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.