Fresh scrutiny on a rogue Pentagon operation.

Or, in other words "how long has this been goin'on?

Also see, this.

Not that Iran's influence in Iraq has ever been seriously questioned in the media - it has, but for all the wrong reasons, which is the basis of some growing suspicions I've had recently on a developing collusion between Iran, the U.S., and its quisling Maliki/Badr government. But because relations between the U.S. and Iran overshadow whats happening in Iraq the standard narrative gets split into two mutually exclusive stories that are/have been allowed to co-exist as if they are not connected. The prime example of such is that the Iranians have been extending its influence by funding "special groups" and supplying various militias with contemporary weaponry and training, especially Sadr's JAM militia. This fuels the general U.S. strategic narrative that Iran is on the move throughout the M.E. funding various threats to U.S./Israeli hegemony. On the flip side is the government of Iraq, which is underwritten by the Badr Organization- an organization co-founded in Iran by the the Iranian IRGC and a rare coordination of Baqir al-Hakim and Baqir al Sadr. After the initial U.S. invasion the Badr was permitted (by the U.S.) to return to Iraq and eventually formed the pan Shiite coalition UIA party alliance currently in power, and took control of the police intelligence/death squad Interior Ministry (talk about "special groups") and have filled the regular ISF. This side of the narrative of course, has received about zero media attention - a blanket of silence on the "influence" that Iran might have sequestered right smack in the seat of power in the green zone. Why is this?

My guess, as to why is this, is that all along there has been a tacit "arrangement" between Iran and the U.S. - that according to and following from between the lines in the above article, it becomes much clearer by the day where this train is coming from and where it is bound. Forget for a minute that the U.S. could be clueless about the intimate connections between its quisling government and the Iranian IRGC/Qods force/intelligence services because whats been revealed recently, in the Iranian/U.S. war on Sadr, is that the U.S. and Iran are indeed have parallel interests and that these parallel interests are admitted so much by Iranian Qods force negotiator Brig.Gen. Qassem Soleimani, whom was recently met with by Iraqi presiden Talabini:

Talabani, other senior Iraqi officials, and the commander of Iran's Qods Force, Brig. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, in April, after clashes with Sadr's Mahdi Army in Basra. In that meeting, General Soleimani "was deeply concerned" and "promised to stop arming groups in Iraq and to ensure that groups halt activities against US forces," according to a description given by a US official to the Monitor.

Soleimani gave Mr. Talabani a "message" for US Gen. David Petraeus, too. He noted that his portfolio includes Iraq, Gaza, and Lebanon and that he was willing to "send a small team" to "discuss any issue" with the Americans.


[...]
Two weeks ago, an Iraqi delegation sent to Iran by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki returned with promises that Iran would support Mr. Maliki's Shiite-led government and lean on Sadr to reach a truce.

Iran "committed to acting more positively, and we are now awaiting evidence of that commitment," says Haidar Abbadi, a member of parliament from Maliki's Dawa Party. The Sadr City cease-fire is a "good sign" that shows the Iranians "putting pressure on the militants there."

"The Iranians have a direct role with the Mahdi Army," says Mr. Abbadi, "and the Iraqi government has decided it won't accept that role at this point."

Prior to that visit, in late March, Soleimani intervened with Sadr to halt the fighting in the southern city of Basra, stopping the violence just one day after a personal face-to-face request from Talabani.

But it is details of a second Talabani-Soleimani meeting just days later, around April 4, between two men who have known each other for more than two decades, that caught Iraqi and US attention.

Doubt on the US side runs deep, though Soleimani listed Iranian aims and even "common goals with the United States" in Iraq that virtually mirror stated US policy points, according to the description of the meeting.
[...]
"We all must work together – Iraq, Iran, and the United States – to stabilize the situation," the Iraqi president said Soleimani told him. He declared Iran's unequivocal support for the Maliki government, for its efforts to dismantle all militias, and Iran's support for the unity of Iraq.
[...]
Sadr was now the biggest threat to peace in Iraq, Soleimani said, echoing past Pentagon assessments. "We now recognize [that] Sadrists have gotten outside anyone's control" which is a "dangerous development for Iraq, for Iran and for all Shia," he indicated, according to the description. Iran could not control Sadr even in Iran, where the cleric is currently taking advanced religious training, and his return to Iraq would "be a big danger."
[...]
Soleimani also, according to the official, said that Iran would "not stand in the way of [Iraqi] efforts to negotiate an agreement with the US," which he termed a "good thing for Iraq," referring to a deal on the long-term status of American troops in Iraq.

I've deleted all the "reservations" in the piece by both U.S. and Iranian officials in this post, in that they both play to the propaganda value necessary to posture their respective positions. In spite of the fact that both their respective actions on the ground reveal their all to real true parallel intentions. Or, in other words "how long has this been goin'on? ~AM