In anticipation of Petraeus’ testimony this week, it might be helpful to have some reality-based talking points about recent events in Iraq to bulwark against the inevitable flurry of right-wing BS and journalistic laziness soon to come:

Juan Cole breaks most of them down very succinctly, referring also to Frank Rich in today’s NYT (more on that later):

1. The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and the Da’wa Party, which back Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, are closer to Iran than the Sadr Movement.

2. It was al-Maliki’s parliamentary coalition that sought the cease fire by asking their Iranian patrons to broker it.

3. The main motivation for the attack on Sadrist neighborhoods in Basra was to ensure that ISCI wins the elections in that key oil province in October.

[paragraph broken into bullet points by me]

Note how Prof. Cole uses the word “closer” in the first talking point. From what I’ve been reading, it looks like Iran has close relationships with both al-Sadr AND al-Maliki’s government. The difference is that al-Sadr, a Shiite, is more of an Iraqi nationalist while the ISCI was formed in Iran and doesn’t seem to mind Iran’s influence in Iraqi affairs going forward.

In the meantime, Iran is working with both sides to further their strategic interests. It would definitely not have been in Iran’s interest to have the US military-backed Iraqi government forces take control of Basra, right on their border.

But the press and the Bushies are going to ignore Iran’s ties to al-Maliki and present al-Sadr as the sole proxy for Iran. This way they can argue both against a troop drawdown and for continued hostilities towards Iran.

For more on that second talking point, see this McClatchy article that contains actual reporting as opposed to regurgitating defense department press releases:

The backdrop to Sadr’s dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday by Iraqi lawmakers to Qom, Iran’s holy city and headquarters for the Iranian clergy who run the country.

There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.

Ali al Adeeb, a member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s Dawa party, and Hadi al Ameri, the head of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq.

But McCain is repeatedly on the teevee saying that “Sadr declared the cease-fire”.

Talking point number three is something you never hear about from the corporate media. The assault on Basra is spun as an effort of the legitimate Iraqi government to “crack down” on fundamentalist rebels and criminal gangs. While in reality, the US military is backing up the al-Maliki faction in their effort to resolve a political power struggle with al-Sadr by force of arms.

But all of the motivations have to do with something President Bush established as a benchmark in January 2007: upcoming provincial elections.

The Sadr Movement leaders themselves are convinced that the recent setting of a date for provincial elections, on Oct. 1, 2008, and al-Maliki’s desire to improve the government’s position in advance of the elections, precipitated the prime minister’s attack. It is widely thought that the Sadrists might sweep to power in the provinces in free and fair elections, since the electorate is deeply dissatisfied with the performance of the major incumbent party in the southern provinces, the Islamic Supreme Council of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

It all goes back to the conflicting goals of the Iraqi occupation that the Bushies conflated into the concept of “Freedom”: the idea that Democracy equals Security equals Territorial Integrity equals a Pro-American Iraqi Government. In fact all of these things are very different goals. Making them happen all at the same time is a neat trick. So far the US occupation has achieved none of them.

This brings us to talking point number four (again from Juan Cole’s post today:

4. So while it is not true, as Rich rightly says, that McCain wants to fight for 100 years, it is true that his analogy does imply several more years of hard fighting.
[emphasis by Prof. Cole]

Basically, John McCain is not advocating fighting a 100 year war, but he is advocating staying in Iraq for 100 years. McCain’s statement is framed by his comparison of Iraq to the Korean war. There would be about 10 years of hard fighting ahead of us in Iraq but after that there would be a stalemate and the US would hunker down for a century guarding the border.

Juan Cole goes on to demonstrate that the comparison is ridiculous. Who are the Communists in the Iraq situation? Where is the border where the US would be holding the line?

Anyway, I’m sure the wise men of the Washington Corporate Media will be explaining all these fine points in a way that informs and educates the American public, right?