The WaPo’s Mary Beth Sheridan has a piece in today’s paper describing the US-Iraqi negotiations over a SOFA as having an important backstory of a US-Iranian struggle for influence over the Iraqi government’s decisionmaking. She writes:
- A deal to authorize the presence of American forces in Iraq beyond 2008 is forcing Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to choose between two influential powers in this country: the United States and Iran.
U.S. officials had hoped Iraq would quickly approve the accord put before the cabinet this month, which would give 150,000 American troops legal authority to remain in Iraq after Dec. 31. But Iraqi political leaders have balked. Maliki has not openly supported the agreement forged by his negotiating team.
As the U.S. ponders withdrawal, it is clear that American political capital in Iraq is waning as Iran’s grows…
She then describes Ghassan al-Attiyah, an Iraqi political analyst at London’s Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy in London as describing the Maliki government as being torn equally between both foreign powers.
For my part, I wrote back in early June that I thought Washington had lost the battle for influence over Baghdad’s decisionmaking, and I see no reason to change that judgment now.
Let’s review a couple of facts:
- 1. The US has been extremely eager to “persuade” the Baghdad government to conclude a long-term security agreement it. Baghdad has thus far resisted these entreaties– though it has signed a security agreement with Iran.
2. The US has also been extremely eager to “persuade” the Baghdad parliament to pass oil legislation that would thereafter allow western oil firms to conclude legally sound contracts with the Baghdad government. The Iraqi government and parliament have been playing a prolonged game of “pass the parcel” regarding that oil legislation, so western oil firms have not yet been able to sign contracts with the Baghdad government. Meantime, back in June, Baghdad concluded a significant ($3 billion) oilfield development/rehab contract with China.
Why do the MSM in the US not report these things, and not take them into adequate account when they’re assessing the present state of play inside Iraq? Why do they connive so deeply in perpetuating the myth maintained by the Bush administration that, (a) the recent history of the US intervention in Iraq has been one of some strategic success; (b) if we can’t yet exactly see the success, still, it is just around the corner; and (c) that Washington is still, definitely, in a position to be able to impose its “conditions” on Baghdad?
However, what is happening in and over Iraq right now is not a purely bilateral, zero-sum game between the influence of Washington and that of Tehran. This, because there are significant actors within Tehran that see the continued deployment of some US troops in Iraq as helpful to their own security (by providing a self-deterrent against any US or US-enabled attack against Iran.)
I think this is the best context in which to understand the otherwise bizarre “threat” that Gen. Ray Odierno delivered to the Baghdad government last week, namely that if the Baghdad government didn’t hurry up and sign the SOFA on the terms Washington wants, why then the US forces might all just have to pack up and go home.
From the point of view of Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki and a strong majority of both the Iraqi population and the Iraqi parliament, that outcome would be just fine. In poll after poll after poll, a strong majority of Arab Iraqis (though not of members of the Kurdish community that makes up around 17% of the national population) say that that is just what they want to happen.
So as a political “threat” against Maliki it doesn’t make any sense. And one has to assume that even Ray Odierno is smart enough to understand that at this point?
But Odierno was presumably calculating that the US message (blackmail threat?) to Maliki would also be heard in Tehran… And there, by contrast, it might indeed have some political traction and relevance?
If this is the case, as I suspect, then we could conclude that Tehran might currently be exerting quiet pressure on the Maliki government to make some of the concessions in the SOFA negotiations that Odierno and his masters seek?
Interesting, if so.
If the US Army retires to its Iraqi bases then security might be augmented by the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, which would energize the Royal Saudi Army — who knows where this might lead? It ain’t over ’til it’s over.
The old story was that Iraq wasn’t carrying its share of the burden. Now it’s that Iraq wants too much.
As President Bush has said, “Freedom can be resisted, and freedom can be delayed, but freedom cannot be denied.” Let’s enjoy the fruits of Iraqi freedom, wherever they might lead. Probably they lead most directly to Teheran. That was the Noble Cause!!
So as a political “threat” against Maliki it doesn’t make any sense. And one has to assume that even Ray Odierno is smart enough to understand that at this point?
