The tabloid newspaper McClatchy has a report out today that two lawmakers from the Iraqi government, one from Maliki’s party and another from the Badr party, went to Iran to negotiate a end to hostilities in Basra.
BAGHDAD — Iraqi lawmakers traveled to the Iranian holy city of Qom over the weekend to win the support of the commander of Iran’s Qods brigades in persuading Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to order his followers to stop military operations, members of the Iraqi parliament said.
The backdrop to Sadr’s dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday by Iraqi lawmakers to Qom, Iran’s holy city and headquarters for the Iranian clergy who run the country.
There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.
Ali al Adeeb, a member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s Dawa party, and Hadi al Ameri, the head of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq.
Which, if true, is fascinating. On the one hand this means Iran can turn off the internal fighting when and where it wants to. So, as Jules Crittenden puts it, Iraq is Iran’s bitch in the absence of American forces. But the same article does say that some of Sadr’s thugs have said they have no intention of standing down. How much influence then does Iran really have? I’m guessing the coming days will tell us.
On the other hand can anyone still claim Iran is not the one stirring the pot in the first place AND not supplying those who attack our troops?
Either way, Sadr was getting his butt kicked by the Iraqi army and Jules takes on the NYT’s notion that Maliki agreed to a negotiated end to hostilities:
Interesting side note. This NYT article, which does not have any Qom-plea backstory, like other reporting on the Sadr stand-down declares al-Maliki the loser for agreeing to a negotiated end to hostilities. This is odd because he does not in fact appear to have agreed to end hostilities or to have surrendered his disarmament demand. But more so because the common anti-war media and political wisdom is that the United States wins by negotiating an end to hostilities, leaving adversaries in place, without achieving its goals militarily. Can we all get on the same peacenik playbook page, please?
Heh…
See author page