Well, the Democrats have been screaming for a "change of direction" in Iraq for ages, and it looks as though they're going to get one. The new direction they prefer, of course, is "away, at high speed, with tail tucked firmly between legs." Instead, they're getting a new focus on Baghdad as the center of Iraq's security problems, with special attention reserved for Iran's interference. In fact, it's becoming ever more likely that Iran will soon take its rightful place in the spotlight of the War on Terror.

Several things President Bush mentioned during his "surge" speech of 10 January 2006 were worth noting, aside from his plan to send five brigades -- about 17,500 troops -- to help the Iraqi government secure Baghdad. That alone resulted in howls of impotent outrage from the "cut-and-run" crowd. (Oddly enough, some of the same people upset over Bush's intention to send more troops to Iraq were calling for him to send more troops to Iraq a few short months ago.) The President referred to "too many restrictions on the troops," hinting that -- at last -- our troops will be allowed to fight the enemy, instead of having to contend with contradictory and crippling rules of engagement. He stated that "In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods." Well, it's about time.

The key to securing Baghdad -- and Iraq -- is Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. When he and his band of religious fanatics first formed their own militia and began enforcing their own laws with Iran's backing and support, al-Sadr should have been arrested. When the Iraqi government actually issued a warrant for him in 2004, al-Sadr should have been arrested. Now, al-Sadr controls a large section of Baghdad itself, and has enough followers in his Mahdi Army to pose a serious threat to the Iraqi government. He inserted himself into Iraqi politics, and may control a significant portion of Iraq if the Democrats get their way and we abandon the country. Moqtada al-Sadr is the single greatest threat to Iraqi security and, as such, must be treated like the enemy he is.

Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki apparently agrees, in principle. He's offered al-Sadr a choice: disarm the Mahdi Army or face attack. Merely disarming the group, however, may not be enough. Something not mentioned in Bush's speech, but even more critical to the success of Iraq's future, was his promotion of Lt. Gen. David Petraeus to the top military position in Iraq. Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the invasion of Iraq, literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency techniques. His most important task as overall commander may be dismantling the Mahdi Army one way or the other.

Another major change in the conduct of the war seems to have slipped right past the "mainstream" media. President Bush recently placed Admiral William Fallon in charge of CENTCOM. No one in the media seems to be asking why a Navy admiral would be placed in charge of all US forces in the Middle East. There is, of course, only one answer: Iran. Fallon's expertise in naval air power would be most useful against that country, if the use of force becomes necessary.

The change in tactics to focus on Iran has already begun. A raid on an Iranian "liason office" in Irbil, in northern Iraq, netted five members of a Revolutionary Guard faction "known for providing funds, weapons, improvised explosive device technology and training to extremist groups attempting to destabilize the government of Iraq and attack coalition forces," according the the US military. This appears to be only the first of many such actions designed to stop Iran's meddling in Iraq's affairs.

There's no guarantee that reducing Iran's interference in Iraq will lessen the violence and allow the elected government to expand its control. But it's a sure thing that allowing Iran to continue fomenting sectarian violence in Iraq is bad for the Iraqis... and for us. The "new direction" for the US in Iraq might just be towards the east.