Once Hated by U.S. and Tied to Iran, Is Sadr Now ‘Face of Reform’ in Iraq?

This guy's idea of reform is to replace Sunni Islamic fanaticism with Iranian-inspired Shia fanaticism. Pick your poison.

There is only one question to ask about Sade and his future with the United States: can he spend the vigorish? Can he stay at a Trump Property, can he overpay for a Trump Residence, can he cover the greens fees? If so, how many millions can he commit? He ain’t China, so he don’t have to come up with five hundred millions, but he gotta make The Family’s attention worthwhile.

Al Sadr is an opportunist, pure and simple.

Moktada Sadr has just won a democratic election by the Iraqis. But the US hates him, has labeled him a terrorist and have concluded he belongs in Guantanamo. So Americans have decided that he is not the real winner.Therefore now are we going to foment violence by disgruntled Iraqis with our support to question his legitimacy? Will he be assasinated as he is walking in broad daylight by American mercenaries? We've had a lot of practice at this. A democratically elected Government in Iran is toppled to install a cruel despot, a US lackey who will throw Iran's vast oil reserves wide open to America while keeping his narcissistic wife happy with Dior and Jimmy choos. In Egypt the democratically elected Government of Muslim Brotherhood is toppled for the tyrant Sisi, who is even fêted at the White House. And Gaza is still being brutalized for electing Hamas. The fact is the US is the most cruel of all, hiding behind a cloak of Democracy. We are wreaking death and destruction on every people and every land we step into. Their lives are insignificant, their upheaval and displacement inconsequential, their loss of their communities and homes worthless. When will we regain our moral compass or is too late already?

If they really want reform and entry into the current century they should elect someone normal, not a religious-fanatic in a costume and 6th century headgear. It's a natural that this guy will automatically make enemies with those not of his religious affiliation. His beliefs practically require it.

A Sunni-killing Shiite takes over in Iraq. He used to be part of the leadership of an armed opposition. Now we want to make nice with him. Bolton is in charge on our end. What could go wrong?

The fighting in Basra had far less to do with the weakening of Sadr’s position in Iraq than did the Battle of Sadr City in 2008, after which Jaysh al Mahdi Special Groups effectively ceased to exist. Further reporting should include this pivotal fight and its importance in eliminating the Shi’a extremist threat in Iraq.

"one of the greatest threats to peace and stability in Iraq"? That describes us.

4424 GIs Killed in Action and 31952 GIs Wounded in Action, not to mention the thousands of GI's suffering from Pstd, or the countless killed and wounded contractors and allied soldiers, for this? Well done, George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice and all your Sycophants. You can really be proud of yourselves.

"Hated by the US." I think you mean hated by the official government line. The same government that said "Weapons of Mass Destruction," and that "Iraq was behind 9/11," as we didn't want to upset the ACTUAL Saudi financiers who sponsored terrorism (then as NOW). Another fairy tale perpetrated by the world's largest arms dealers...the U.S.

Time to leave, and never to return. Let them sort it out. Just contain their upheavals to their area.

Is Sadr going to put Iraq closer to Iran? I think so.

This is an important and quality piece of reporting. I dislike the NYT's growing partisan shillery, but work like this keeps me coming back.

Sadr cannot be trusted; religious radicals that seek an Islamic state do not 'change their minds.' But for every shiite Sadr, there is a Sunni 'Sadr' - it's not only Shiites that seek the Islamic state. More importantly, and most sad, is the fact that most are not as radical as these 'leaders' that take over. They call themselves clerics or Imams and claim to speak for Islam and Muhammad. Not all speak hate and world domination, but too many have a voice that reaches the masses. While in the minority, they have vast power over the people and their actions. I've never understood why clerics aren't investigated and charged with hate speech in the West. Guess we are too afraid to act or speak honestly.

Why is there such a dearth of people who act in the best interests of all without seeking to aggrandize themselves beyond humbly accepting the acclaim such action brings?

