Mar 31 2008

Shiite Radical Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr Commanding Insurgents From Iran

Published by at 10:42 am under All General Discussions,Iran,Iraq,Sadr/Mahdi Army

Those too naive to understand how Iran is attempting to destabilize Iraq’s democracy need to look no farther than where the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is directing the Mahdi Militia’s from as they fight the Iraq government forces, which are backed up by US and UK forces:

The Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr on Sunday called for his followers to stop fighting in Basra and in turn demanded concessions from Iraq’s government, after six days in which his Mahdi Army militia has held off an American-supported Iraqi assault on the southern port city.

The substance of Mr. Sadr’s statement, released Sunday afternoon, was hammered out in elaborate negotiations over the past few days with senior Iraqi officials, some of whom traveled to Iran to meet with Mr. Sadr, according to several officials involved in the discussions.

Emphasis mine. So the fanatic Napoleon-Wannabe is directing his forces from inside Iran. That is not going to go over well with the Iraqi people who are Arabs, not Persians like the Iranians are. There is no love loss between the two groups. And the fact Sadr’s forces are getting decimated (from reports coming out of Iraq) it is obvious his forces are not holding off anything, just filling up body bags.

The left wing hand-wringers are out in force, but since their track record on how things will play out in the region is 100% wrong for years it is safer to assume their doom & gloom predictions are wrong again. Iraq PM Maliki is Shiite, so there is no way this battle can be confused with any religious sectarian civil war. The fact is al-Qaeda has been so decimated Iraq is now focusing in on the last major threat to its security – the agents of Iran who are trying to gain a hold on an area they have battled Iraq over for decades – the southern oil fields around the port city of Basra, and the port itself.

But the Militia’s are no match for Iraqi forces backed up by allied fire power. This was over when it started because it was the Iraqis who made the move and dictated the terms and selected the amount of force. All led by a democratically elected Shiite Prime Minister. Sadr is toast. I seriously doubt he can step foot in Iraq again.

9 responses so far

9 Responses to “Shiite Radical Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr Commanding Insurgents From Iran”

  1. WWS says:

    It’s been rather widely reported that Sadr has been a “guest” of the Iranian heirarchy near the city of Qom for some time now. Surprising that this isn’t more widely reported, since it gives a very clear view as to who is financing and arming the Mahdi army. (remember John McCain’s so-called “slip” of a few days ago? No slip, just the truth)

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/02012008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_manchurian_mullah_637677.htm?page=0

    This article gives a good summary of what he’s doing there as well as Iran’s long term plans for Iraq:

    “It normally takes at least 12 years of intensive studies to become a “mujtahid” (who can offer religious guidance). And the title “Sign of God” can’t be secured solely by studying: Ayatollahs bestow it on only a few individuals in each generation. The candidate must author a “resaleh” (dissertation), with at least one grand ayatollah publicly acknowledging its theological value.

    “Traditionally, no man under 40 could pretend to be a “Proof of Islam,” for it was at 40 that the Prophet Muhammad was approached by Archangel Gabriel and informed of his divine mission.

    But the “Muqtada Project” envisages shortcuts. Sadr is to complete the 12-year course in four or five years, by which time he’d also be 40. Someone could write a resaleh for him and someone else could attest to the work’s authority. He could then receive endorsement (tasdiq) from ayatollahs close to the Tehran authorities.

    Sometime in 2012 or so, we may meet Ayatollah al-Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr al-Mahallati al-Tabatabai. By then, Najaf’s four aging grand ayatollahs could have passed on, thus making it easier for Tehran to market Muqtada as a religious authority for Iraqis.

    To win control of Iraq after the Americans leave, Iran needs to control Najaf. But none of the senior clerics there now is prepared to accept the authority of Iranian “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei (himself the product of a similar political project for manufacturing an ayatollah). So Muqtada’s makeover is of vital importance to Iran’s strategy in Iraq.”

    Also, this quote throws a lot of light on why Sadr capitulated – he’s placing all of his long term hopes on “The Iranian Project.” Sadr stays alive for now, under Iranian protection, and in 5 years emerges as the new “Grand Ayatollah” for Iraq – answerable to the Iranian Supreme Guide, of course.

    “Muqtada faces a tough choice. Should he continue with the Iranian project, in hopes of winning big in four or five years – at the risk that others will fill the vacuum in his absence? Or interrupt the Iranian project and return to Iraq to reactivate his armed gangs – possibly exposing himself to the Americans’ full fire – which, with Sunni pressure almost gone, could crush him?”

    The choice has been made.

  2. truthhard2take says:

    “So the fanatic Napoleon-Wannabe is directing his forces from inside Iran. That is not going to go over well with the Iraqi people who are Arabs, not Persians like the Iranians are.”

    Wrong again, Strata. Maliki is more pro-Iranian than al Sadr. Unfortunately, he is probably not as popular in Iraq. Neither will any leader be who is viewed as unnecessarily collaborating (even for the short-term) with the occupier. Maliki is more toastier than al Sadr, depending on America staying longer, even as he allies with Iran. Iran is playing it both ways. They can afford to-they’ve won the Iraq War.

    “Al Qaeda” took out several more “Awakening” members yesterday, they’re so decimated. Since “Awakening” members are only in a transitory alliance with America, you’ve got no dog in this fight
    either.

    As for track records being 100% wrong, you join the Wolfowitzes, Perles,Kristols,Rummys and Cheneys. All of you said the insurgency
    was finished…in 2004.

  3. truthhard2take says:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-03-30-iraqnews_N.htm

    Iranians help reach Iraq cease-fire

    USA TODAY
    BAGHDAD — Iranian officials helped broker a cease-fire agreement Sunday between Iraq’s government and radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, according to Iraqi lawmakers.
    The deal could help defuse a wave of violence that had threatened recent security progress in Iraq. It also may signal the growing regional influence of Iran, a country the Bush administration accuses of providing support to terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.

    Vali Nasr, an Iraq expert at the Council of Foreign Relations, said al-Sadr had emerged stronger from the battle, which killed more than 300 people. “He let the Americans and the Iraqis know that taking him down is going to be difficult.”

    Al-Sadr’s militia stood strong, forcing the government to extend a deadline for them to disarm.

    “Everything we heard indicates the Sadrists had control of more ground in Basra at the end of the fighting than they did at the beginning,” said al-Nujaifi, the Sunni mediator. “The government realized things were not going in the right direction.”

    Who won? Iran and Al Sadr.

  4. Sigh…..more incoherent ramblings from the Anti-American/Pro-Jihadi Leftst Nutbag Traitor….

    Sigh…..nothing to see here except more the same, move along…..

  5. truthhard2take says:

    Take losing magnanimously, Dale, you’re going to see plenty more of it in the Mideast, culminating in Vietnam-like exit, and the quicker the exit the less magnanimous you’ll have to feel, buddy.

  6. Redteam says:

    Truthie, babe Dale is not usually wrong. accept it.

  7. truthhard2take says:

    He’s been wrong for five years about the Iraq War, still lost.

  8. ivehadit says:

    Show the proof where any of the ones you named said the war on terror is over in 2004?

    Cause ya see, Iraq is just one theater in the WOT and it has multiple stages within that struggle. But, alas, it’s useless trying to explain national defence and Peace through superior firepower to a hate-America first clubber.

  9. [...] to try and turn serious losses into a media victory. Here is what the NY Times said in an article I noted back on March 31st when Sadr first surrendered Basra to Maliki and the Iraqi forces: The negotiations with Mr. Sadr [...]