Iraq Security Pact Pits U.S. Against Iran
A proposed U.S.-Iraq security agreement is shaping up as a major political battle between America and Iran, as the debate over the future of troops here intensifies ahead of the fall U.S. presidential election.
The agreement, which both sides hope to finish in midsummer, is likely to be among the issues discussed this weekend when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is due to visit Iran - his second trip there in a year.
Ahead of the visit, his party sought to calm worries by insisting that the deal would not allow foreign troops to use Iraq as a ground to invade another country - a clear reference to Iranian fears of a U.S. attack.
For their part, congressional Democrats have urged the Bush administration not to bypass Congress, which they believe should approve any deal. They fear a long-term security deal with Iraq - if it committed the U.S. to protecting Iraq - could make it difficult for the next president to withdraw U.S. forces.
But the toughest words have come from Iraqi politicians, especially those loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric whose militiamen fought U.S. and Iraqi troops in Baghdad until a May truce ended seven weeks of fighting.
A lawmaker from al-Maliki's party told reporters Tuesday that the Iraqis and the Americans are far apart on the security agreement. He said negotiations "are at a standstill, and the Iraqi side is studying its options."
"The Americans have some demands that the Iraqi government regards as infringing on its sovereignty," lawmaker Haidar al-Abadi said. "This is the main dispute, and if the dispute is not settled, I frankly tell you there will not be an agreement."
U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo described talks over the pact as "active" and said Tuesday that "texts are very much in flux."
The deal would establish a long-term security relationship between Iraq and the United States, and a parallel agreement providing a legal basis to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.
Supporters believe the deal would help assure Iraq's Arab neighbors, notably Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states, that Iraq's Shiite-led government would not become a satellite of Shiite-dominated Iran as American military role here fades.
But public critics in Iraq worry the deal will lock in American military, economic and political domination of the country.
Al-Abadi said major stumbling blocks include the future status of U.S. military bases and American use of airspace over Iraq.
Although opposition has spread beyond the Sadrists, the role of the militant cleric is a matter of special concern for the Americans.
Al-Sadr is believed to be living in the Iranian city of Qom, and U.S. officials believe Iran has been arming and training Shiite militiamen. Iran denies the allegation.
That has sharpened the Iran vs. U.S. aspect of the issue.
U.S. officials increasingly see the criticism as driven by Iran through al-Sadr, who has called for weekly protests against the agreement. Al-Sadr has long opposed the U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Concerned that al-Sadr was scoring political points, mainstream Shiite and Sunni politicians began to speak out against the proposed deal too, distancing themselves from the deliberations for fear of being seen as selling out to the Americans.
All that puts pressure on al-Maliki, himself a Shiite, as he tries to maintain ties to Iran while at the same time ensuring his support from the United States.
Al-Maliki needs to persuade the Iranians to rein in Shiite extremists but also assure them that security ties to the United States would not threaten the Islamic Republic.
Ahead of the visit, al-Maliki's party issued a statement this week declaring that "Iraqi territory should not be used for military operations against any neighboring countries by foreign forces."
Last month, a fourth round of Iraq security talks between U.S. and Iranian diplomats was postponed indefinitely and neither side seems eager to reschedule them anytime soon.
U.S. suspicions of an Iranian role were reinforced by recent comments by Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite movement in Lebanon.
During a speech last week, Nasrallah said Hezbollah's opposition to the U.S. and Israel serve as a model for resistance in the Arab world, including Iraq where "there exists an evident American occupation and American control of land and resources."
Nasrallah said U.S. efforts to promote democracy in Iraq were simply to prepare for the day when the U.S. "asks this legal (Iraqi) government ... to sign an agreement granting the Americans sovereign control over Iraq."
Without specifying the security pact, Nasrallah said the U.S. goal was to place "security, political decisions, oil and Iraqi resources in the hands of the Americans."
