President Bush's nonsensical policy on Iran is pushing Iran into the arms of Russia and China, moving it from the "axis of evil" to what Flynt Leverett calls the "axis of oil." The Russians and Chinese are suitably cautious, though. Here's an item from the Washington Times:

Seeking to break out of its diplomatic isolation, Iran has applied for full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, an alliance dominated by China and Russia and seen as challenging U.S. security interests in Central Asia. ... Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki revealed on a visit to Tajikistan late last month that Tehran had applied for full membership in the six-nation SCO, which last expanded when Uzbekistan was invited to join in 2001. ...

Pushed strongly by Moscow and Beijing, the growing alliance has unnerved U.S. officials, who fear it could be used to blunt American influence in the region. ...

China and Russia have been noncommittal on the Iranian offer, and both capitals are believed to be reluctant to bring in Iran when its relations with the United States are so hostile. Moscow has sided with the Bush administration in pressuring Iran to renounce any plans for nuclear weapons. ... Beijing stopped well short of an endorsement when noting the Iranian SCO membership request.

The Sadrist office in Najaf has called for a big anti-American demonstration in that holy city next Wednesday, April 9.

Iraqis I've been talking to say that there is a silent majority among the Shia in Iraq's south who don't like either the Mahdi Army or ISCI (Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq), although they're not represented by any organized force. They include tribal leaders, followers of former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, remnants of the secular, urban middle class, and others. One question is: do they have any potential? Is there any likelihood of a "Shia Awakening," modeled on the Sunni-led Awakening (sahwa) in Anbar?

In the Times today there is a photo of Prime Minister Maliki shaking hands with a group of southern tribal leaders. The caption reads:

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki met with tribal elders in Basra, seeking an alliance with Shiites, as Americans had done with Sunni tribes in the so-called Anbar Awakening.

When I asked a senior U.S. military commander about the establishment of "Concerned Local Citizen" (CLC) groups in southern Iraq, he said:

"From a security point of view, or maybe from a political base as well, deep in the south there are no CLC groups being formed. They’re not being allowed to form. They’re not going to form CLC groups. There’s enough different elements in the south that are well armed that will continue to provide the security they provide. The CLC groups are not part of the landscape in the deep south. But CLC groups in the belt south of Baghdad have formed. Twenty percent of all local CLC groups are Shia. And they’ve been the newer of the CLC groups."

But is something happening in Nasiriya, the capital of Dhi Qar province?

There was heavy fighting there between the Mahdi Army and the Iraqi government forces, presumabhly including ISCI forces and the Badr Corps, last week. From the Times:

There was intense fighting for a second day north of Basra in Dhi Qar Province and its capital, Nasiriya, where officials said the toll on Saturday was 28 killed and 59 wounded. There were running battles on a main bridge in Nasiriya, an Iraqi police officer said, and gunmen controlled the town of Shatra, about 20 miles north.

Then VOI reports that tribesmen in that city allied themselves with the government. Here's an excerpt:

Hundreds of Dhi Qar's tribesmen joined a demonstration on Tuesday that supported the government's attempts to impose law and stabilize security in Iraq's provinces. They issued a statement to disavow outlaws, demanding to limit the ownership of weapons to the state exclusively, and to show tribes' readiness to assist security forces in confronting armed groups. ...

In a statement issued by the demonstrating tribes and received by Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq – (VOI), the tribes asserted that they disavow "any outlaw, or anyone who would try to disturb the peace and security in our city and Iraq, and to inform security forces of any violation, if it occurs, and to forbid any Iraqi blood, regardless of it roots and ideologies."

The release indicated that the tribes agreed to consider it "lawful to kill anyone who commits any aggressive act against the law or security services, and he should pay 150 million Iraqi dinars in compensation, according to the tribal traditions, in addition to the regular legal measures."

It also referred, "A tribe or individual is responsible for protecting a wanted suspect or storing weapons that would be used against the state, and anyone who commits a sin, crime, disturbs the country's security, or attacks the state's properties, will be arrested, according to the law, regardless of his political affiliation or influences, and his tribe will not demand his release, and the law will deal with him."

Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute wonders about this too:

What does the agreement between tribal leaders in Dhi Qar Province and the Iraqi Government portend? Will the government accept "sons of Iraq" in Shia areas? This development could be the start of a significant shift in the political sands in southern Iraq--or not.

Speaking at a conference in Washington yesterday, sponsored by the National Iranian American Council, Senator Feinstein (D.-Calif.) said some remarkably sensible things about Iran (and Iraq):

The question is: how should we proceed with Iran? I believe we should begin to pursue a robust, diplomatic initiative with Iran on all issues and without pre-conditions. Working with our European allies, the United Nations, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, we should put together a package of carrots and sticks that will serve as the basis for discussion with Iran. ...