This is a hopeful story. Maybe an essential humanitarian-ness that resides in his heart and mind is informing his call for an end to corruption and the elevation of skill and merit over family, tribal and sectarian ties for government positions. That Sadr is asserting pragmatism over ideology should be getting the attention of everyone but shouldn't be cynically dismissed as a political trick. Any fool can look around the world and see the damage corruption, authoritarian leadership and narrow ideologies can do to a country. Maybe Sadr's brand of Islam, or the broad philosophical view he takes to matters of the world, will enable him to resolutely assert humanitarian values over greed, family ties, and even fanatical allegiance to faith. I can forgive him for fighting the Americans. But I won't be able to forgive him for turning his new nationalism into a cudgel against the Kurds in the autonomous region in the north, or a way to create a new security state. I hope he can color his nationalism with a Federalist hue. After all, Iraq owes the Kurds for the sins of Saddam Hussein; and Arab states need a new role model in the region.

The same thing was once thought regarding Fidel Castro, but he quickly proved otherwise. Maybe there is hope, but caution must be exercised here.

This article conveniently neglects to mention the critical role of US and British forces in fomenting the sectarian strife between Sunnis and Shia. This occurred precisely in the context of Sadr’s militias acting in solidarity with the Sunni resistance to the murderous US assault on Faluja. The bloody sectarian fighting that followed over Baghdad undoubtedly hurt Sadr’s potential to act as a unifying figure, but the idea that his patriotic vocation is newly minted has more to do wth the propaganda needs of US foreign policy than Sadr’s actual political history.

The US had disagreements with Sadr but we did not hate him as the title suggests. Those that hated him already hated anyone with a robe and a turban.

Moktada al-Sadr is clearly the 'reform' needed in Iraq and will bring with him 'true democracy'. And Marx was a secret capitalist banker.

This is a reminder that it was George Bush with the encouragement of Bibi Netanyahu who widened Iran's sphere of influence in the region. Iraq was a majority Shia state then as now, but Saddam and his Sunni army kept control over the Shia component. Why did Israel support Bush and where were the Saudis, who are now so worried about Iran today, during the run up to the US invasion of Iraq?

I dont understand why the focus of the headline involves how the USA feels about an elected politician in Iraq, it seems megalomaniacal...

Anti-corruption. Think he got religion?

Sadr’s reinvention could be just media invention because even he would be subject to the great divide between the Shias and the Sunnis.That divide is the basic problem of Iraq .

Change and stability for Iraq is good, but al-Sadr has shown in the past that he is at heart an enemy of the US. Can he change maybe, but as always we have to ask Cui bono?

“.... whoever is best for the job, takes over a ministry and makes it productive. We should try that.” This transformed religious zealot is actually more enlightened than many recent leaders in the US and Canada, who make appointment decisions based on having token representations of gender, sexuality etc. What a concept, appointing the most competent people instead of those who best enable virtue signalling.

So the Iraqi people support a man who was "demonized" by the country who invaded and occupied their country. Who could have anticipated such ingratitude?

Not face of reforms but of radical Islam gaining power in Muslim world while secularism and diversity rules rest of the world?

Some of as-Sadr's speeches during the Iraq War can be seen in the documentary "The Road to Karbala." His justification for attacking US forces during the war was at least in part because the Americans would "prevent [Iraqis] from establishing an Islamic state." Since Iraq is noticably split between Sunnis and Shi'is, one would have to imagine what as-Sadr's idea of an Islamic state would entail - would it be a shared venture between Sunni and Shi'i, or would it be a Shi'i theocracy like Iran? as-Sadr appears to have moderated his views since the early 2000s, but I would be wary of the United States putting any kind of trust in an Iraq controlled by as-Sadr and his coalition.

Looks like the Iraqis want to settle their disputes and build their nation their own way. A good time for Uncle Sam to step back.

Looking back on Sadr's "anti-American" activities, we seem to have totally forgotten that we were the aggressive invaders of Iraq, and people like Sadr made up the resistance. We were there to subjugate Iraq, and they were fighting back. I'm sure the Germans disliked the French resistance too