Iraqi government to Iran: Hey, thanks for getting the militias to stop killing people Updated

posted at 8:11 pm on November 18, 2007 by Allahpundit

The violence is down 55% since the summer, although the U.S. is naturally circumspect about who should get credit for the drop. The Iraqi government has to live next door to these cretins after we’re gone so they’re being a bit more generous. Assuming what they say is true, and the evidence does point that way, it raises a fascinating question: With a new Democratic Congress in place and anti-war sentiment burning incandescently before the surge began, why didn’t Iran put the militias in motion and ratchet the violence way up in an all-out push to force Bush into a humiliating withdrawal under fire? Why give him a breather and let the hawks regain some momentum?

Does anyone believe this is the explanation?

[Government spokesman Ali al-]Dabbagh said that the turning point came when Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq visited Iran in August and met with that country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in the Shiite shrine city of Mashad. Mr. Maliki told the Iranian leader that “Iran had to choose whether to support the government or any other party, and Iraq will decide according to which they choose,” Mr. Dabbagh said. The Iranians promised to help and have done so, he said.

Supposedly it was then that Tehran had a word with Sadr, whereupon Sadr told his men to take a six-month vacation. What leverage does the Iraqi government have over Iran, though? Iran might very well have more influence over the southern part of the country than Baghdad has. And given the obvious lingering Shiite mistrust of their Sunni countrymen, Maliki doesn’t have much of a “choice” in who to align himself with. Does he think Khamenei’s worried that he’ll go running to Saudi Arabia if Iran continues meddling inside Iraq?

One weak possibility is that Iran needs allies at the UN right now to check the U.S. and Europeans as they try to get a new round of nuclear sanctions passed. A terrorist offensive in Iraq while that’s going on makes it harder for Russia and China to defend the innocence of their intentions. But only marginally harder: the nuke kabuki’s been going on for years and the EFPs were flowing freely across the border until recently. Another possibility is that Iran’s spooked by Bush’s saber-rattling, but as we’ve discussed many times, a U.S. attack might do the regime as much good as harm in turning the public to its side.

I don’t have any answers. Maybe we bought them off somehow behind the scenes. Roggio notes near the end of this post that the U.S. recently released nine Iranian prisoners, including two Quds Force members captured at Irbil; if a deal has been struck, that’s probably a small part of it. He’s also got the scoop about the latest demands from the scum who kidnapped those British hostages back in May. Long story short, they want to exchange them for a man who’ll be familiar to longtime HA readers as one of the biggest trophies yet taken by U.S. troops in Iraq. There’s not a chance in hell that it will happen. Unless, of course, Condi takes over the negotiations.

There’s also a bit of breaking news tonight that Iran might be ready to outsource its nuke program to Switzerland as part of a Muslim nuclear consortium. Don’t you believe it.

More (Bryan): I may have a partial answer to this (in addition to bnelson’s comment below), based on interviews I’ve done and email conversations I’ve had with US commanders in Iraq or recently rotated out of Iraq. One of the primary motivations for Iraqis to join the Shiite militias was, believe it or not, to fight the Sunni insurgents and the foreign al Qaeda forces. Fighting against the US was secondary, if not tertiary, to fighting the various Sunni factions and re-establishing basic order (and running mafia-like crime syndicates). Remember, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s stated goal was to foment a civil war in Iraq by targeting Shias with his Sunni terrorists, and that’s just what he nearly did in 2005-2006. Along with the Sunni dead-enders, the Shiites also saw US forces as occupiers, so instead of working with us they turned to their fellow Shias in Iran for aid and received it in the form of training and materiel (EFPs, etc). But the Sunnis who hosted al Qaeda found those foreign forces to be too brutal against everyone including the Iraqi Sunnis, thus the “awakenings” that we’re hearing so much about as the Sunnis have turned to us for help. Who else was available? They couldn’t go to the Shiite militias whom they’d helped attack and who would never trust them, they certainly couldn’t turn to Iran or the Saudis with us having such a huge presence and the Saudis only capable of sending a few hundred volunteer martyrs and low levels of cash. We were the strongest force on the scene and we weren’t influenced by sectarianism, so they turned to us. As the Sunnis have turned against al Qaeda, they have not only helped us destroy al Qaeda but they have also stopped helping al Qaeda attack Iraqi Shiites. With that change, the primary motivation for Iraqi Shiites to belong to militias has slowly gone away. Iraqis of all stripes tend to be Iraqi nationalists, and even among the Shia there is lingering hatred of Iran from the Iran-Iraq war. On this side of the war, we tend to forget that. Moqtada al-Sadr actually lost some prestige among his own militia and the Iraqi Shia generally when he fled to Iran, because that revealed that he may be more Iranian than Iraqi (or at least that either the Iranians own him or that he’s not quite the Iraqi patriot that the Shia militiamen thought he was). So taken all together, the Shia militias are fragmenting as the rationale for the existence weakens. There are still dangerous and radical elements among them, no doubt about that, just as there are dangerous and radical elements among the Sunni insurgents who are now our allies. But the dynamics of the war have changed over the past few months, making it less profitable and less easy for the Iranians to meddle in Iraq. And in addition to all of that, Iran might be a bit more cooperative now because with the al Qaeda forces in Iraq all but destroyed and the Shia and Sunni fighters becoming less problematic for us, the Iranians might see the massive US presence in Iraq as poised to take on Iran from a secure base in Iraq. Whether that’s true or not, it’s useful for us that the Iranians may see our forces that way.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

