along the wall to his right. As we were exchanging greetings, an assistant arrived with small glasses of the strong, sweet, excellent tea that visitors are always offered in Iraqi homes or places of business. Through Amjad, who acted as interpreter, Abu Saduk told me that he would be tape-recording the interview. The heavy security precautions plus a fear of being misquoted felt oddly reminiscent of a trip to the Coalition Provisional Authority headquarters -- a place Abu Saduk will certainly never go.

I began by asking Abu Saduk what he thought about the American presence in Iraq. He shrugged and focused on the ceiling above my head. "Before we were ruled by the student," he said. "Now the teacher is ruling." Abu Saduk went on to explain that the United States was responsible for Saddam (backing him in his early days and providing support during the Iran-Iraq war). "The Americans came to Iraq for strategic and economic interests -- to secure the region for themselves. They cannot be trusted, nor can any election conducted during the occupation."

Before the war, Saddam persecuted -- often brutally -- the Shiites in Iraq. This is the reason that U.S. neoconservative strategists, whose starry-eyed optimism was not shared by scholars who actually knew something about Iraq and its people, assumed that the Shiite population would cheerlead the U.S. invasion and at least tolerate the occupation. Sistani's demands caught the United States off guard.

In the house I share with other journalists, we're constantly debating what Iraq's future will look like. One of our key questions is: Will the United States remain committed to rebuilding the country, or will it quietly retreat to secured bases, leaving most of the work undone -- in other words, repeating the Afghanistan scenario? One thing we all agree on: If the Shiites turn against the Americans -- if Sistani declares jihad, or holy war, against them -- the result will be a full-out armed uprising and the United States will be forced to pull out of the country. Civil war will follow, as the three major groups in Iraq -- the Kurds, Sunni and Shiites (previously repressed by Saddam) -- vie for control of the country. It's a pretty terrifying thought, and it's the reason Sistani has the United States over a barrel right now.

"Right now," Abu Saduk told me, "it [jihad] is not necessary. We hope that America -- a distant hope -- will keep its promises and leave Iraq."

Most Shiites I've spoken to say that the chances of Sistani's declaring jihad are incredibly slim, that such a radical step would be a last resort for the moderate cleric. And without his green light, I'm told, none of the other leaders would declare without him -- except, possibly, Muqtada, who doesn't have the authority to declare official jihad but could incite, if he chose, a dangerous uprising. Abu Saduk told me that such a decision would be made by many Shiite clerics working together.

I asked at what point he felt it would be time for a Shiite leader to discuss a unified resistance against the occupation. "I can't put a date," he said. "Maybe tomorrow, maybe six months."

We spoke for a while about his skepticism about the Americans' good intentions. He talked about the occupation in a calm and thoughtful way -- not with the vitriolic fervor the Western media portrays as innate to fundamentalist Muslims (a sadly inaccurate stereotype). While he spoke, he avoided looking at me, most likely because I was a Western woman whose headscarf kept slipping backward to reveal some unwelcome hairline. He acted less than friendly and even a little exasperated, reminding me of a particularly tough history teacher I had in high school. At one point, though, he interrupted himself to say, "I don't mean my words to hurt your feelings as a person -- I'm directing this at the government. I mean, if an Iraq government was occupying your country and ruling by whim, what would you do?"

On the one hand, Abu Saduk and millions of Shiites like him want the United States out of the electoral process, because they think the system of caucuses that the United States favors is just another way for the Bush administration to keep its fat thumb in the governing pie here. Under the cumbersome caucus system, the U.S.-appointed Governing Council will appoint local caucus officials to appoint a legislative body, which will then appoint all Iraqi officials. Not exactly an ideal democratic process. On the other hand, it's hard to believe that open elections would lead to anything except a Shiite government, and quite possibly a nondemocratic one.

Ostensibly, Sistani does not want an Iranian-modeled theocracy. And Abu Saduk told me that a Shiite-led government in Iraq would not look like Iran. But even if the clergy stayed out of the government, it's likely that Shiite policymakers would ultimately follow Sistani's dictates. And a shift toward Islamic law (if not Islamic government) would likely be the result. As Abu Saduk told me, Shiites wish to have a government of "God Justice" -- in other words, one that enforces Islamic law. Much as I respected Abu Saduk, I desperately hope he does not get his way.

A few weeks ago, a portion of the Iraqi Governing Council quietly voted to replace Iraq's existing family law, which is secular, with sharia -- Islamic law governing domestic issues. The vote means nothing without ratification by American Proconsul Paul Bremer, but as an indicator of what might happen in the future, it's very disturbing. Sharia puts decisions regarding issues such as divorce, marriage and inheritance in the hands of Muslim or Christian clergy, endangering rights that women have under family law.

Pascal Warda is a women's rights advocate in Iraq. She represents the Assyrian Women's Union -- one of the many women's rights groups that have formed here in Iraq since the end of the war. I met her at the office occupied by Nasreen Barwari, the minister of public works -- the only female minister appointed by the CPA. After the GC voted to abandon family law, the minister took to the streets to protest, along with over a hundred other women, including Pascal. Last-minute business had forced the minister to cancel our appointment, so I chatted with Pascal in the stale-smoked waiting area outside the minister's office. Dressed like a stylish New York mom in a blue suit and short haircut, she spoke animated, heavily accented English, though a bad cold had left her hoarse and snuffling. "Iraq is multiculture, multi-religion to be respected," she said. "If it's religious law, there's not respect for everyone." As an Assyrian Christian and a woman, she fears for her future under possible Islamic rule. "If we change to the Iranian experience, we've done nothing."

Pascal told me that she and other women's groups have been meeting with people in the CPA, including Paul Bremer, to try to make women's rights a priority. "We are fighting and fighting and fighting," she told me. "We believe we must do this for our daughters to be better off." Though opposed to the occupation in principle, Pascal wants the United States to stay in Iraq and oversee caucus elections to ensure that all factions of the population have proper representation.

Right now the United States finds itself in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation. The future of this country, and the U.S. occupation here, look bleaker than ever. I do wonder sometimes whether President Bush wakes with a start every morning and asks himself why why why he had to go and invade Iraq. Things just haven't worked out as he hoped.

Involving the United Nations will help. It will not only placate the Shiites but will also make the blundering United States look better. No doubt the Bush administration will suddenly take the high road and say that strong U.N. involvement was exactly what was wanted all along.

Kofi Annan reportedly agonized over the decision to return the world body to Iraq. He knew that by doing so, he would be bailing out a leader whose beliefs and actions are a slap in the face to everything the United Nations stands for. But he made the right choice. The situation here is dire. It is vital that the United Nations get involved now. But if everything goes to shit and the Bushies hightail it out of Dodge, leaving the United Nations the fall guy, I will take advantage of the best Arabic insult I know and shave off their mustaches with my shoe.

• View blog reactions