No, I don’t agree at all. There has been evidence all along the line since June at least that US officialdom has seriously misevaluated the Iraqi position over the security agreement. They thought at first that Maliki was just playing chicken to get the best deal he could. Then in September that he was being personally ambitious – the new Saddam – and as they said, ‘getting out of his baby-walker too early’. All this reflected in the versions of the so-called ‘independent analysts’, like Sam Parker, who were clearly getting their talking points directly from the US embassy in Baghdad. Even when Negroponte went to Baghdad, it was clear that he went with the intention of twisting Maliki’s arm, using pressures and blackmail, the details of which remain unknown. But on the principle that Maliki was isolated – apply pressure to him to get him to sign, and all will be resolved.
I was quite surprised when Maliki agreed to sign – the pressures must have been intense. But I can see his calculation: behind him, there was still the cabinet that will refuse, and further behind, the parliament. So it didn’t matter if he agreed initially, to get Negroponte off his back, as the agreement would in fact be no further forward.
US evaluation of the situation in Iraq has been completely wrong since the start of the SOFA negotiations. Iraqi public opinion is now something like 90% in favour of US withdrawal (with the exception of the Kurds), and Maliki has been merely responding to that feeling.
That typical American miscalculation is continuing to operate is evidenced by the WaPo article you cite. This issue has nothing to do with Iran; this is not a sort of “great game” between Iran and the US. It is Iraq naturally rejecting the alien body that it no longer wants to tolerate.
I think I would agree with Alex. The Iranian angle would make sense if the Iraqis were actually making concessions, but actually their recent amendments will make it less palatable to the United States. Therefore, this has to be seen as an aspect of Iraqi internal politics. I think the Iraqis have no choice but to go to the United Nations. They may be making the agreement more to their liking for internal reasons and also to show the upcoming Obama administration what kind of deal they would find acceptable.
The U.S. attitude depends on the the idea that Maliki is a puppet, a U.S. puppet who depends for his survival on the U.S. military. But, since that’s not a politially viable public stance (nor is it even true anymore), then he must be a puppet of the Iranians instead.
There is an issue with the Iranians, however: they may want a continued U.S. presence of 2-3 years to help prevent an attack on Iran. That’s certainly plausible. And that may conflict with Iraqi aspirations for a quick U.S. exit. The threat that U.S. troops are going to pack up and leave without a SOFA is a red herring, however, and thuis I don’t think that this is what in itself is what is motivating Iranian attitudes and behavior.
Obviously, the issue does have a lot to do with Iran. Iran and Iraq have many mutual commercial and religious interests. It’s not a question of Iraq being a puppet of Iran, it’s that kindred neighbors normally try to get along by accommodating each others’ concerns. Iran is a mature country with real foreign policy concerns which of course differ from those of the US, and Iraq is naturally giving more regard to Iran’s concerns than it is to those of the US.
Don,
It’s not a question of Iraq being a puppet of Iran,
“Limited”, that’s what I said. It would be surprising if Iran weren’t meddling, wouldn’t it? Iran did lose a lot of people in Iraq’s war of aggression, and now, particularly with the belligerent USA not only supporting but also occupying Iraq, they want to assure their own security. Quite normal behavior, I’d say.
they want to assure their own security. Quite normal behavior, I’d say.
This is very pathetic per say by seeking excuses for regime has his own problems even inside Iran, with many signs and behaviours with his neighbour’s not just Iraq.
I quite appalled by guys come here and write as if Iraq went to war and invaded Iran, although that was a biased conclusions UN and other for the necessity of that time served to build a case against a tyrant regime, that obvious later ended by invading Iraq in 2003.
But let remind you that Iran’s Mullah regime as soon as they took the power in 1979, after one month in an official speech Khomeini asked his Iranians biased guys inside Iraq too overthroghn their central government, is this acceptable by any account and in international and political arena?
Forgot Iraq what Iran behaviours in the Arabian Gulf?
Neighbours all the time bullied and troubled by Iranians’ interference and threatens. Adding Iran invaded and holding three Arab Islands from Bahrain with continual refusal of all the talks and all the offers made by Bahrainis’ and Gulf state committee to resolve the matter in the international tribunal?
While you asked Helena about drawing a distinction so did you asked yourself here to do so when its come drawing a distinction between Iraqis and old regime?
Was it Iraq war or Iraqi fault as citizens?