Nasrallah's comments came in the wake of Hezbollah's takeover of large areas of west Beirut last month, which politically strengthened the Iranian-backed movement at the expense of the Western-supported government.
That stoked fears in Arab capitals about Iranian influence in Iraq. So far, Arab governments remain leery of a Shiite-ruled Iraq and have not boosted their support of al-Maliki's government.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The agreement, which both sides hope to finish in midsummer, is likely to be among the issues discussed this weekend when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is due to visit Iran - his second trip there in a year.
Ahead of the visit, his party sought to calm worries by insisting that the deal would not allow foreign troops to use Iraq as a ground to invade another country - a clear reference to Iranian fears of a U.S. attack.
For their part, congressional Democrats have urged the Bush administration not to bypass Congress, which they believe should approve any deal. They fear a long-term security deal with Iraq - if it committed the U.S. to protecting Iraq - could make it difficult for the next president to withdraw U.S. forces.
But the toughest words have come from Iraqi politicians, especially those loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric whose militiamen fought U.S. and Iraqi troops in Baghdad until a May truce ended seven weeks of fighting.
A lawmaker from al-Maliki's party told reporters Tuesday that the Iraqis and the Americans are far apart on the security agreement. He said negotiations "are at a standstill, and the Iraqi side is studying its options."
"The Americans have some demands that the Iraqi government regards as infringing on its sovereignty," lawmaker Haidar al-Abadi said. "This is the main dispute, and if the dispute is not settled, I frankly tell you there will not be an agreement."
U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo described talks over the pact as "active" and said Tuesday that "texts are very much in flux."
The deal would establish a long-term security relationship between Iraq and the United States, and a parallel agreement providing a legal basis to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.
Supporters believe the deal would help assure Iraq's Arab neighbors, notably Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states, that Iraq's Shiite-led government would not become a satellite of Shiite-dominated Iran as American military role here fades.
But public critics in Iraq worry the deal will lock in American military, economic and political domination of the country.
Al-Abadi said major stumbling blocks include the future status of U.S. military bases and American use of airspace over Iraq.
Most Iraqis view the U.S. insistence that American troops continue to enjoy immunity under Iraqi law as an infringement on national sovereignty. U.S. officials maintain they respect Iraqi sovereignty and are not seeking permanent bases.
Although opposition has spread beyond the Sadrists, the role of the militant cleric is a matter of special concern for the Americans.
Al-Sadr is believed to be living in the Iranian city of Qom, and U.S. officials believe Iran has been arming and training Shiite militiamen. Iran denies the allegation.
That has sharpened the Iran vs. U.S. aspect of the issue.
U.S. officials increasingly see the criticism as driven by Iran through al-Sadr, who has called for weekly protests against the agreement. Al-Sadr has long opposed the U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Concerned that al-Sadr was scoring political points, mainstream Shiite and Sunni politicians began to speak out against the proposed deal too, distancing themselves from the deliberations for fear of being seen as selling out to the Americans.
All that puts pressure on al-Maliki, himself a Shiite, as he tries to maintain ties to Iran while at the same time ensuring his support from the United States.
Al-Maliki needs to persuade the Iranians to rein in Shiite extremists but also assure them that security ties to the United States would not threaten the Islamic Republic.
Ahead of the visit, al-Maliki's party issued a statement this week declaring that "Iraqi territory should not be used for military operations against any neighboring countries by foreign forces."
Last month, a fourth round of Iraq security talks between U.S. and Iranian diplomats was postponed indefinitely and neither side seems eager to reschedule them anytime soon.
U.S. suspicions of an Iranian role were reinforced by recent comments by Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite movement in Lebanon.
During a speech last week, Nasrallah said Hezbollah's opposition to the U.S. and Israel serve as a model for resistance in the Arab world, including Iraq where "there exists an evident American occupation and American control of land and resources."
Nasrallah said U.S. efforts to promote democracy in Iraq were simply to prepare for the day when the U.S. "asks this legal (Iraqi) government ... to sign an agreement granting the Americans sovereign control over Iraq."
