Sadr Rages Against Iran
In an unprecedented move, embattled Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada Al Sadr has publicly lashed out at Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. Why?
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Feeling the heat of the recent offensive against his forces around Iraq, Muqtada Al Sadr, who has long been suspected of receiving support from the Iranian government, decided to publicly condemn the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei.
His verbal attack was an unprecedented turn of events for the young Shiite, who for the last year has been traveling to Iran on several occasions to complete his theological studies in order to become an Ayatollah himself. Western security sources have long suspected that these trips have also been used in order to receive financial assistance from Iran, and to coordinate the Mahdi army’s military and political strategy with the leadership in Tehran.
There are important reasons behind his offensive against Khameini.
Primarily, Al Sadr is furious at the fact that members of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), have joined the Iraqi army’s offensive against his forces in important areas such as Baghdad and Basra.
ISCI, which is led by Ayatollah Abdul Aziz al-Hakim has the support of middle and upper class Shiites in Iraq, while Al Sadr’s Mahdi army has the backing of poor Shiites. Al Sadr is not only upset because ISCI has decided to turn its guns against fellow Shiites, but also at the fact that ISCI has been the recipient of a larger amount of aid from Tehran than his organization. This may lead Al Sadr to believe that ISCI has embarked on this adventure, with Tehran’s blessing. This belief would explain why, during his controversial interview with Al Jazeera on Saturday night, Al Sadr condemned what he called “Iranian intervention in Iraq’s security and politics.”
Presumably, his hope is that by condemning and distancing himself Tehran, he could get more local grass root support inside Iraq; something which he could use later on in order to stage a political and military comeback.
While its too early to declare victory and celebrate, nevertheless, Al Sadr’s recent move can be considered as an achievement for the US, in its ongoing struggle with Tehran over influence in Iraq.
Until now, Tehran has been masterfully controlling both Al Sadr and ISCI allies as a tool to increase its influence. Whether or not Washington sanctioned Maliki’s recent operations against the Mahdi army; the rift created between Iraq’s two major Shiite organizations is making Iran’s Iraqi adventure more cumbersome at least in the immediate future.
This, despite the fact that ISCI is allied with Tehran (many of its supporters who defected to Iran during Saddam’s rule, had their own neighborhood, called Dolat Abad in south west of Tehran.)
Al Sadr is obviously not going to to go away quietly. It is likely that he will save himself and his forces for a counter-offensive. What this could mean for Tehran is losing important intelligence assets in southern Iraq, as Mahdi army operatives are likely to suspect and distance themselves from pro-Iran Shiites. Furthermore, unless Tehran undertakes meaningful initiatives to repair its relationship with Al Sadr, the young cleric may call for a boycott of Iranian products and companies in southern Iraq. This would be a blow for Iran, which earns billions of dollars from exports to its Western neighbor.
For now, Washington and Al Maliki’s government must use the recent military setbacks for Al Sadr as an opportunity to reach out to poor Iraqis who form the basis of Al Sadr’s support. Unless economic assistance is provided to improve their lives, and security, Tehran could step in.
It would not be the first time that Tehran has supported two opposing sides in a conflict, and it would not be the last either.
Meir Javedanfar is the co-author of The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran. He runs Middle East Economic and Political Analysis (MEEPAS)
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
14 Comments
Ron:I’m told that their holy book says that a Muslim can lie and decieve to win. So, who can trust what he says?
Mar 31, 2008 - 5:44 am M.E.:The god of Mohammed is the god of universal Lie. For him not only man lies, but also God. Sure, one liar must not necessarily be a Muslin, as one Muslim is not necessarily a liar, but Lie continues to be the supreme value of this religion, in which it could be said that it has become God itself.