So Iran have no right at all and its not her business to interfered in Iraq as much as she need to respect Iraq and Iraqis, she need to behave herself in this way, what happen its happened by a stupid regime not Iraqis and that gone. Iranians needs to think in right way, till now they mount up Iraqi anger more and more and that not can help them in future if they seeking their own security.
People right far from reality should look to the history of the region well before making their claims here by connecting the dots otherwise their biased view surfaced well in their writing here.
they want to assure their own security. Quite normal behavior, I’d say.
This is very pathetic per say by seeking excuses for regime has his own problems even inside Iran, with many signs and behaviours with his neighbour’s not just Iraq.
I quite appalled by guys come here and write as if Iraq went to war and invaded Iran, although that was a biased conclusions UN and other for the necessity of that time served to build a case against a tyrant regime, that obvious later ended by invading Iraq in 2003.
But let remind you that Iran’s Mullah regime as soon as they took the power in 1979, after one month in an official speech Khomeini asked his Iranians biased guys inside Iraq too overthroghn their central government, is this acceptable by any account and in international and political arena?
Forgot Iraq what Iran behaviours in the Arabian Gulf?
Neighbours all the time bullied and troubled by Iranians’ interference and threatens. Adding Iran invaded and holding three Arab Islands from Bahrain with continual refusal of all the talks and all the offers made by Bahrainis’ and Gulf state committee to resolve the matter in the international tribunal?
While you asked Helena about drawing a distinction so did you asked yourself here to do so when its come drawing a distinction between Iraqis and old regime?
Was it Iraq war or Iraqi fault as citizens?
So Iran have no right at all and its not her business to interfered in Iraq as much as she need to respect Iraq and Iraqis, she need to behave herself in this way, what happen its happened by a stupid regime not Iraqis and that gone. Iranians needs to think in right way, till now they mount up Iraqi anger more and more and that not can help them in future if they seeking their own security.
People right far from reality should look to the history of the region well before making their claims here by connecting the dots otherwise their biased view surfaced well in their writing here.
More laughable Iran voices against US /Iraq Pact while most if not all Arabian Gulf states have official agreement for years and Iran lips kept tied is that some thing of hypocrisy and dilution of Mullah regime and his sick minds?
Meddling is one thing, the US does it all the time and so do some other countries. Invading is something quite different.
wikipedia:
The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq’s long suppressed Shia majority influenced by Iran’s Islamic revolution. Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of revolutionary chaos in Iran and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and within several months were repelled by the Iranians who regained virtually all lost territory by June 1982.
Now I will hear that Saddam Hussein was the George Washington of Iraq?
“one has to assume that even Ray Odierno is smart enough to understand that”
Why does one have to assume that? I have never seen any reason to assume that the odious Ray Odierno understands anything at all.
Don,
Looks that your fan of Wikipedia, any way not every thing in it is trusted.
Now I will hear that Saddam Hussein was the George Washington of Iraq?
This your pathetic statement, don’t be naive and outrages here and try keep clear don’t put your pathetic word in my mouth next time.
Truths folded out there is no need to say more what most of the world knew what all this war and older war with Iraq about.
To cut the road short for you, when Iraq nationalised its oil early 1970, it took along and hard negotiations with forgoing oil companies, the last one was BP and was leaked at that time the head of Britt nogaciatiuon team during leaving last meeting told Iraqis this:
You got your oil back but we know how we get it back again!!
Go to your Wikipedia may you find some thing there. After 22 years they came back first thing they hold and secured the oil fields!!
Did that enough for you to understand or you still mangling in war that finished 15 years ago?
Rather than complain about Iran, why not focus on Iraqi government mistreating its citizens?
GENEVA – An Iraqi opposition lawmaker claimed Thursday that thousands of his countrymen are being mistreated in detention centers outside the official prison system.
Sunni legislator Mohammed al-Daini claimed the government and paramilitary groups control 420 unofficial detention centers to hold people without legal justification.
A traitor in Baghdad, a traitor in Kabul
By Khalid Amayreh
“Why do the MSM in the US not report these things, and not take them into adequate account when they’re assessing the present state of play inside Iraq?”
Because American exceptionalism dies very hard (just ask Obama). But it is dying, nonetheless. Even though no one (in the MSM) can admit to it. Imagine, the Iraqi people NEVER EVER wanted to be just like us. Say it isn’t so JOE.