Offers have been made before and have gone nowhere. But these offers have been presented with pre-conditions and without the full engagement of the United States. We need a fresh approach and fresh ideas. ...

And on Iraq:

Iran recently proved helpful in brokering a ceasefire between Prime Minister al-Maliki and Muqtada al-Sadr’s JAM militias in Basra. Clearly, a more positive relationship with Iran might be helpful in stabilizing Iraq.

When I read this piece in the Wall Street Journal, I thought it was satire. But no. I'ts called "Let's 'Surge" Some More." To wit:

A young Iraqi translator, wounded in battle and fearing death, asked an American commander to bury his heart in America. Iraqi special forces units took to the streets to track down terrorists who killed American soldiers. The U.S. military is the most respected institution in Iraq, and many Iraqi boys dream of becoming American soldiers. Yes, young Iraqi boys know about "GoArmy.com."

Yes, Iraqis all want their hearts buried in America. Except that nasty Muqtada fellow.

At his appearance at the Heritage Foundation, Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

I would hope that in the future we could figure out a way to dialogue with them to figure out a way ahead. We've done that in the past with our enemies. We should be able to do that as well.

Meanwhile, in Shanghai, talks went nowhere among the big powers on what to do about Iran's nuclear research program. "We can say we agreed on the main content of a plan to restart negotiations, but not all the problems have been resolved," Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister He Yafei told reporters. You'd think President Bush might send Admiral Mullen to talk to Iran directly, rather than meeting in Shanghai with Chinese, Russian, and European diplomats. Oh, that's right. Bush. Never mind.

Adding fool to the fire, the Wall Street Journal taunts Bush about why he's planning to "slink out of office" leaving Iran intact:

So: Iran is contributing to the death of GIs, is arming our enemies in Iraq, and is proceeding to ignore the world by enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon. Is the Bush Administration merely going to slink out of office with that legacy?

From Politico, an interview with Howard Berman (D.-Calif.), the new chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, suggesting a "grand bargain" with Iran:

"My notion at this point is, why don’t we get buy-in from the key countries that need to be working together, with the proposition that we’re prepared to negotiate with the Iranians on an end to their nuclear weapons program, a verifiable end, honest suspension of their support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and we’re willing to put our relationship with Iran on the table in terms of normalization, ending the boycott and abandoning any notion that we are going to try and change Iran’s regime.”

During her "surprise" visit to Iraq, Condi Rice went out of her way to taunt Muqtada al-Sadr:

"He is still living in Iran. I guess it's all out war for anybody but him. His followers can go to their death and he will still be in Iran."

Sadr is vulnerable on the Iran charge, since he's made it a point of pride that (unlike the Hakims of ISCI) he stayed in Iraq throughout the Saddam era, and his off-again, on-again anti-Iran stance is key to his ability to project himself as a nationalist. But if I were Rice, who seems to be itching for a showdown with Sadr, I wouldn't rattle his cage like that. Sounds a lot like: "Bring 'em on."

No one really knows the relative strength of Sadr's militia in relation to the Hakims' Badr Corps, the Iraqi army, the police, etc., and even the issue of which faction controls how much of the army and police is confusing. But there's no doubt any longer that both the United States and its Shia allies (Prime Minister Maliki and Hakim-ISCI-Badr) are willing to confront Sadr head on.

Iran's ambassador in Baghdad, a former officer in the Revolutionary Guards, confounded a lot of pundits by backing the crackdown in Basra, seemingly siding with Maliki over Sadr. Nicely, he pulled the rug out from under the United States by making it clear that in the Shia-vs.-Shia battles in Iraq, figuring out which side Iran is on is not so easy. (Those familiar with my writing know that I've written extensively about Iran's ties to the Hakims.) Clearly, Iran is unhappy with the Mad max-like state of oil-rich Basra. But at the same time, the Iranian ambassador expressed unhappiness with the assault on Sadr City, lending some Iranian backing to Sadr's main base of operations.

In an interview in the Post, Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari noted that Iraq's (Sunni) Arab neighbors "always complain that there is extended Iranian influence" in Iraq. He added:

"Our argument with them is that you have to blame yourselves. They [the Iranians] are there and you're not there. A majority of the Iraqi people want to see you standing with them, beside them."

Asked about U.S. charges that Iran supplies weapons and training for Shia rebels, Zebari said that Iraq has asked Iranian leaders about that:

"There hasn't been any public statement, but in discussions, in face-to-face bilaterals with the Iranians, yes, we do raise it . . . very seriously. They don't deny it, to be honest with you."

Instead the Iranians say: "There could be violations, here and there."

Writing in the Weekly Standard, Tom Donnelly, an AEI fellow, singled out my recent Nation piece on the battle of Basra, in which I noted (1) that Iran emerged victorious by mediating an end to the conflict and (2) that Muqtada al-Sadr humiliated Prime Minister Maliki by stalling his offensive in the southern Iraqi city last month. Somewhat laughably, Donnelly suggests House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who came to similar conclusions) was "parroting the left's judgment" (especially mine). If only.

