Al Sadr To Move Base Of Operations To Iran

NAJAF, Iraq — Militant Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr plans to make a series of short visits to Iraq starting within weeks but has decided to make Iran his home base for years to come, a key aide says.

The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not supposed to discuss the subject. He is close to the 35-year-old cleric and has accurately reported on the Sadrist movement for several years.

The aide would not say how long al-Sadr would stay in Iran, where he has lived since May 2007, but said it was "reasonable" to expect he would remain there for five or more years.

That's the time al-Sadr needs to prepare to win acceptance as a "marjaa," joining Iraq's top Shiite leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and three other grand ayatollahs as members of the highest Shiite religious authority.

Al-Sadr announced in March that he had moved to the Iranian holy city of Qom to focus on religious studies _ an essential credential for power in Iraq's majority Shiite community.

The decision to extend his stay could indicate the cleric, whose Mahdi Army militia battled U.S. and Iraqi forces for years, has decided his future lies in politics, not violence.

Last month, al-Sadr announced he was transforming his militia into a social welfare body with a few guerrilla cells to attack U.S. troops if Washington doesn't agree to leave Iraq. The announcement followed setbacks in battles with the U.S.-supported Iraqi army in Baghdad, Basra and Amarah.

The decision to stay in Qom could also be part of a move by Iran to control Shiite resistance in Iraq. The U.S. military believes Iran arms and trains breakaway Mahdi Army cells, a claim the Iranians deny.

Story continues below

advertisement

"He is the guest of the Iranian government who will control him ... until such time they have comfortably wrested control of the Mahdi Army away from him," said Vali Nasr, a U.S.-based expert on Shiite affairs.

Nasr said talk of remaining in Iran for studies or other reasons may be "grandstanding and face-saving talk," suggesting that al-Sadr may not be free to leave.

But al-Sadr's aide said remaining in Iran would allow al-Sadr time to pursue his religious education beyond what he needs to become an ayatollah. Al-Sadr expects to reach that goal in 2010, the aide said.

Al-Sadr realizes it will take longer for him to win a place at the top of the Shiite clerical hierarchy in the holy city of Najaf _ the world's foremost seat of Shiite learning. Najaf's religious establishment is often hostile to newcomers, and money and political connections count nearly as much as scholarship and piety.

Al-Sadr's quest for clerical eminence is likely to rattle the Najaf religious establishment _ immersed in centuries-old traditions and unfamiliar with his mix of street politics, social outreach and violence.

His ambitions may be unrealistic. Even the cleric's aide and a Sadrist lawmaker acknowledged that for al-Sadr to succeed, he must overcome a number of hurdles, including al-Sistani and rivals in the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council _ the country's most powerful Shiite party.

However, al-Sadr's quest may be backed by some in Iran's Shiite clerical hierarchy who are grooming him for leadership.

Two clerics supervising his studies are key Iraqi-born figures in the Iranian clerical establishment _ Grand Ayatollah Kazim al-Haeri and Ayatollah Mahmoud al-Hashemi, the head of the Iranian judiciary.

Al-Sadr comes from one of Najaf's oldest religious families. His father, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, was gunned down by suspected agents of Saddam Hussein in 1999 along with two sons.

Muqtada al-Sadr's wife is a daughter of Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, a distant relative of his father and one of Shiite Islam's most prominent theologians. He was tortured to death in 1980 by Saddam's agents.

But al-Sistani, who is 80 and is still an Iranian citizen more than a half century after settling in Iraq, dominates the religious establishment. He was at odds with al-Sadr's father and is said to consider the son an upstart whose actions are unbecoming for a cleric.

Al-Sistani suffers from a heart condition for which he received treatment in London in 2004.

The leader of the Supreme Council, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, is an al-Sistani ally and an al-Sadr critic; he has been diagnosed with lung cancer.

Their departure would remove the toughest opponents to al-Sadr's recognition as a marjaa.

"If al-Sadr declares himself a marjaa too soon or under unsuitable circumstances, even a hint from al-Sistani that questions his credentials will stick to him for years," said the al-Sadr aide. "The conditions must be perfect and that's why al-Sadr decided to focus on his studies for many years."

Comments

[marissyb29]

"Asharq Alawsat reported on August 18, 2008, that Hizbullah operatives were involved in attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces in four Iraqi provinces. In June 2006, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield disclosed that Hizbullah cadres had attacked U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq. Hizbullah units claimed responsibility for operations against coalition forces and Iraqi security personnel as early as the latter part of 2005."

Read more about this news piece from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs:
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=2509&TTL=Hizbullah"s_Role_in_Attacks_Against_U.S._and_British_Forces_in_Iraq

[WasteNJ]

Sadr will return to Iraq once his studies are complete and his position within the Iranian Shiite hierarchy is solidified. Iraqi clerics will have no choice but to accept him as he'll be fully backed by the Iranian Shiite seat of power. Sadr will run for office, and this is where the two countries will essentially become one, Iran will direct Sadr and both will work to make Iraq a Sharia state.

