More on why it’s civil wars in Iraq, and where’s Teheran on this?

As noted just yesterday at the tail end of a New York Times story and already reported more than once ago by The Guardian, it appears Moqtada al-Sadr is losing control of his own militia into what is shaping up as inter-Shiite civil war in the Iraqi south.

I’m sure part of the reason the American MSM hasn’t reported this more is that this is largely in the British/allied sector of Iraq. Nonetheless, all Americans who regularly follow the continued devolution in Iraq know who al-Sadr is, and what this portends. Combine this with the Sunni-Shiite fighting in the center, and the war of all against all that seems to be growing in Mosul and Kirkuk ― and which started when we pulled troops out of their in a futile effort to establish once-and-for-all law and order in Baghdad ― all point to the rise of civil wars in the plural, not civil war in the singular, in Iraq. This is like the post-colonial pullout in parts of sub-Saharan Africa writ even larger.

Note: A new Reuters story claims al-Sadr is still in control of his Mehdi Army.)

Everybody talks about “Iran, Iran, Iran” in the Sunni-Shiite dustup. But in the likely-growing intra-Shiite squabbles, which horse or horses does Teheran back? Or does it decide to hold back for right now?