Mar 31, 2008 - 2:00 pm LynnBo:This “theology of Lie” helps to understand “Islamic politics”. Both al-Hakim and al-Sadr take money from Iran and afterwards one betrays each other and also their Iranian “benefactor”. For one who knows the oriental mentality, it’s absolutely normal. Political sense of this “universal betraying” is also clear. Nor al-Hakim & al-Sadr trust Iran nor Iran trusts these two swindlers. Maliki, knowing well the oriental mentality, could buy one and eliminate from the scene the other (al-Sadr: he is politically dead). Is it possible to trust in Maliki? I think, yes. Iraqi political existence depends on American military and economical aid. Iran is the historical enemy of Iraq and national unity is much deeper than religious. So the main danger for Iraq is not to be transformed in the Promise Land of Terrorist International, but into a political province of Iran. It explains why al-Hakim supports national Maliki’s Govern while he takes money from the Iranians. For the oriental man it does mean no commitment. It’s the East!
If the Iraqis stay true to the laws and constitution of their country, they have hope. A democratic nation of laws and justice will protect the people who can practice any religion, culture or ethnicity they choose. It will no longer matter who is truthful and who is a liar, the rule of law will prevail and protect; for so long as the laws they democraticly agreed upon are adheared to and strictly enforced.
Its only if they un-democratically or arbitrarily change the rules that it will matter whether or not one is a liar or follows a religion of lies. Otherwise, it makes no difference to the strength of the country.
That is why Sadr & company must be brought to justice. Not for what they believe, or what they say, but for breaking the law. Period.
Mar 31, 2008 - 2:55 pm Rubicon:Irrespective of what the Iraqi constitution may or may not say, based on information coming out of that country, freedom of religion is NOT happening. In fact, religious persecution is alive & well in many quarters.
Mar 31, 2008 - 5:12 pm thatmichaelguy:Hence this is why many Christians of various denominations are leaving quietly, and/or dying with little or no media fanfare. The media, whether western or Muslim, have all failed to adequately cover or even properly identify any story regarding religious & in particular, Christian persecution.
The recovery of Iraq will take a very long time & require much hand holding of someone who cares what eventually happens there!
‘Al Sadr’s recent move can be considered as an achievement for the US’- you stated. Tell me again how a cease fire brokered in the city of Qom in Iran by Muqtada al-Sadr and the leader of the Quds Brigades of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Brig. Gen. Qasim Sulaymani is an ‘achievement for the US’?
Mar 31, 2008 - 8:52 pm elixelx:Let me try to explain Michael, sine you refuse to understand what is abundantly clear. For your sake, I’ll use small words.
The US is winning; they’ve chased The Mookie Man and his gangstas all over Basra. The Mookster had to run to Mommy and is even now hiding behind her skirts; it’s our boys now who own most of Basra and Baghdad, and if Mookie-baby doesn’t stop his kicking-and-screaming antics he’ll get an even harder whack from his olders and betters.
Now you Kapische?
Now for the grownups–only losers sue for peace; we would be well advised to remember Churchill, who, in 1942, before Alamein started to turn the tide of the War, DEMANDED UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER of the Nazis.
When asked how he could make such an unreasonable, even mad, demand he replied that the world simply was not big enough for a Churchill and a Hitler. There could be no peace between Democracies and Nazis; one side or the other had to be destroyed.
And that’s why Iraq is a long-term affair, because the REAL ENEMY now is IRAN!
Apr 1, 2008 - 6:25 am M.E.:elixelx: very good reply! no peace with criminals!
Apr 1, 2008 - 10:42 am david still:sniuipuy comment abolive ought to take a look at a later develop[ment and then tell me we are winning
BAGHDAD - In a dramatic reversal, Iraq’s prime minister ordered a nationwide freeze Friday on Iraqi raids against Shiite militants, bowing to demands by anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr only one day after promising to expand the crackdown to Baghdad.
ADVERTISEMENT
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued the order after al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia fought government troops last week in Basra and elsewhere, hinted at retaliation if Iraqi security forces continue to arrest his followers.
Apr 4, 2008 - 1:24 pm