Iran opposed anti-Sadr operations by the Maliki regime

Many thanks to Anita for this most interesting contribution!
My comments in green italics inside the text of the original article

`Angry' Iran sharpens tone with Baghdad's leaders

BAGHDAD (AP) — When a group of Iraqi envoys headed to Iran recently, they were fully prepared for some tense moments. But they also hoped to come away with something to show for it: pledges of cooperation on weakening Shiite militias in Iraq.

Instead, they got a scolding from some of Iran's most powerful voices — accusing the Iraqi leadership of bowing to Washington and forgetting about Tehran's support for Shiites persecuted by Saddam Hussein.

The swipes during the April 30-May 2 meetings — described to The Associated Press by members of the Iraqi delegation and other senior officials — signified more than a passing spat between the main Shiite centers of gravity in the region.

Relations between Iraq's Shiite-led government and the rulers in neighboring Iran have come under unprecedented strains as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki moves against rivals and negotiates long-term pacts with Washington.

There's almost no chance it could lead to a full-blown rupture. Iran's influence runs too deep in Iraq: from the main political bloc in al-Maliki's government to elements within the powerful Mahdi Army militia.

But the friction points to increasingly mismatched priorities: Iran is desperate to undercut the U.S. role in Iraq while Iraq's leaders are looking for American help to bolster their hold on power.

It also comes as Iran's alliances and ambitions stir new jitters around the Persian Gulf and beyond, where Sunni leaders have held the upper hand for decades.

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, warned Tuesday that Iran risked souring its relations with Arab and Muslim countries because of Tehran's backing for the Shiite militant group Hezbollah, which he accused of seeking a "coup" against the Lebanese government.

Iran's muscle flexing is expected to be on the agenda during President Bush's trip to the Middle East, which began Wednesday in Israel. Bush's schedule did not include a stop in Iraq, but such trips are not announced in advance.

Iran, for its part, is not sitting back quietly.

On Monday, the hard-line Iranian newspaper Jomhuri-e-Eslami accused al-Maliki of lacking backbone in alks with Washington, which include the long-range status of U.S. military operations in Iraq. The daily, which is considered close to Iran's ruling clerics, claimed Washington wants a "full-fledged colony" in Iraq.

It was a rare public jab at al-Maliki, a Shiite. But it was mild compared with the closed-door recriminations during the high-level Iraqi visit, according to accounts by Shiite politicians close to Iraq's prime minister.

The five-member delegation sought to pressure and cajole the Iranians into cutting suspected support for Shiite militias that have battled U.S. and Iraqi forces. But the Iraqis mostly received a scolding, the politicians said.

"The Iranians were very tough and even angry with us," said one of the delegates in the Tehran talks. "They accused us of being ungrateful to what Iran has done for the Shiites during Saddam's rule and of siding with the Americans against Iran."

The Iraqi politicians, five in all, spoke to the AP in separate interviews on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. Two of them took part in the talks with the Iranians. The rest were briefed on the meetings.

At one point, a key leader within Iran's Revolutionary Guards accused the Iraqi delegation and their leaders of being tools of Washington and showing ingratitude for years of Iranian support to Iraqi's majority Shiites, who suffered attacks and persecution under Saddam, the politicians said.

Brig. Gen. Ghassem Soleimani, commander of the elite Quds Force unit of the Guards, accused the Iraqis of offering U.S. forces "a permanent home on our doorsteps," the politicians told the AP.

The Iranians also rejected what the Iraqis called "evidence" of Iranian ties to Shiite militiamen, including seized weapons that bore Iranian markings, the politicians said (one should probably put Talabani's recent statement denying that Iran was sending weapons to any Iraqi militia in the context of this Iranian stance).

Responding to accusations that Shiite militiamen were training in camps outside Tehran, the Iranians claimed the facilities were being used to house members of the Mahdi Army who fled Iraq to escape arrest.

The leader of the Mahdi Army, militant Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, has lived in Iran for the past year — partly because he fears for his life in Iraq and because he is studying for the high clerical rank of ayatollah. (Which means that he feels perfectly safe in Iran. What does that tell us about Iran's support for the Sadrists?)

The suspected degree of Iranian links with Shiite militiamen depends on who is making the accusation.

