Iran: A Convenient Culprit
The US says Iranians were involved in the recent fighting in Basra - but Iran later helped to broker a ceasefire
Early reports suggest that in his testimony to a congressional committee today, General David Petraeus will claim that the Iranians assisted the Mahdi Army militia to fight the forces of Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki in the recent week-long battle in Basra. He is expected to offer this "evidence" to oppose any reduction in US troops in Iraq.This is the latest instance of Washington dangling the Iranian menace to persist in its disastrous course in Iraq, starting with its illegal invasion of the country on false pretences.
What happened in Basra and the Sadr City district of Baghdad recently had less to do with Maliki's claim to disarm "rogue" militias than his strategic objective to squash the Sadrist movement as a political force during the run-up to the provincial and local elections on 1 October.
Sadr's popularity among Shias far exceeds that of that Dawa Party which Maliki leads, or the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) of his ally, Ayatollah Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, which has its own militia, the Badr Brigades. Unsurprisingly, the Badr Brigades were left untouched by Maliki's offensive. That was also true of the militia of the Islamic Fadhila ("Virtue") Party, which controls the Basra port from where oil is exported.
The real threat that Moqtada al-Sadr poses to the Maliki government is political. He is the only leader who has in the past brought out a million people in the streets to mount a peaceful protest. (He has called for such a demonstration tomorrow, in Najaf.) He has proved himself to be a shrewd operator - adroit at knowing when to fight and when to talk - and how to combine the two strategies to maintain his leading position among Shias.
Under normal circumstances, Iran, the most powerful Shia country in the region, treats all religious Iraqi Shia parties equally. Both ISCI (known earlier as the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri) and Dawa have historical links with Iran.
Sciri was established in Tehran in 1982 during the Iran-Iraq war. And Dawa leaders, including Maliki, took refuge in Iran during that eight-year conflict. During his two visits to Tehran in his first 15 months in office, Maliki was received by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a long-lost brother.
The emergence of the five-year-old Sadrist movement has nothing to do with Iran. When Moqtada's two elder brothers and father were assassinated by Saddam Hussein's agents in 1999, he went underground. It was only after Saddam's overthrow on April 9, 2003, that he surfaced. The fact that he belongs to a family of "martyrs", and that he never left Iraq during Saddam's rule, have contributed to the high standing he has acquired among Shias.
So why did the Iranians assist the Mahdi Army militia at a tactical command level against the forces of Maliki in Basra, if they did? Probably they aimed to frustrate Maliki's adoption of the American neocons' modus operandi of using force as the first option, instead of negotiating with Sadr to reach a political compromise during the ceasefire that Sadrists had observed since last August.
Also, with the Americans and the British intervening on his side, Maliki could no longer claim that his offensive was a purely Iraqi affair. That provided grounds for the Iranians to intervene on the opposite side.
Overall, though, the Iranian government deplored the spectacle of Shias killing one another in Iraq, with the toll mounting to more than 300 in a week. That explained its active involvement in brokering the ceasefire that seems to be holding by and large.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Early reports suggest that in his testimony to a congressional committee today, General David Petraeus will claim that the Iranians assisted the Mahdi Army militia to fight the forces of Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki in the recent week-long battle in Basra. He is expected to offer this "evidence" to oppose any reduction in US troops in Iraq.This is the latest instance of Washington dangling the Iranian menace to persist in its disastrous course in Iraq, starting with its illegal invasion of the country on false pretences.
What happened in Basra and the Sadr City district of Baghdad recently had less to do with Maliki's claim to disarm "rogue" militias than his strategic objective to squash the Sadrist movement as a political force during the run-up to the provincial and local elections on 1 October.
Sadr's popularity among Shias far exceeds that of that Dawa Party which Maliki leads, or the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) of his ally, Ayatollah Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, which has its own militia, the Badr Brigades. Unsurprisingly, the Badr Brigades were left untouched by Maliki's offensive. That was also true of the militia of the Islamic Fadhila ("Virtue") Party, which controls the Basra port from where oil is exported.
The real threat that Moqtada al-Sadr poses to the Maliki government is political. He is the only leader who has in the past brought out a million people in the streets to mount a peaceful protest. (He has called for such a demonstration tomorrow, in Najaf.) He has proved himself to be a shrewd operator - adroit at knowing when to fight and when to talk - and how to combine the two strategies to maintain his leading position among Shias.