With a new Democratic Congress in place and anti-war sentiment burning incandescently before the surge began, why didn’t Iran put the militias in motion and ratchet the violence way up in an all-out push to force Bush into a humiliating withdrawal under fire? Why give him a breather and let the hawks regain some momentum?

You mean when we had 3 carrier task forces in the area and were rounding up all their “diplomats”?

bnelson44 on November 18, 2007 at 8:25 PM

US officials met privately with Iranian officials and remarked afterward that they told Iran that they would not tolerate continued Iranian involvement via Quds force personnel and IED and other weapons transfers to Iraqi insurgents.

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2007/nov/18/did_iran_surrender_to_president_bush_or_pelosi_reid_hillary_obama_in_iraq

bnelson44 on November 18, 2007 at 8:39 PM

I lean towards the notion that Iran saw how easily Israel carried out that mission in Syria unopposed and the fact that their best defense systems are incapable of thwarting an attack from Israel or the U.S.

Figure in the sanctions and Iran has everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Guardian on November 18, 2007 at 8:47 PM

Just another reason to build the government from the bottom up. Skip Baghdad and find local leaders to spend the oil money and provide basic services. Get those leaders elected. I wish we could do it in America.

Theworldisnotenough on November 18, 2007 at 9:05 PM

I agree with Gaurdian. As well as knowing Islamists are the most patient of strategists.

Griz on November 18, 2007 at 10:14 PM

Maybe Iran finally got the message that George Bush will attack them if they don’t back off.

SoulGlo on November 18, 2007 at 10:25 PM

Figure in the sanctions and Iran has everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Guardian on November 18, 2007 at 8:47 PM

That’s right. They have no use in undermining the US in Iraq anymore given that President Bush never gave an inch to Democratic or world pressure. Their strategy failed and they are suddenly realizing that continuing to aid factional terrorism only strengthens Bush’s policy towards them, as well as, weakening their position with the United Nations

Opinionnation on November 18, 2007 at 11:20 PM

Thanks for the update, Bryan. Makes sense.

bnelson44 on November 18, 2007 at 11:34 PM

I lean towards the notion that Iran saw how easily Israel carried out that mission in Syria unopposed and the fact that their best defense systems are incapable of thwarting an attack from Israel or the U.S.

They have the best air defense the Russians sell, and it gave them exactly Jack Schidt when the Little Satan came out to play. Iran does not want a military confrontation with the Great Satan.

The Monster on November 19, 2007 at 12:57 AM

Gun boat diplomacy works……period.

Hening on November 19, 2007 at 8:30 AM

Gun boat diplomacy works……period.

Hening on November 19, 2007 at 8:30 AM

Right on! The answer is that Bush made them an offer they couldn’t refuse!

landlines on November 19, 2007 at 9:55 AM

As a comment on Bryan’s update, it’s interesting to note that Kagan and Keane’s plan for the surge before it was implemented recognized that the Shiite militias were largely a response to the Sunni Insurgency/Al-Quaeda attacks. They were very foreful in arguing that we should be focusing on the Sunni side first with any counterinsurgency efforts, because if we could quell it, then the Shia side could possibly take care of itself. That seems to be what is happening here, and it portends very well that if the Sunnis are quiet at the end of Sadr’s 6 month cease-fire, the rank and file Shias aren’t going to be lining up to start the fighting all over again, even if that’s what might be in Sadr’s best interests. Hell, I’m not even sure if it will even be in Sadr’s best interests to start up the violence again if the people are as fed up with it as they seem to be and the Sunnis have been pacified.

Dudley Smith on November 19, 2007 at 10:14 AM