Iran holds the almighty oil card in its relations with the United States, and Europe for that matter. With the West being largely dependent on foreign sources of energy and Iran being a key supplier of that energy, Tehran has had the audacity to restart its nuclear program and throw out insults to Israel at will.

Now consider another potent tool Iran possesses to hold the U.S. at bay, thereby contributing to Tehran’s boldness.

The Trumpethas written before about anti-American radical Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s connections to Iran. In May 2004, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry pointed to the danger Sadr was likely to pose in the future: “Sadr has a dangerous connection to Iran, and it is critical that you understand what it means.”

It appears this connection could prove more valuable to Iran than many have realized.

On a visit to Tehran last week, Sadr told the head of Iran‘s Supreme National Security Council that in the event of an attack on Iran, Iraq would come to its aid. Although Sadr’s political office representative tried to downplay the commitment Sadr made, Sadr officials who were present, as well as Iran’s state news agency, confirmed that Sadr committed Iraq to defending Iran militarily. One spokesman quoted Sadr as saying, “If any Islamic state, especially the Islamic Republic of Iran, is attacked, the Mahdi Army [Sadr’s militia] would fight inside and outside Iraq.”

At one time, it may have been presumed these were just the words of a firebrand cleric, not reflecting Iraqi thinking as a whole. It would be hard to argue that now. Not only does Sadr have his Mahdi Army militia—which, with its thousands of fighters, controls much of southern Iraq—but he became one of the biggest winners in last December’s Iraqi elections. Results of the election released in the past week reveal that Sadr’s party, which won 29 parliamentary seats, “will be one of the largest in the first permanent government” of Iraq (Newsday, New York, January 22). Sadr’s bloc is one of the major parties in the Shiite alliance that controls the National Assembly thereby leading Iraq and dominating its security forces. (Once again, we see democracy working for the benefit of anti-Western Islamic militant groups; incidentally, there are reports that it was Iran that pushed Sadr to join the Shiite coalition.)

So, when Sadr pledged to defend Iran in case of attack, he was speaking not only on behalf of his militia, but as a political force—a political force that is gaining popularity among Iraqis and is described by some as already the number-one force in Iraq. As such, Sadr’s assurance of assistance raises the specter of “Iraqi Shiite militias—or perhaps even the U.S.-trained Shiite-dominated military—taking on American troops [in Iraq] in sympathy with Iran” (Washington Post, January 24).

So—it is no wonder Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is pretty cocky at the moment: If U.S. troops are battling to contain the current Sunni insurgency, what would be their choices if faced with a Shiite uprising as well? The Mahdi Army is certainly not averse to such action, as the armed uprisings against American (and British) troops in 2004—which, incidentally, were in fact orchestrated by Iran—demonstrated.

If we put together Iran’s actions and statements over recent weeks and months, a clear pattern emerges: As Tehran challenges Western nations on the nuclear issue, it keeps reminding these countries of the power it holds over them. It threatens to squeeze world oil supplies to neutralize the threat of economic sanctions. It meets with Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist organizations to remind Israel of the price military action would bring. Now it reminds the U.S. once again of the hand it holds in Iraq.

Yasir al-Za’atirah, a Jordanian journalist and writer, said on Al-Jazeera tv January 23 that “the Iranians wanted to send a warning message to the United States concerning the Iranian nuclear program and what Iran can do” (bbc News, January 26). Iran’s actions of late mean that “Iranians want to brandish the other option in the face of the Americans,” Al-Za’atirah said, “namely, that they would inflame the entire region if the United States resorts to military action against Iran.”

At the same time, the allegiances of Iraq are becoming clearer in this complex battle for power in the Middle East. As we have said all along, when it comes to choosing sides, Iraq will support Iran over the U.S.