U.S.-Iraq Negotiations Come Down to the Wire
The Status of Forces Agreement hangs in the balance — as does the future of Iraq.
In Tehran, Iran’s President Ahmadinejad again attacked the agreement and told the visiting president of Kurdistan Masoud Barazani that the agreement aims at keeping Iraq weak and helps the Americans steal Iraq’s riches. Barazani’s response didn’t come off as supportive of his host’s attack. He defended the agreement, saying it would make Iraq better off.
Meanwhile, a smoking gun was reportedly found regarding Iran’s alleged bribes to some Iraqi lawmakers. Mithal Aloosi, leader of the Iraqi Umma Party and whose immunity was removed over his recent visit to Israel, told Asharq al-Awsat that Iran’s ambassador Hassan Kadhimi Qomi offered him “millions of dollars and a top post in Iraq in exchange for cooperation.” Aloosi added that:
Qomi visited us at the party offices in Baghdad and said in front of everyone there that he wanted to support the party, then offered us an amount of money. The ambassador told us that “Iran supports a small organization like Shaheed al-Mihrab [belonging to Ammar Hakim, son of Abdul Aziz Hakim] with two million dollars a month. Imagine the support for a large party such as the Iraqi Umma,” implying they want to offer us more than two million.
Al-Sabah actually offers a clear and simple summary of the situation: “Whereas the UIA demanded revisions for a number of articles [of the draft agreement], the Accord Front called only for rewording the draft, and the Kurdistan Alliance gave approval for the draft.”
The paper also reports that Maliki and other political leaders will meet next week to identify the controversial articles and inform the American side of them in order to reach compromise on these issues.
There are reasons to keep expectations low about the outcome of such meetings. That’s particularly because the focus of rejection lies within the UIA, whose members are under severe pressure from the Shiite clergy. Until now, at least four prominent ayatollahs voiced fierce opposition to the agreement. Those are Ayatollahs Kadhum Ha’airi (in Iran, considered Sadr’s mentor), Mohammed Taqi Mudarrisi, al-Shirazi, and last but not least Mohammed Hussein Fadhlallah of Lebanon. The fatwa of the latter was indeed solicited by some Shiite lawmakers. He ruled that any agreement must include the immediate unconditional withdrawal of U.S. troops — further complicating and regionalizing the situation.
That the door isn’t completely closed yet is the message Washington sent to Baghdad. It’s up to the Iraqi leaders to decide really soon whether or not they want to come out of the door with something good for them and the country, before it’s too late.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Omar and Mohammed Fadhil are PJM's Baghdad editors and they blog at Iraq the Model.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
9 Comments
1. john from cinncinati:what did Obama tell these guys? when full sharia law gets under way in Iraq they will wish for the bad Americans again. Oh when are the Iraqi’s going to stand up. America cleaned house and now the bad spirits want to come back in, if they do it will be much worse than even when Saddam was in charge. the fatwas are coming from outside of Iraq? do you think they are in Iraq’s best interest, they want to conquer Iraq without being viewed as occupiers.
Oct 25, 2008 - 5:34 am 2. 888:The signing of the SOFA by both parties will be a breakthrough, watershed event and will pave the way to a more stable, peaceful and prosperous Iraq just like the SOFAs with South Korea, Japan and Germany did the same for those US allies. There will still be many small bumps along the way to stability in the country and region, but, at least, continued US presence in Iraq will serve as a deterrent to the dangerous, nuclear ambitions of next door neighbor, Iran, and radical Islamic terrorist factions throughout the Middle East.
If Obama wins, he will be disastrous for the region and the gains made thus far because he will significantly draw down the military as he has pledged to do, so he can use Defense funding for his trillion dollar domestic social spending program. But it is our military’s presence throughout the Gulf/Southwest Asia and to the south (from Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE to Africa) that is keeping the fragile peace throughout the volatile region. By throwing in the white flag of surrender, retreat and defeat, Obama could very well cause massive chaos, civil war, and destabilization. Plus, all the American and allied lives lost and injured there in defense of freedom will have been for naught.
Oct 25, 2008 - 8:39 am 3. Robert L. Mayo:As previously reported, during his trip to Iraq Sen. Obama privately asked members of the Iraqi government to block a status of forces agreement with the Bush administration. He may get his wish.
If, after coming so close to victory, Sen. Obama’s interference produces a coup, or civil war against Iranian domination, his Presidency will be destroyed as the man who lost Iraq.
Oct 25, 2008 - 12:07 pm 4. Marc Malone:This will all clear up after the election. If McCain gets elected, the agreement will be signed, as the detrators know that this is the best deal they’ll get. If Obama gets elected, it will go down in defeat, as everyone maneuvers for a power-grab. Tribal poilitics will become dominant once again.
The resulting chaos will be blamed by Obama of the inability of Bush to get an agreement signed. He also will not interfere further in the subsequent collapse of the Iraqi government, “not wanting to shed any more American troops’ lives over there, trying to fix Bush’s mistake”.
Imagine: all that effort and sacrifice for naught.
Oct 25, 2008 - 2:54 pm 5. Brian H:Nah, it’s just Iraqis having a little fun playing brinkmanship. Isn’t it exciting?
Oct 25, 2008 - 3:04 pm 6. NS:It is pretty clear that the Iraqis are stalling because they DONT want a SOFA agreement- not just by the end of this year – not EVER. Maliki could have shown some leadership here – he has chosen not to. It is pretty clear now why he basically sandbagged McCain back in July by saying that he agreed with Obama on a 16 month deadline for withdrawal.
Obama wanted troops out in 16 months after he assumes Presidency no matter what the situation on the ground is. It is possible that he will ask Maliki to agree to extend the UN mandate by 18 months and then withdraw all troops within that time.
The US is not going to give the Iraqis the right to prosecute US soldiers – its just not going to happen.Its not going to agree to any other crazy conditions either.
So this charade will end when Maliki announces that he is going to request for an extension of the UN mandate after Obama’s victory is officially declared.
SCARY.
Oct 26, 2008 - 1:12 pm 7. Ex-fetus:Bring the troops home, we need them here for the counter coup against Obama bin Biden.
Oct 26, 2008 - 5:51 pm 8. Saltmine:It is perfectly clear that the primary threat of a coup is from the Iraqi army. A modest garrison of American military strategically placed would be sufficient to greatly reduce the threat of an army coup. Can’t the civilian Iraqi government authorities understand this?
Oct 26, 2008 - 7:41 pm 9. Marc Malone:Saltmine – It’s not that they don’t understand it. It’s a normal consideration in the third world. That’s how tribalism works. Hussein had his sons in charge of the military for a reason.
The big concern is a reversion to civil war. The Shia would love to dominate the Sunni. Why bother sharing? In the third world, you support your family, period. Your family supports your tribe/sect, period. You rise or fall together. You don’t reach out to the other tribe. You don’t hire other tribesmen if there is anyone from your tribe needing work, be he however incompetent. The other tribesmen get the scut jobs.
Only our presence convinces them to try to learn new behavior patterns, that is, democracy and power-and-revenue-sharing. That’s why the victory is still fragile. We’ve won the war. We’ve had 15 casualties in Iraq this month, mostly non-combat. It’s over. Now, we must win the peace.
Oct 29, 2008 - 1:08 am