Without specifying the security pact, Nasrallah said the U.S. goal was to place "security, political decisions, oil and Iraqi resources in the hands of the Americans."
Nasrallah's comments came in the wake of Hezbollah's takeover of large areas of west Beirut last month, which politically strengthened the Iranian-backed movement at the expense of the Western-supported government.
That stoked fears in Arab capitals about Iranian influence in Iraq. So far, Arab governments remain leery of a Shiite-ruled Iraq and have not boosted their support of al-Maliki's government.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Visitors evacuate after suicide at Paris' Notre Dame Cathedral
- N. Korea sends top envoy to China as tensions mount
- 12 years post-Taliban, Afghan women's rights under fire
- Boat hijack stokes tension between N. Korea, China
- Egypt troops in Sinai sweep mistakenly hit funeral
- Costa Concordia captain ordered to stand trial
- Egypt TV: 7 security personnel kidnapped in Sinai freed
- China probes rice tainted with cancer-causing cadmium
Posted by IOWEIGN at 10:23 PM : Jun 03, 2008
If Conservatives are in charge the interest of the US is to protect the American people from Islamic fundamentalism which will destroy our freedoms and our culture
If secularist libs are in charge it is to hand Islamic Jihad a big piece of Appeasement pie and wave the white flag to Islamic fundamentalist through pacifism.
Posted by notaliberal2 at 11:01 PM : Jun 03, 2008
If Conservatives are in charge the interest of the US is to protect the American people from Islamic fundamentalism which will destroy our freedoms and our culture
#######
Being in Iraq is not making the U.S. safer...
At the Senate Armed Services hearing on progress in Iraq 9/11/2007, Sen. John Warner (R-VA) asked Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, "if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?" "Sir, I don%u2019t know actually," replied Petraeus, adding that he is solely focused on the mission in Iraq.
###
If secularist libs are in charge it is to hand Islamic Jihad a big piece of Appeasement pie and wave the white flag to Islamic fundamentalist through pacifism.
###
secularist:
1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
So conservatives prefer a Taliban theocracy style government over freedom of choice...
A NEW LOOK AT THE MIDDLE EAST POLICY IS COMING WHEN THE DEMOCRATS SWEEP THE ELECTION AND THOSE OF YOU MIDDLE EAST BEGGARS AND THIEVES WHO HAVE BEEN LIVING OFF AMERICAN MONEY FOR THE PAST 65 YEARS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE IT WITHOUT AMERICAN FUNDING OR INVOLVEMENT OF OUR MILITARY!
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE MIDDLE EAST IN AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST!
THEY HAVE NOTHING WE NEED!
AMERICA STAND UP OR SHUT UP!
re: "This should have been done years ago..."
Posted by NonayaBiness
So you figure that the people of Iraq owe us one, one account of all we''ve done for them?
You are in favor of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq?
I concur.
This should have been done years ago, AND as a condition of rebuilding, if nothing else. Just another ''try-to-save-face-at-the-last-minute-move'' by the Bush Admin.
No Way you say!
Hypocrites - Not our fearless leaders you say?
At a State Department press conference, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confirmed Bush administration negotiations with Tehran are at an "advanced stage," with a letter describing a new package of incentives..........
WOW - Bush and Cheney negotiating with Terrorists - F''in Hypocrites!
The US has sworn to defend Saudi Arabia from any attack. By removing Hussein from power the US inadvertently removed the the very power that kept Iran in check in the Mideast.
Iran''s religous leaders are planning on creating a ***** revolution, replacing the Iraqi government with a system similar to Iran''s Theocracy, with Sadr being the first ruler.
US bases placed strategically near Iran''s boarder will help protect the Iraqi government from falling to Iran''s control and provide the Mideast with a military force capable of keeping Iran in check in its ultimate goal of ruling all the Mideast, and then the world with a single Islamic Theocracy.