Under normal circumstances, Iran, the most powerful Shia country in the region, treats all religious Iraqi Shia parties equally. Both ISCI (known earlier as the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri) and Dawa have historical links with Iran.
Sciri was established in Tehran in 1982 during the Iran-Iraq war. And Dawa leaders, including Maliki, took refuge in Iran during that eight-year conflict. During his two visits to Tehran in his first 15 months in office, Maliki was received by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a long-lost brother.
The emergence of the five-year-old Sadrist movement has nothing to do with Iran. When Moqtada's two elder brothers and father were assassinated by Saddam Hussein's agents in 1999, he went underground. It was only after Saddam's overthrow on April 9, 2003, that he surfaced. The fact that he belongs to a family of "martyrs", and that he never left Iraq during Saddam's rule, have contributed to the high standing he has acquired among Shias.
So why did the Iranians assist the Mahdi Army militia at a tactical command level against the forces of Maliki in Basra, if they did? Probably they aimed to frustrate Maliki's adoption of the American neocons' modus operandi of using force as the first option, instead of negotiating with Sadr to reach a political compromise during the ceasefire that Sadrists had observed since last August.
Also, with the Americans and the British intervening on his side, Maliki could no longer claim that his offensive was a purely Iraqi affair. That provided grounds for the Iranians to intervene on the opposite side.
Overall, though, the Iranian government deplored the spectacle of Shias killing one another in Iraq, with the toll mounting to more than 300 in a week. That explained its active involvement in brokering the ceasefire that seems to be holding by and large.
Early reports suggest that in his testimony to a congressional committee today, General David Petraeus will claim that the Iranians assisted the Mahdi Army militia to fight the forces of Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki in the recent week-long battle in Basra. He is expected to offer this "evidence" to oppose any reduction in US troops in Iraq.This is the latest instance of Washington dangling the Iranian menace to persist in its disastrous course in Iraq, starting with its illegal invasion of the country on false pretences.
What happened in Basra and the Sadr City district of Baghdad recently had less to do with Maliki's claim to disarm "rogue" militias than his strategic objective to squash the Sadrist movement as a political force during the run-up to the provincial and local elections on 1 October.
Sadr's popularity among Shias far exceeds that of that Dawa Party which Maliki leads, or the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) of his ally, Ayatollah Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, which has its own militia, the Badr Brigades. Unsurprisingly, the Badr Brigades were left untouched by Maliki's offensive. That was also true of the militia of the Islamic Fadhila ("Virtue") Party, which controls the Basra port from where oil is exported.
The real threat that Moqtada al-Sadr poses to the Maliki government is political. He is the only leader who has in the past brought out a million people in the streets to mount a peaceful protest. (He has called for such a demonstration tomorrow, in Najaf.) He has proved himself to be a shrewd operator - adroit at knowing when to fight and when to talk - and how to combine the two strategies to maintain his leading position among Shias.
Under normal circumstances, Iran, the most powerful Shia country in the region, treats all religious Iraqi Shia parties equally. Both ISCI (known earlier as the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri) and Dawa have historical links with Iran.
Sciri was established in Tehran in 1982 during the Iran-Iraq war. And Dawa leaders, including Maliki, took refuge in Iran during that eight-year conflict. During his two visits to Tehran in his first 15 months in office, Maliki was received by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a long-lost brother.
The emergence of the five-year-old Sadrist movement has nothing to do with Iran. When Moqtada's two elder brothers and father were assassinated by Saddam Hussein's agents in 1999, he went underground. It was only after Saddam's overthrow on April 9, 2003, that he surfaced. The fact that he belongs to a family of "martyrs", and that he never left Iraq during Saddam's rule, have contributed to the high standing he has acquired among Shias.
So why did the Iranians assist the Mahdi Army militia at a tactical command level against the forces of Maliki in Basra, if they did? Probably they aimed to frustrate Maliki's adoption of the American neocons' modus operandi of using force as the first option, instead of negotiating with Sadr to reach a political compromise during the ceasefire that Sadrists had observed since last August.
Also, with the Americans and the British intervening on his side, Maliki could no longer claim that his offensive was a purely Iraqi affair. That provided grounds for the Iranians to intervene on the opposite side.
Overall, though, the Iranian government deplored the spectacle of Shias killing one another in Iraq, with the toll mounting to more than 300 in a week. That explained its active involvement in brokering the ceasefire that seems to be holding by and large.