LA Times: Iran Directly Supporting Mahdi Army

Sometimes you can learn the most useful things in a news article written to be critical of the United States and the War in Iraq. In a report in the Los Angeles Times (Iraqi militia commanders harden stance toward U.S.), we have a Mahdi Army commander admitting that their forces are getting weapons directly from Iran:

Abu Baqr, now a commander in the Mahdi Army militia of cleric Muqtada Sadr, blames Iran for what happened to his friend more than 20 years ago during Iraq's war with Iran, just as he blames Saddam Hussein for that conflict.

He still hates Iran. But now, he said, he accepts its weapons to fight the U.S. military, figuring he can deal with his distaste for the Iranians later. So he takes bombs that can rip a hole in a U.S. tank and rockets that can pound Baghdad's Green Zone without apology or regret.

"I think that the Iranians are more dangerous than the Americans. I hate them and I don't trust them," he said in an interview over soft drinks. But the militia has limited resources, he said, and "therefore, when somebody gives you or offers help, it's hard to say no."

This being an anti Iraq War article, the report continues with the story-line that it was the Americans that made the Mahdi Army look towards Iran for help:

A year ago, in one of a series of interviews with The Times, his voice rose in anger when he talked of Iran's efforts to co-opt the Mahdi Army movement. He seethed about Tehran's drive to recruit fighters to bomb U.S. convoys at a time when Sadr was trying to halt such activities. He railed against militia members whom Iran had bought off.

At this time of immense pressure, however, he embraces the breakaway factions.

"Not all Jaish al Mahdi members are angels," he acknowledged, using the group's Arabic name. "Some have material interests in mind and they're greedy, and so Iran was able to hit on this particular angle and put them on its side."

But this is the price of survival. His positions shift tactically from moment to moment. He believes the militia should fight the Americans to the end, but even now he hints he is ready to strike a truce on honorable terms with the U.S. military if it agrees to halt its operations against the militia in Baghdad.

Until March, Sadr loyalists such as Abu Baqr had worked to enforce a freeze the cleric ordered last year on the militia's activities. But that month, everything fell apart when the government launched controversial military operations against Shiite militias in the port city of Basra and in Sadr City, the Shiite slum. The Sadr movement saw the operation as specifically targeting its fighters.

Abu Baqr stopped reining in fighters and once more switched to a war footing. "The balloon has burst," he said soberly.

It would have been helpful for the author to mention that contrary to Abu Baqr's claims, Iran has been behind Sadr's army since shortly after Saddam was deposed (and perhaps even longer). In fact, Muqtada al-Sadr has made dozens of official and non-official trips to Iran to receive orders, as this article at CNN.com from February of 2007 tells us: Radical cleric al-Sadr in Iran. And this article in the Asia Times (Iraq's Sadrists follow Hezbollah's path), also from early last year, informs us that Muqtada al-Sadr's first visit to Iran was in June of 2003, at a time when al-Sadr was publicly denouncing Tehran. That opposition appears to have been a smokescreen, since al-Sadr's visit to Iran was to ask for their help against the Americans in Iraq. The Sadrists are the equivalent of Iran's Hezbollah in Iraq, as are several other groups.

Al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army have never been a partner for peace in the new Iraq. They always wanted to establish a Shia theocracy in Iraq, modeled on Iran. And we, and the world, have known that fact from the start. One of the few smart things that Colin Powell did while he was Secretary of State was to strongly suggest that the United States eliminate Muqtada al-Sadr the first time he rebelled against the nascent Iraqi government and the US. That we didn't was one of the many mistakes made during the first few years of this war.

But no matter. While it's obvious that the media is going to continue to blame America for everything, it is helpful that they are starting to include such long-established facts as Iran's direct involvement in Iraq into the public forum.