Nothing we can really do about it, we should be long gone by then. Que sera sera.

[RobinSeattle]

I don't know. This has all the earmarks of Kim Il-sung's entrance into North Korea once the Soviets had cleared the field for him. It is hard to believe that Sadr would go to Iran to be a prisoner of the regime there. Either Iran is eventually gong to use Sadr as a local proxy to take over once the Americans leave or Sadr just wants to personally sit out the inevitable civil war to avoid being assassinated and then, like the Ayatollah Khomeini, waltz back in from abroad to sit atop the government of an Islamic nation once that conflict is decided.

As for Al Qaeda in Iraq, the locals in Iraq got tired of that little glorified street gang and have chased them out. There is zero evidence that the Americans had much to do with that.

All the surge did was deprive U.S. forces in Afghanistan of military resources that were needed to stave off a resurgent Taliban.

We are thus set up right now to get nothing for our blood and treasure thanks to Bush and Cheney. That is nothing to be cheerful about.

[Oldbuck]

This a civil war with a cap on it and its going to happen sooner than later. We have not accomplished one thing the country is going to be taken over by fundamentalist Shiites leader. It will be a lot more unstable that when Saddam was in control. This is no knock on our military they have done everything asked of them and preformed in honorable way. Its just no thought before doing this by our leaders.

[deminmo]

Not much rhetoric about Iran from either Washington
or Israel lately. Ok, we had that little thing with Russia
and Georgia. And the olympics. But are those carriers
still headed for the Middle East, and is Bush still going to
do the naval blockade thing? Of course Bush is getting his
agreement with Iraq, and he is setting up a timetable
for withdrawl. Does that mean the US won the war?

[mexicanamerican1948]

With all this good news, maybe the foreign policy of the administration is working, NO, let's make up excuses.
1. I was against it before I was for it
2. We paid everyone off
3. He left be he is coming back in a year, its a secret
4. The surge did not work
5. The surge never existed,we just paid the money
6. (fill in here)
We can then use that spin and always deny any good news...

[UltraClassic]

Good one MexicanAm. Yep, things must be getting pretty hot in the kitchen for Al Sadar. But trust me, these Huff-O-Matics in here can parrot a million reasons why this killer is moving his base of operations and none of those reasons will have anything to do with US success.

Hard core leftist and liberals and George Bush haters in general are so bound and determined to create a failure in Iraq, they can taste it, they can feel it. Lucky for use, Obama showed a small bit of pragmatic thinking in his pick of Biden. I don't think Biden will allow Obama and the MoveOn / DailyKos crowd to destroy Iraq the gains made in Iraq in the name of getting at George Bush.

[bleek]

The CIA is an equal-opportunity employer: bin Laden (Sunni), al-Sadr (Shiite), Karzai (Pashtun?). Diversity is alive and well.

[minnehot]

Yep, the Surge didn't work and the proof is that Al Sadr is going into self-exile in Iran! I know this because Obama says so! It wasn;t really the performance of our brave soliders that defeated our enemies - it was the election of a Democratic Congress!

[Coattails]

This Sadr character is a bad guy and is responsible for deaths of US troops as well of Iraqi's. He fled into one of the holiest sites in Iraq in his biggest run in with the US, which he knew we could not enter or fire upon, which led to the US bringing in Al'Sistani to mediate and save his life.

This is a bad person, my guess is he wants to see Iraq become a Islamic state just like Iran is, with virtually no democracy and Ayatollah's edicts (who he hopes would be his) become law.

[GleenTurner]

Saddam hated Islamists and terrorists

[lioness39]

He sure did. There would have been no Bin Laden in Baghdad under Saddam's rule. His was a secular nation. And to Durango, with whom I also agree: the oft repeated phrase: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[Durango]

As long as you see the world in terms of "good guys" Vs "Bad guys" you will continue to make the mistakes that have been so costly to the United States in terms of life and treasure,

The United States has INTERESTS. And US policy should be guided by fulfilling those interests.

We did not invade Iraq because Saddam was a "bad guy."

We invaded because Cheney wanted to corner the worlds oil supply. And insert an American client state, if not outright colony, in the heart of the oil producing world.

The demonization of Saddam was part of a carefully planned propaganda campaign to justify an illegal invasion.

The demonization of al Sadr is similar.

He is a leader in Iraq. We need to deal with him one way or another.

Get over the personalization of Foreign policy.

And deal with reality.

[joebiz]

No duh? Iraq is an interest for the United States and it's allies. And, competing nation-states like China, Russia, and Iran among others.

Where were you since 1991? The second Gulf War is but a continuation of the First Gulf War. It began with an invasion by Hussein and annexation of Kuwait by the Republican Army. Hussein should have been removed in 1991.

You don't have a grasp on the 4 reasons for regime change, codified in international law and the UN, laws that Iraq was a signatory to all 4:

1) Invasion of nations without the approval of the UN and the Security Council. Iraq did not ask or have permission to invade Kuwait and Iran. He stated he would not have removed had he had a nuclear bomb.