The U.S. military is careful to distinguish in its public pronouncements between the mainstream Mahdi Army and breakaway "special groups" (there are no "special groups" in Iraq, that is just a US invention to avoid admitting that the occupation forces are fighting the Sadrists. Neither Sadr nor the Iranians would ever tolerate any breakaway groups) with alleged closer ties with Iran. Iraqi authorities are less specific and suggest that al-Sadr's entire movement is drifting more into Iran's orbit.

This week, al-Sadr's Mahdi Army agreed to an accord to end clashes in Baghdad's Sadr City district. But fighting has not fully subsided, suggesting that some militiamen now operate out of al-Sadr's control (no, its the US occupation forces which kept on bombing Sadr city, not any "militiamen")

In late March, however, Iran helped broker an end to battles between Iraqi-led forces and Mahdi Army fighters in the southern city of Basra.

The mixed signals from Iran underscore the complexity of Tehran's role since the fall of Iran's archenemy Saddam more than five years ago.

Last year, a senior Iranian envoy, Ali Larijani, told al-Maliki that Iran considers the U.S. troop presence in Iraq a "serious danger" to Iran's national security. Then at the recent meetings, Iranian authorities said they opposed al-Maliki's goal to crush the Mahdi Army, arguing it would rob Tehran of a key ally, the Iraqi politicians told the AP.

But Iran also has taken part in groundbreaking one-on-one talks with U.S. diplomats in Baghdad on ways to calm Iraq's violence.

Vali Nasr, an Iranian-American expert who closely monitors Shiite affairs, said Tehran saw the timing of the Mahdi Army crackdown as particularly harmful — coming as more Sunni armed groups forge alliances with the United States against al-Qaida in Iraq.

"The (Iranian) argument is that the destruction of the Sadrists will weaken Shiites at a time when Sunni tribes are being armed and getting stronger," said Nasr, a professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
-------

Commentary: Bottom line? I was correct when I wrote on May 6th - two days after the meetings between the Iranians and the Maliki representatives ended - that the Iranians have understood that Maliki & Co. have changed bosses and are now doing the USA's bidding:

Yes, Iran does officially support the 'democratically elected government of Iraq' and some Iranian officials have even expressed their support for the "crackdown on armed militias" (a codeword for a war on the Sadrists). Still, I am getting a strong sense that Iran only sees the Maliki government as a useful tool to prevent the Americans from putting a CIA-stooge like Alawi or even a Sunni in power. By declaring its support for the Maliki government Iran is, in reality, declaring its support for the majority Shia in Iraq. However, I believe that Iran is fully aware of the fact that the Maliki government is hated everywhere in Iraq, including by most Shia, and that Maliki and al-Hakim are becoming pawns in the anti-Shia 'redirection'. While there is no doubt that the Iranians has reservations about the personality of al-Sadr, they also realize that he is, by far, the most popular figure in Iraq and that he, unlike Maliki and al-Hakim, truly opposes the occupation. My guess is that the Iranians, who are fully cognisant of all this, are covertly switching their support from Maliki to the Sadrists (while quite possibly pressuring al-Hakim and the Badr organization to be prepared to 'drop' Maliki at a moment's notice). The Iranians simply cannot officially refuse to support the 'democratically elected government of Iraq', but they sure as hell do not need to give it more support than lip service statements. Think of it as a 'redirection' of their own, if you want, the quiet but crucial adaptation by Iran to a new reality on the ground.

This AP article fully confirms what I have been suspecting. Furthermore, it begs the question of what means of putting pressure Iran has on Maliki and his regime? After all, they are now under US protection, safely tucked away in the Green Zone, no?

I am standing by my guess that while Maliki and his government have been bought by the occupation forces al-Hakim and, even more relevantly, his Badr Organization cannot follow his example. It is quite possible that al-Hakim himself might be tempted to go the Maliki route, but there can be no doubt that the Badr Corps itself is deeply, deeply penetrated by Iranian agents and that these will, if Tehran gives the order, "drop" Maliki and even possibly al-Hakim himself. An accusation of treason coming from Tehran and Qom might spell out the end of the entire Hakim clan, both politically or even physically. They know that and they cannot afford to let that happen. This is why they will rather put pressure on Maliki on Tehran's behalf.

