Muqtada al-Sadr: Maliki's Government Will Fall.

In an article in which he claims the British are being driven from Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr has stated that the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is coming to an end and that it is only a matter of time before it falls.

"Al-Maliki's government will not survive because he has proven that he will not work with important elements of the Iraqi people," the cleric was quoted by the newspaper as saying.

"The prime minister is a tool for the Americans, and people see that clearly. It will probably be the Americans who decide to change him when they realize he has failed. We don't have a democracy here, we have a foreign occupation."

Al Sadr is no doubt referencing the removal of Ibrahim al-Ja'afari who, despite being democratically elected, was forced to step down by the US to make way for Maliki. As I said at the time:

With al-Jaafari out of the way, the Bush regime are fast running out of excuses for why their experiment in Iraq has not resulted in the peaceful democracy that they forecasted when they invaded.

They have so far blamed Saddam "remnants", "diehards" or "deadenders" for the chaos currently running throughout the entire country. They promised that things would settle once elections were carried out; indeed, a full year ago Dick Cheney said that the insurgency was in "it's last throes".

Their every promise has proven to be more empty than the last.

Finally, they settled on al-Jaafari has the reason for all their ills and set out to remove him.

They have got their way. It reminds me of the old saying, "be careful what you wish for, you might just get it".

Bush has now had his wish granted. Over to you, Mr Bush. Sort it. End the chaos.

And, of course, the appointment of Maliki did not end the country's ills, although it did end the myth that the Bush administration are intent on exporting democracy to the Middle East. As we have also witnessed in Palestine, this administration simply work tirelessly to remove any democratically elected leadership that they disagree with.

It has been a truly bizarre advertisement for the democratic push that is supposedly the cornerstone of the Bush doctrine.

And now, if al-Sadr is correct, Maliki's government is also about to get the push.

There are though, positive things to take from this interview.

The cleric also said he "welcomed" a recent decision by the UN to expand its role in Iraq. "I would support the UN here in Iraq if it comes and replaces the American and British occupiers," he said.

"If the UN comes here to truly help the Iraqi people, they will receive our help in their work. I would ask my followers to support the UN as long as it is here to help us rebuild our country. They must not just be another face of the American occupation."

American and UK forces are now seen as occupiers, as little better than enforcers of the policies of Halliburton and US oil company's, an impression that has only been reinforced by the Bush regime's insistence that Maliki's government push through the oil law that allows foreign investors to control Iraq's primary resource. As Pepe Escobar has pointed out, as soon as this law is passed the Americans can pull out of Iraq, having achieved what they actually set out to achieve in the first place, and showing the size of the lie told by Bush and his supporters prior to the invasion that the Iraq war was never about Iraq's oil.

If Maliki can pass the oil law when the Iraqi parliament resumes in September, then his position is safe. If he cannot, then the Bush administration will simply replace him with someone who they think can pass this obscene act of theft.

So, just as they lied about their reasons for invading Iraq - and surely only the most partisan would continue to argue that this wasn't about oil - the al-Sadr interview also underlines another constant lie told by the Bush administration.

Shrugging off recent rumours that he had fled to Iran - he dismissed them as American propaganda designed to discredit him - Mr Sadr denied US claims his forces were armed by Iran.

"We are at war and America is our enemy so we are entitled to take help from anyone," he said. "But we have not asked for Iran's help."

As the US decide who may govern Iraq based on whether or not they will give multinationals access to the region's oil supplies, their claims of Iranian interference are also part of a wider neo-con wish list to bring about regime change in Tehran, and should be greeted with the same level of suspicion as their claims that invading Iraq really had nothing to do with gaining access to the region's main resource.

We are asked to see this as an unexpected side-benefit.

Is there anyone who seriously considers that credible? Look out for the UN being asked to take over as soon as the theft is complete.

Click title for full article.