Caught
in a vice: Looking less than comfortable, Iraqi Prime
Minister
al-Maliki is greeted by Iranian President Ahmadinejad
in
Teheran, June 8.
Novosti,
Russia
Iraq's Impossible
Mission: Reconciling Iran and the United States
"The Iraqi Prime Minister has
made his second visit to Tehran this year. Iranian authorities have offered
strategic cooperation to Iraq, including in the military sphere. … This is
happening precisely at a time when talks on a long-term security deal between
Baghdad and Washington have stalled."
By Maria Appakova
Translated By Igor Medvedev
June 9, 2008
Russia - Novosti - Original Article (Russian)
MOSCOW:
Accompanied by several cabinet ministers, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has made his
second visit to Tehran this year. Iranian authorities have offered strategic
cooperation to Iraq, including in the military sphere.
This is happening
precisely at a time when talks on a long-term security deal between Baghdad and
Washington have stalled. Let's say that this is an agreement which is
absolutely not in Tehran's interests.
This puts the
Iraqi prime minister is a very difficult position. He wants good relations with
Iran and the United States. Ideally, he would like treaties with both of them,
but that's unrealistic given tense Iran-U.S.
relations.
But what can al-Maliki do? He can't do without Iranian help given its
influence within Iraq's Shiite community. Iran could escalate the situation in
Iraq from within at any time. But conversely, it could also reduce tensions. In
any event, the Iraqi prime minister can't afford to quarrel with Tehran.
But at the same
time, he badly needs a treaty with the Americans. The U.N. mandate for the
international military continent in Iraq expires on December 31, 2008. But
Iraqi security forces are far from strong enough to stand without Western
support and Al-Maliki can't replace international
forces with Iranian troops. Neither the United States, nor Iraq's Arab
neighbors would allow this to happen - and even if they did, it would lead to
conflict with Iraq's Sunni and Kurdish communities. When Tehran offered
assistance to Baghdad, it is unlikely that Tehran had troop deployments in mind
- this would be too much.
The only chance
al-Maliki has to guarantee calm is to reconcile its
two greatest allies the United States and Iran. Up to now he has made little
progress. During his latest visit to Tehran, he tried to persuade Iranian
government that a treaty between Baghdad and Washington doesn't threaten Iran.
"Iraq will
not become a base for U.S. aggression against neighboring countries," said
al-Maliki, trying to dispel rumors about U.S. plans
in respect to Iran, which have been published in several newspapers, including
the British Independent in regard to a draft treaty between Washington
and Baghdad 
. As far as how
reliable this information is there is no obvious evidence, but its publication
made a lot of noise and jeopardized further talks between Iraq and the United
States.
The most
controversial paragraphs of the "draft treaty" cited by the media
provide for the establishment of about 50 U.S. military bases; immunity for
American troops and contractors from Iraqi laws; freedom of action for the
United States in conducting arrests and taking military action without prior
consultation with Iraqi authorities; control over Iraqi air space at altitudes
below 9,000 meters; control over military contracts signed by Iraq and
decision-making power in the security sphere for the next few years; and the
right to carry out attacks from Iraqi territory against "any country that
poses a threat to international stability." That last item is certainly an
allusion to Iran.
These provisions
could not help but cause outrage in Iraq and beyond, but primarily in Tehran.
However, American officials deny that these ideas are embodied in the draft
treaty.
Thus, U.S.
Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker has assured that any future agreement
"will not infringe on the sovereignty of Iraq." And given that the
document will be subject to Iraqi Parliament approval and public debate, it's
out of the question to even suggest the unconditional acceptance of these
conditions, which according to the media, the Americans are insisting upon.
But in Iraq, at
the behest of a number of high-profile politicians like influential Shiite
leader Muktada al-Sadr, the
protests have already begun. Iraqi MPs write letters to the U.S. Congress
promising to oppose any treaty with the United States - and not only in the
security sphere - unless the timing and method of withdrawal of foreign forces
from their country is clearly laid out. So it's not hard to imagine what might
happen in Iraq if what has been published in the media turns out to be true.
Washington could hardly be so naive as to pour more oil on the Iraqi flames.
Washington
insists that the leaks which resulted in the publication of some of the draft
treaty are part of a well-organized provocation by opponents of any agreement
between Iraq and the United States. Suspicion falls above all, on Iran. But the
deliberate leak could also have come from the U.S. side in order to test Iraqi
reaction, and perhaps make them more pliable to a more favorable version of the
treaty that has not been published. Although the terms mentioned seem
outrageous, some of them be under actual discussion.
For instance, freedom of movement and legal immunity for U.S. troops in Iraq.
But in any case,
the publication in the media has done the job - negotiations between Iraq and
the United States have ground to a halt. Meanwhile, there's little time left to
come to a decision. Not only is the U.N. mandate for a foreign military
presence expiring. But so is the presidency of George W. Bush, who with al-Maliki has been the one to conduct the strategic
partnership talks. Last November, both politicians set the deadline for a
decision at July. Now it's clear that the deadline will not be met.
If media reports
are to be believed, Washington is so desperate to make the needed arrangements
for the deal that it has threatened to lift the immunity from part of Iraq's
hard currency accounts in the Federal Reserve. Due to this, according to The
Independent, Iraq may lose about $20 billion out of the $50 billion in the
account.
[Editor's Note:
U.S. negotiators are using the existence of $20 billion in outstanding court
judgments against Iraq in the U.S., to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into
accepting the terms of the military deal ].
If talks with the
United States drag on much longer, al-Maliki will
likely have to ask the U.N. to extend the mandate for the presence of foreign
troops in Iraq. But who, other than the Americans, would want to stay? If
Barack Obama wins the presidential election in November, the American
contingent could be withdrawn whether the U.N. extends their mandate or not.
Debate in Congress on the agreement with Iraq may be as fierce and long as the
debate in the Iraqi parliament.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
So for the time
being, Tehran has no grounds for concern. Nevertheless, the Iranian authorities
aren't going to leave things to chance, so are upgrading their contacts with
Baghdad. The Iraqi government will find it increasingly torn between Tehran and
Washington.
CLICK HERE FOR RUSSIAN
VERSION
SEE ALSO:
Kitabat, Iraq
Security Deal With
America is Iraq's
'Chance of a Lifetime'
http://worldmeets.us/kitabat000019.shtml
Sotal Iraq,
Iraq
Long-Term Security
Treaty Between Iraq
and U.S. 'Rejected'
http://worldmeets.us/sotaliraq000008.shtml
[Posted by WORLDMEETS.US June 12, 7:30pm]