You can read all of Donnelly's piece here, and mine here.

Donnelly makes some points that need responding to, however.

First, he points out that Iran endorsed Maliki's offensive against "outlaws" in Basra, and that Iraqi government forces have now taken control of several neighborhoods in Basra that had been Sadr strongholds--all true. But what does Donnelly make of this? Here's what apparently happened: as the Basra battle stalled, Iran brokered a deal that persuaded Sadr to stand down in Basra. (This was the deal brokered by the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.) Iran made a tactical decision to back the alliance between Maliki and the IRGC-trained Badr Corps of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. That's not surprising, since Iran has long backed ISCI and its chief Iraqi ally. It's odd, and interesting, that the neocons are sanguine about Iran's close ties to the Maliki-ISCI regime, and I've written extensively (here and here) about how the neocons got into bed with Iran's allies in Iraq. Donnelly is doing it again.

Second, Donnelly points out that the Iranian ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi-Qomi, opposes the U.S.-led assault on Sadr City in Baghdad. True also. But he doesn't comment on the significance of this, saying nonchalantly: "It's very difficult to tell who's up and who's down in Baghdad on a day-to-day basis." Yet this is a crucial point. Iran has played a careful, and highly effective, balancing game, in which it titrates its support for Maliki-ISCI with support to Sadr as well. Iran is building up chips in Iraq, and it's willing to trade those chips for a broader deal with the United States. During my recent trip to Iran, many Iranian officials said exactly that, stressing that Iraq is a place where the United States and Iran can agree. But the neocons don't want a deal with Iran. They want a pro-American Iraq that can be used to "roll back" the "rogue state" of Iran, as John McCain might say.

Donnelly insists that the "surge" has brought the U.S. to the brink of victory in Iraq. "This moment of flux is also a moment of tremendous opportunity for the United States and its Iraqi allies," he writes, one that can "[bring] to power a newly responsive central government." But he doesn't say exactly how. Obviously, such a central government would have to marry Shia power with Sunni resistance and Kurdish separatism in some broad accord. What's the evidence that this is happening? Will Iran help persuade its Shia allies to make concessions to the Sunnis, incuding the new Sons of Iraq sahwa movement? They might, but there's not much evidence they will. More likely is that some new nationalist formation will gradually emerge among the Shia of Baghdad and southern Iraq, a sort of Shia Sons of Iraq movement, that will defeat the power of the separatist ISCI forces. If that happens, it will be with the support of millions of independent, nationalist-minded Shia, including the tribes of southern Iraq. That force will also include most, if not all, of Sadr's movement -- whether or not Sadr goes along. And it will include hundreds of thousands of Shia ex-Baathists, many of whom have found a home in Sadr's movement.

Sometimes it's helpful to see, all in one place, the list of useless and dangerous anti-terror institutions and laws that the Bush administration has rammed through since 9/11. All of this, mind you, even though not a single American has even been punched in the nose by an angry Muslim since September, 2001. Against that weak-to-nonexistent threat, the White House has mobilized vast resources. In a speech to WINEP, Juan Zarate, the deputy national security adviser for combatting terrorism, laid it all out:

Now, we have in place the structures -- like NCTC, the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, NORTHCOM, DOJ's National Security Divisions, the FBI's National Security Branch, and Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI) -- that institutionalize the counterterrorism and homeland defense missions.

In addition, we have much of the legal framework -- based on the Patriot Act, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act (IRTPA), and other key administrative and legal provisions -- to fight this long war effectively. A key piece of legislation -- the modernization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- remains to be passed in Congress.

Whew! And more to come.

Most of the attention is on what the military calls Shia "special groups," who've been blamed for three-fourths of anti-American violence in Iraq lately. But now comes a reminder that there is still a Sunni-led resistance, too. Iraqi National Security Adviser Muwafaq al-Rubaei told Voices of Iraq that Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, the former vice president and Baathist, is based in Damascus and supporting fighters in Iraq.

Rubaei said that former vice president Izzat al-Douri is in Syria. "We have an accurate intelligence report which indicates that he is Syria and he finances several armed groups," said Rubaei.

What's this? General Ray Odierno, the new commander in Iraq (replacing General Petraeus) got a backhanded compliment from John McCain, who said that General Odierno “is maybe not perfect, but I think he has done a magnificent job.”

A worrisome note in a CBS piece on the growing danger of U.S.-Iran conflict over Iraq, linked to Iran's support to Shia fighters:

The State Department has begun drafting an ultimatum that would tell the Iranians to knock it off - or else.

CBS describes Pentagon planning for a possible military action, saying:

Targets would include everything from the plants where weapons are made to the headquarters of the organization known as the Quds Force which directs operations in Iraq.