I don't agree for two reasons:
- Sistani has said he doesn't favor such a regime (& I don't know whether Michael Ledeen is right or not, but he claims that Sistani believes Iran's ruling Mullahs are engaged in heresy by running the state)
- A constitution that is "informed" by Islamic tenets can also guarantee basic human rights for all the citizens and be a building block for a strong democracy.
De Valera's 1937 Constitution may not be ideal from the point of view of modern European sentiment, but if Iraq emerges from Saddam with something along the lines of Ireland in the 1940s & 1950s, I say "Great!". In fact, I see a real opportunity for Irish historians and constitutional experts to offer real service to the Iraqis.
I can think of no other democratic state that was closer to a theocracy than Ireland. Tim Pat Coogan writes that the 1937 Constitution "visualized a state that while democratic in practice, would be theocratic in precept". Yet, the Irish people adopted new amendments and loosed the binds of church and state over time through the democratic process. I see no reason why the Iraqis cannot have a constitution that allows similar possibilities for change, if the Iraqi people should so choose.
Unlike a lot of so-called liberals, I have no objection to the Iraqi people choosing a religiously conservative government, so long as the constitution allows for them to change their minds through a democratic process. I don't think anyone in the west should try to prescribe what Iraq's new constitution or new government should look like, but the Irish experience (good & bad) provided unadorned with modern tut-tutting could be of real benefit to the Iraqis as they begin the process of drafting a new constitution.