Iran Played Role in Cease Fire
Via Memeorandum comes the following: it seems that the latest cease fire in Iraq wasn’t brokered by the US, nor by Iraqi government officials but by an Iranian general. Members of Iraq’s Parliament said that “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.”
“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 Iraqis held a meeting with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. They went on to sign “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.”
‘”We asked Iranian officials to help us persuade him that we were not cracking down on the Sadr group,” said an Iraqi official, who asked for anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject.’
In short: Iran was “an active part” of the negotiations.
He added: “I will not be surprised if the whole thing collapses.”
The losers here were al-Malaki and the Bush administration which is all but irrelevant in Iraq. The winners were al-Sadr and the Iranians. After more than 4,000 American deaths it’s the Iranians who have the ability to control event in Iraq.
Ron also links to this report at USA Today which confirms my suspicions: Al-Sadr wasn’t losing, he was winning.
The good news is the Iraqis seem to realize this is a temporary arrangement. Some people might be inclined to look at this as evidence of what they’ve said all along. Iran can be a partner for peace. But if anyone had any question, it has just been amply demonstrated that Iran has the power to turn it on and turn it off. That makes Iraq, in the absence of American troops, Iran’s bitch.
I’m more inclined, however, to look at Sadr’s statement as a declaration of prolonged warfare. Call it the Nasrallah Model, or whatever you like. This is Iran’s modus operandi, and we’ve seen it practiced and refined against Israel for decades. Engage in conflict, make some demands, and then promise to stop fighting as long as your needs are met. This isn’t peace, it’s extortion.
The Nasrallah Model is certainly a consistent tactic of the Iranians, and I won’t be surprised if Iran is looking to lock in its gains in this conflict. But as long as we are citing articles in our analysis, here is one that provides an alternative view. I cite the following relevant paragraph:
‘Sources in Basra tell TIME that there has been a large-scale retreat of the Mahdi Army in the oil-rich Iraqi port city because of low morale and because ammunition is low due to the closure of the Iranian border. TIME has not yet been able to confirm those reports with U.S., Mahi Army or Iraqi government authorities.’
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1726489,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
Truces are also not unusual in the Iranian model when things are not going to plan. The anticipated ‘collapse’ of the entire agreements leads me to wonder if either side is certain who the winners and losers are at this point.
Iran started it. Why shouldn’t they be able to stop it?