The NYT reports on an alleged truce between Maliki and Sadr, brokered by the Iranians, who now seem as influential with the Baghdad government as the US. But combat continues. As with several such deals, the details appear murky and subject to the usual constant revision:
Under the terms announced by Sadr’s lead negotiator, Salah Obeidi, the cleric’s Mahdi Army militia would put down their weapons and allow government forces to pursue individuals wanted in attacks, provided there is a warrant. In return, the government forces would stop what Obeidi called "random" raids and open blocked roads into the cleric’s Baghdad stronghold, Sadr City.
Obeidi said the document made no mention of the government’s demand that the militia disband and surrender its medium- and heavy-grade weapons — issues that the cleric’s representatives were not prepared to discuss.
But Prime Minister Nouri Maliki’s spokesman, Ali Dabbagh, said all sides had agreed that only the government is authorized to maintain an army and enforce the law.
Meanwhile, a major attack has begun on the Jihadists in Mosul. Did Maliki blink in the battle with Sadr to free up troops in the North? Abu Muqawama airs possible interpretations here. Juan Cole is skeptical about the the Maliki-Sadr ceasefire and new Mosul front here. I wish I knew what was going on. It appears as if the Maliki government is very slowly gaining in strength and legitimacy. But all its gains are fragile and reversible.
The Dish 