2) Genocide. Hussein gassed, maimed and killed 15,000 men women and children in Kurdistan and used it against the Iranians in their war of attrition where over 1.5 million Muslims died. Hussein attacked and KILLED Muslims. The terror imposed by the Ba'athist party on the Iraqis was legendary.

3) The acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. He used them against Iran and used them against the Kurds. Both Muslim groups, neighbors. and long and ancient peoples in Iraq.

4) Iraq harbored international gangsters and terrorists. Hussein had Abu Nidal living on a diplomatic passport!!!

Yeah, Al Sadr is a bad guy. He's a murderous theocrat funded by the Iran.

[indyleftist]

Anonymous sources = Propaganda

This is a long standing re-occurring ploy by the US military to get Sadr to reveal his whereabouts so they can assassinate him. They've floated this story many times over the years.
Bottom line is they have no idea where Sadr is or has been all this time.
He could be in Iran. He could not be.
After all "Sadr City" as they call it is literally half of Baghdad, plenty of places to hide

[dlswriter]

The Surge paid Sadr $330 Million to take a vacation. Sadr got greedy, came back, and the Surge paid him another $300 Million for a cease fire. By any reasonable calculation, the Surge has probably made another settlement to him to leave Iraq.

There is no doubt that we, the taxpayers, have paid Sadr $1 BILLION.

This is your SURGE!

[Whinger]

Mr Sadr has an overdeveloped sense of self preseveration, it's not the first time he ran to his masters!

Looks to me like the war is on again, the terms of eviction are not harsh enough for Iran!

[Crowhaul]

Just another thing the Repugs have screwed up. Seriously, these people should not be allowed ANYWHERE near the White House.

[Roguewolf]

screwed-up? I thought he was the reason for the success of thee surge. Now he runs off to Iran to hide. More and more history is showing how you all were wrong and you cannot admit it. I know how badly you want America to lose but the great American Military and their brothers in arms in Iraq won't let that happen. We will bring peace, freedom and democracy to Iraq.

[Blutus]

In your dreams. The SECOND America leaves, Iraq will
erupt like never before and it will be business as usual,
people who believe in Allah blowing each other to pieces.

And the sooner the better.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

The accompanying photo:

Anti-Americans protesting AGAINST the removal of US troops??

They must be Repub licans.

[separatingwheatfromchaff]

I guess this kind of seals the deal for Obama,everything he predicted came true,even about the shrub.Time to name the VP and go on to victory.

[Roguewolf]

He predicted? He said no matter how many troops we put in Iraq the surge wouldn't work. He said pull out immediately, then he said 16 months, then he said when the Commanders on the ground say the time is right (what President Bush said all along) Barry changes his view faster than Phelps wins gold medals.

[MarciaJ720]

When we don't have to pay people off anymore and we can pull all 350,000 military people (both the private and public ones), then I will agree the surge worked.

Until then, it's a band aid with a lot of money paying people off and a lot of concrete walls separating people from one another.

The surge only sent the Al Qaeda people back over to Afghanistan.

Why do so-called Christians love war so much? I guess they think they are better than everyone else.

[NotesFromME]

Obama opposed the surge because the major issues in Iraq were political, not military. He argued for a balanced, genuine political solution that protected the rights of all the factions in Iraq. He was right then, and he is right now.

The "surge" has entrenched the Shia majority, allied with Iran, at the expense the more secularized Sunni population. We will not end up with a US allied regime in Iraq as a direct result of Bush's policies. Bush was played by al Maliki, and now he is being told to get out. Remember, the Darwa party that al Maliki leads, supports Iran and Hezbollah.

The surge contributed to the subsidence of violence in Iraq--along with a policy of paying former insurgents not to kill us, the completion of ethnic cleansing that resulted in 4.5 million refugees and the flight of the middle class, making Baghdad into a series of ethnic concentration camps, and convincing the Sadrists to stand down and bide their time for a future, enhanced, political role in a post-occupation Iraq.

As I said, Obama was right--in his analysis and policy prescriptions--then, and now.

[joebiz]

Interesting how one of the most murderous theocratic leaders became a "grand ayatollah" of a religious sect.

Believers of this religious sect must remove their shoes to enter a mosque. Not surprisingly, the same followers of this sect have forced innocent and hard working Americans to do the same before boarding an airplane.

[abouttime]

Interesting how his father, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, was gunned down by suspected agents of Saddam Hussein in 1999 along with two sons. Interesting how al-Sadre helped bring about a truce with Iraq, Iran and the US (US taxes to extort other unsurgents to cease fire). Interesting how al- Sade is called anti-American for protecting the poor in Iraq from US invaderers bombs and bullets. Interesting how you do not see that the US IS the most murderous nations on Eartth and that you are so worried about taking off your shoes.

[thebeerdoctor]

Thank you abouttime, it is indeed about time that all the self-righteous jingoism be given a rest.