While one can speculate about what exactly has been going on behind the scenes, one thing is now certain: Iran is now quietly, but nevertheless fully, backing the Sadrists and not the Maliki regime.

Shia and Sunni factions harden anti-US stance

Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim Calls for Full US Pull-Out

BAGHDAD, A key member of Iraq's ruling coalition called Saturday for the complete withdrawal of foreign troops from his country and rejected the possibility of permanent US bases.

Ammar Hakim, a leading figure of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), also called on the US occupation troops to be more careful in their use of force after recent bombings killed civilians in a village north of Baghdad and in an area northwest of the Iraqi capital.

Hakim told a gathering celebrating the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr that Iraqis will work not to have fixed bases for foreign troops on Iraqi lands.

"We are working to enter into a security agreement with the international community to ensure that Iraq retrieves its full sovereignty," he said.

Hakim is the son of SIIC leader Abdel Aziz al-Hakim and has played an increasingly prominent role in recent months as his father recovers from cancer.

The SIIC is one of the largest parties in the Iraqi parliament and a key supporter of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government.

"We express our deep sorrow at the civilian citizens killed by multi-national forces as happened at al-Jayzani and in other regions," said Hakim.

"We wish them to be more cautious in dealing with the citizens."

A double US air strike eight days ago on the village of Jayzani, 30 miles north of Baghdad, killed 25 innocent people, including women and children.

Meanwhile, Senior Iraqi official Abdul Aziz al-Hakim made his first public appearance in five months Saturday after undergoing treatment for lung cancer.

Hakim, who has been receiving chemotherapy treatment in Iran, waved to a large, cheering crowd at his southern Baghdad home after Eid al-Fitr prayers to mark the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Hakim's son Ammar has been running the SIIC, Iraq's largest Shi'ite political bloc, during his father's illness.
-------
Note: this is an interesting development as Ammar al-Hakim, son of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, is widely seen as the heir to his father's position at the head of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), previously known as Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). SCIRI was the political factions which was supported by both the USA (see photo of al-Hakim and Bush at the White House above) and Iran (and many would add, supported by *only* the USA and Iran). It appears that the "redirection" is now having the direct effect of alienating the only Shia faction enjoying US support and that, in turn, sets the stage for a SICC-Sadr alliance and put the USA on an even more rapid collision course with Iran. In the meanwhile, Sunni resistance groups are uniting into an anti-US front:
-------

Six Iraqi insurgent groups announce formation of a "political council" to liberate Iraq

AP. Six main Iraqi insurgent groups announced the formation of a "political council" aimed at "liberating" Iraq from U.S. occupation in a video aired Thursday on the Arab TV station Al-Jazeera.

The council appeared to be a new attempt to organize and assert the leadership of the multiple insurgent groups, which have moved to distance themselves from another coalition of insurgent factions led by al-Qaida in Iraq.

In the video aired on Al-Jazeera, a man identified as the council's spokesman — wearing traditional Iraqi garb and his face blacked out — announced the council's formation and a "political program to liberate Iraq."

He said the program was based on two principles.

"First, the occupation is an oppression and aggression, rejected by Islamic Sharia law and tradition. Resistance of occupation is a right guaranteed by all religions and laws," he said.

"Second, the armed resistance ... is the legitimate representative of Iraq. It is the one that bears responsibility for the leadership of the people to achieve its legitimate hopes," he said.

The groups forming the council include the Islamic Army of Iraq, the Mujahideen Army, Ansar al-Sunna, the Fatiheen Army, the Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance (Jami) and the Islamic Movement of Hamas-Iraq.

The step could be a bid by the insurgents for a more cohesive political voice at a time of considerable rearrangement among Sunni insurgent groups and Iraq's Sunni Arab minority.

Splinter factions of two insurgent groups, the 1920 Revolution Brigades and the Mujahideen Army, have cooperated with U.S. forces in fighting insurgents allied to al-Qaida in Iraq.

Earlier this year, other groups — the Islamic Army of Iraq, the main faction of the Mujahideen Army, a branch of Ansar al-Sunna and the Fatiheen Army — formed a coalition called the Jihad and Reform Front opposed to al-Qaida in Iraq, though they have continued attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces.