I have a hunch that Sistani bought Sadr’s safety in 2003 by agreeing to play ball with the Coalition in exchange for leaving Sadr alive.
From the Coalition’s viewpoint, Sistani was seen as a huge calming influence, and killing Sadr was seen as risky, as it might incite a general Shia uprising. Fighting the Sunnis and AQ was quite enough, thank you very much. Sadr was probably supposed to behave as part of the deal, but he has managed to play both sides.
There is no way to know the outcome if Sadr had been killed in 2003. The only thing that matters now, is what to do now. As long as Sadr hides in Iran, there’s not much than can be directly done about him.
The current containment and pressure strategy will have to play itself out until and unless Sadr makes a large move, which is doubtful. He seem content to rabble-rouse from the sidelines and await the eventual withdrawal he hopes the Democrats will force upon Bush.
