Sadr sees more of a future for himself in Iraq as the leader of a political constituency within the democratic process than as than as the leader of an insurgency that opposes it.

How do you get the pig to sit still while you apply the lipstick?

ZBIG
In my view, it is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities. First, the war in Iraq is a historic strategic and moral calamity undertaken under false assumptions. It is undermining America’s global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties, as well as some abuses, are tarnishing America’s moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.

Secondly, only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and intensifying regional tensions.
[...]
Ending the occupation and shaping a regional security dialogue should be the mutually reinforcing goals…..The quest to achieve these goals should involve four steps.

First, the United States should reaffirm explicitly and unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq in a reasonably short period of time…Ambiguity regarding the duration of the occupation in fact encourages unwillingness to compromise and intensifies the underlying civil strife. Moreover, such a public declaration is needed to allay fears in the Middle East of a new and enduring American imperial hegemony. Right or wrong, many view the establishment of such a hegemony as the primary reason for the American intervention in a region only recently free of colonial domination. That perception should be discredited from the highest U.S. level.

Second, the United States should announce that it is undertaking talks with the Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed and the resulting setting of such a date should be announced as a joint decision. In the meantime, the U.S. should avoid military escalation.

[A]ll the Iraqi leaders, including those who do not reside within the Green Zone, [must be] in [these talks], because the very dialogue itself will help to identify the authentic…leaders which the self-confidence and capacity to stand on their own legs without U.S. military protection. Only Iraqi leaders who can exercise real power beyond the Green Zone can eventually reach a genuine Iraqi accommodation. The painful reality is that much of this current Iraqi regime, characterized by the administration as representative of the Iraqi people, defines itself largely by its physical location: the four square-mile-large U.S. fortress within Baghdad, protected by a wall in places 15 feet thick, manned by heavily armed U.S. military, popularly known as the Green Zone.

Third, [Iraqi leaders, should invite US, Iraq’s neighboring states, and perhaps some other Muslim countries to talks about keeping Iraq stable as US occupiers pull out; and to a subsequent conference regarding regional stability.]…The United States and the Iraqi leadership need to engage Iraq’s neighbors in a serious discussion regarding the region’s security problems, but such discussions cannot be undertaken while the U.S. is perceived as an occupier for an indefinite duration…Iran and Syria have no reason, however, to help the United States consolidate a permanent regional hegemony…[I]ronically,.. both Iran and Syria have lately called for a regional dialogue, exploiting thereby the self-defeating character of the largely passive and mainly sloganeering U.S. diplomacy.

Fourth, and finally, concurrently the United States should activate a credible and energetic effort to finally reach an Israeli- Palestinian peace, making it clear in the process as to what the basic parameters of such a final accommodation ought to involve.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Ultimately, when effecting political reconciliation the various existing powers are either eliminated or they are integrated into the political process. Sadr sees more of a future for himself in Iraq as the leader of a political constituency within the democratic process than as than as the leader of an insurgency that opposes it. This is not something I would have predicted a year ago.

Whether this represents a win for the US depends upon how one interprets the poorly defined US goals.

Maybe he was born in 1972 and was simply a precocious child?

I thought you said you weren’t born then?

I think it likely that all the major Shiite groups in Iraq receive some Iranian money – which does not make them clients of Iran. The reason I believe Iran comes out as a winner here is that they were the ones brokering the peace, in Qom! As Juan Cole writes:

The entire episode underlines how powerful Iran has become in Iraq. The Iranian government had called on Saturday for the fighting to stop. And by Sunday evening it had negotiated at least a similar call from Sadr (whether the fighting actually stops remains to be seen and depends on local commanders and on whether al-Maliki meets Sadr’s conditions).

Remember the war against I-raq
That’s one where we all belong
Though we ended up stuck in quagmire.
We had fun on our blogs.

(h/t to Tom Lehrer)