To believe American neoconservatives, pundits and reporters working from safe havens in Baghdad or Washington DC, things are very simple within the Shia community of Iraq, which constitutes a 60 per cent majority of the country.

Their greatest numbers, we are told, are the "good guys", defined as followers of the white-bearded Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Husseini Al Sistani. The "bad guys" are a few "hoodlums", followers of the firebrand Moqtada Al Sadr. He is not an ayatollah, let alone a grand one. Therefore the solution is clear. Get rid of Al Sadr.

This sounds convenient but tragically misleading, just as that other simple analysis that more than a year ago landed the United States into the Iraqi quagmire.

Al Sadr is not just a firebrand. He has an audience growing by the day as Americans continue attacking him and the holy Shia cities of Najaf and Karbala. Millions of Shias are watching that mayhem.

While not a religious figure with gravitas as Ayatollah Al Sistani, it must be recalled that Al Sadr's father was the most revered religious Iraqi Shia figure in Iraq, who was assassinated by Saddam Hussain's goons along with most of his family . Shiite "martyrs". That status confers considerable legitimacy upon the son.

It is not wise for Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of the US troops in Iraq, to box himself with a vow to "capture or kill Moqtada Al Sadr". The ripples will be far bigger than Iraq, reverberating from Iran to Lebanon to Pakistan. If the Americans arouse that Shia tiger their current predicament in Iraq will look like a picnic compared to the next chapter.

I will cite some basic facts for the wise:

Shiites stick together. The formidable Shia Hawza, the Supreme Shiite Religious Establishment (roughly equating the Vatican), acts as one entity be it in Najaf the Iraqi centre of scholarship or Qom its Iranian equivalent or in Lebanon, Bahrain, Pakistan and wherever substantial populations of Shiites reside. Unlike the Vatican however, the Hawza is not an organised theocracy. It is bound together by fervour, consensus, and utter devotion of its leaders and followers. That counts for more, not less.

To anticipate the Hawza's reaction to American policies in Iraq it is crucial to know its delicate structure, inner workings and how much internal debate is allowed within its parameters. Shia religious leaders are not handed their titles as "diplomas". A Shiite cleric rises in status depending on how many followers believe in his interpretations, be they religious, political or both. This is called Ijtihad, roughly translated as "intellectual initiative". Shiism encourages debate and questioning. It rewards it with increased followers and huge financial donations from the poor and wealthy. Religious titles such as Hojat Al Islam or Ayatollah are not granted. They are proffered, indeed, conferred by the faithful in recognition of scholarship, leadership, wisdom, and courage. Remember Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini who led the Iranian revolution in 1979 was not then viewed as the most learned among the Grand Ayatollahs, albeit quite an authority (he wrote the equivalent of 15 PhDs).

But he had these other qualities which made the masses elevate him to Ayatollah Al Uzma, the highest rank, and then even Naeb Al Imam (deputy of the Imam) by the time he died.

Hence, Al Sadr's open opposition to an unpopular American occupation and his professed willingness to put his guns and life behind his words are attracting followers and financial donations, regardless of his strict religious status. Similarly, Ayatollah Al Sistani's willingness to pressure him is proportional to Al Sadr's popularity among Iraqis.

This is a fact not lost on the wise Grand Ayatollah. The Americans' assumption that they have the old scholar in their pocket could not be more misguided. Al Sistani will do what is good for Shias not America.

This Shia debate is bigger than Iraq too. There are 65 million Shias following Iraqi events in Iran, 15 million in Iraq, one million in Lebanon along with the weighty well-armed Hezbollah Shiite militia camped right on Israel's border, and 400,000 in Bahrain, in addition several million more living in other places from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia.

Just as important there are Shia élites of wealthy, sophisticated and very shrewd merchant communities spread all over the Gulf region, commanding billions of dollars in wealth and a fierce sense of solidarity with their brethren.

Furthermore, the desecration of Holy Shiite sites in Najaf and Karbala is not tolerable to some two billion Sunni Muslims around the world. In this charged atmosphere, pregnant with the added bitterness over the tortures of Abu Ghraib prison, and Israel's war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza apparently with American acquiescence, killing Al Sadr may trigger a cyclone of rage.

My modest advice to General Abizaid, Sanchez and Paul Bremer is find an elegant way to leave Al Sadr alone and heed the voices coming from weighty Shiite leaders outside Iraq. A stern call to desist from attacking Holy sites in Iraq has been issued by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Religious leader of Iran a few days ago. It was followed by another warning from Sheikh Fadlallah the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon in a public speech. These men who do not engage in idle reminders.

Remember that Iran shares hundreds of kilometres of open borders with Iraq. Hezbollah is deeply experienced in insurgency as the Israelis have learned when they were forced to unilaterally withdraw from southern Lebanon, worn down by 22 years of tenacious Shiite resistance. Inside Iraq there are thousands of armed and trained dormant Shiite militia fighters taking their signal from Iran, a supremely efficient intelligence network that has infiltrated Coalition Forces.

The so-called new Iraqi army is crawling with informants working for the various Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish militias. Arms, ammunition, men and money will stream into Iraq from Iran, Lebanon and Syria should the Hawza lift its finger. And the Hawza is a great deal more than Ayatollah Al Sistani. The pursuit of Al Sadr and destruction of Shiite holy sites risks provoking Armageddon for American troops already under siege.

Some of us told the Bush neo-conservatives not to go to Iraq. They chose not to listen. Now many of us in America, in Europe and the Middle East are saying do not taunt the Shia. Let us hope they listen this time.

Youssef M. Ibrahim , a former Middle East correspondent for the New York Times and Energy Editor of the Wall Street Journal, is Managing Director of the Dubai-based Strategic Energy Investment Group. He can be contacted at ymibrahim@gulfnews.com