Muqtada Al-Sadr Flees Iraq for Iran

**singern** · 02-13-2007, 07:40 PM

Anti-American Cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr Reportedly Flees Iraq for Iran
Tuesday, February 13, 2007

WASHINGTON — Anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has fled Iraq for Iran ahead of a security crackdown in Baghdad and President Bush's announced influx of 21,500 U.S. troops, a senior U.S. official said Tuesday.

Al-Sadr left his Baghdad stronghold some weeks ago, the official said. Al-Sadr is believed to be in Tehran, where he has family.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss U.S. monitoring activities, said fractures in al-Sadr's political and militia operations may be part of the reason for his departure. The move is probably not permanent, the official said.

IMO:
This will be a step in the right direction only if he wont be able to continue directing the sectarian terrorism from his hideout in Iran.

And if true ,will Iran tray to arrest him since they claim they are not supporting terrorism in Iraq?

**eliteforce** · 02-13-2007, 08:51 PM

If it's true-then he was anticipating US action against him directly, his moving to Iran is not good news for the US as he would then have no reason to restrain his forces, the only way he can safely get back into Iraq is when the Americans leave.

Iran will absolutly not arrest him, there are other insurgent leaders in Syria living openly, the Syrians and Iranians will simply say these people are not "terrorists", but rather they are "disidents" or people seeking political assylum for opposing the American occupation.

**spywizard** · 02-13-2007, 08:57 PM

It's ok, as soon as Israel nukes Iran there will less issues to deal with...

**mcpeepants** · 02-14-2007, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by spywizard

It's ok, as soon as Israel nukes Iran there will less issues to deal with...

do you think there wouldn't a response if Iran was nuked? what would they have to lose.

**Teabagger** · 02-14-2007, 06:28 AM

What would Iran be able to respond with after Israel dropped the big ones? The game of brinkmanship is meant to be played by smart, reasonable, rational men and governments....the Iranian government possesses none of these qualities...they contiune on a provaocative course of action not believing how insecure it neighbors are becoming with its direction. Hell it won't have to be Israel...Saudi's royal family has everything to lose as Iran spreads its influence.

**spywizard** · 02-14-2007, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by mcpeepants

do you think there wouldn't a response if Iran was nuked? what would they have to lose.

you are refering to the possibility of "assured mutual destruction"...

Iran would be helpless to respond.. now the rest of the world would have to respond, but then the USA would have to step in and defend her..

that's the situation with North Korea, China would defend them, thus we are not able to put enough pressure to stop them..

we can stop sending 1,000,000 tons in grain per month, that would be as start

**DTBusta** · 02-14-2007, 10:10 AM

Just great, now its going to burst into an all out civil war. If he doesn't return and take control of the mahdi army then its all over as far as hope goes.There will be no control over his army?

**DTBusta** · 02-14-2007, 10:12 AM

But America is agreeing with China, Bush said we'd be sending them fuel now since they agreed to stop their program. N Korea is going to be "hooked up" now.

**juicedOUTbrain** · 02-14-2007, 05:53 PM

Do you not see the hypocrisy of using nukes against a country for building a nuclear program...Although im sure its a possibility, they have mantained their nuclear program is for "peaceful purposes"...

So to avoid an unlikely nuclear war in the future, lets just have one now...its ridiculous...and to say ahmedinijad is not a smart man, hes a Dr and an intellectual...theres no "mutually assured destruction" and he knows it...

Nuking Iran will set of a chain reaction that will be unstoppable, IMO...anyone advocating it is out of their mind...to say we should just wipe them off the map to solve all of the problems...thats about as racist and ignorant a statement as someone can make...i hope you were joking.

these people are human, they have families, lives, jobs...what im reading here makes me want to vomit...grow up people, this isnt a school playground, its the planet we live on and if you guys keep up this war mongering anytime you dont get what you want, were all gonna go to hell in a handbasket...

you all think wars the only way to go, you think wars fun?...here ya go toughguys...Marine Recruitment

sure some wars are nessasary...this isnt one of them, IMO...This is good old fashion imperialism...

**mcpeepants** · 02-14-2007, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by spywizard

you are refering to the possibility of "assured mutual destruction"...

Iran would be helpless to respond.. now the rest of the world would have to respond, but then the USA would have to step in and defend her..

that's the situation with North Korea, China would defend them, thus we are not able to put enough pressure to stop them..

we can stop sending 1,000,000 tons in grain per month, that would be as start

stopping the shipment of grain to North Korea could lead to the death of thousands of North Korean similar to the famine they had in the 1990s that killed hundreds of thousands of Koreans. the food that North Korea does have would go to the leadership, the elite, and the military.

The second they see missiles or planes coming into their country, Iran could retaliate. They could hit our ships in the gulf and military bases in the region with their long range missiles. The shia in Iraq could turn against the US and really start attacking foregin troops and cut of are supply lines. there are also thousands of Iran agents and special forces in Iraq and another countries. Iran could film the devastation of the attacks. If people saw dying men, woman,and children, people in world would turn against the US govt or Israel. Also, what if the fallout blows into other gulf states or into Pakistan and India. This is also ignoring the effect on the price oil which would hurt a lot of the world economy. Mutually assured destruction doesn't apply because Iran doesn't have nukes. This would be an illegal and immoral attack that has nothing to do with defense and I how the leader who order such an attack be tried for war crimes.

**Logan13** · 02-15-2007, 10:48 PM

Why Democrats Might Hope al-Sadr Is Still in Iraq
foxnews/By John Gibson
02/14/07
Where is Muqtada al-Sadr? Democrats leading the anti-Iraq surge debate in Congress might be hoping he's still in Iraq and here's why.

If al-Sadr has actually left Iraq to hide out in Iran — as the U.S. military reports — it strongly suggests that even prospect of a surge and a crackdown in Baghdad by American and Iraqi troops will work. If al-Sadr doesn't want to be around for a surge, what does that say about the surge? That it's a failure before it even begins? That it can't possibly work? That it's another stupid idea from the lying and incompetent Bush administration? Al-Sadr is interested in staying alive. That may be why he is not hanging around Baghdad as American troops are coming in with serious business on their mind.

So how does it square that the Democrats in Congress are rushing to the floor of the House to condemn the surge and Muqtada al-Sadr is rushing out of Baghdad to avoid it? The Democrats will probably take the opportunity to adjust their rhetoric for a few days: less actual condemnation of the surge, more condemnation of the war in Iraq in general. That would be rhetorically wise.
Look, Iraq may be a lost cause. The Iraqi government hasn't proved itself worthy of our respect yet. We shall see how that all works out.

What I do know is that American troops are still scary to a lot of people. Sadr's Mahdi Army doesn't particularly want to tangle with American troops. They have taken down their checkpoints and have slipped back into the shadows. You notice the insurgents fire off roadside bombs from a safe distance.

Congresspeople are right to be upset that Iraq isn't going as any of us would have liked. But to threaten to pull support from the troops and the president when the Iraqi-elected leadership has subverted the efforts of the very troops and president who allowed that government to come into existence is the height of absurdity.

Watch al-Sadr. He is a human weathervane for how the war is going. If it's true he's in Iran, the wind is blowing favorably for us.