Iraqi cleric repeats concerns on US-Iraq pact.

If Sistani were not such a holy man we would classify him as a waffling politician! It seems likely given that Iran seems to be giving at least tacit support to the agreement that it will pass through parliament. There will not be much time for discussion if the vote if to be on Nov. 24 , less than a week.

Iraqi cleric repeats concerns on US-Iraq pact
Top Iraqi cleric says US-Iraq security pact must win support of main political groups
HAMZA HENDAWIAP News
Nov 18, 2008 07:54 EST
Iraq's top Shiite cleric said Tuesday that the U.S.-Iraqi security pact would only be viable if the country's main political groups backed it and it restored the country's full sovereignty.




The comment by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani came as the 275-seat parliament prepared for a Nov. 24 vote on the pact, which would allow U.S. troops to stay in Iraq for three more years. If passed by the legislature, it would then require ratification by the president and his two deputies.
Al-Sistani has not publicly taken a clear position on the pact, but he has indicated that it could only work if it is passed by a comfortable majority in parliament.
His latest comments came in a statement issued by his office in the holy city of Najaf, south of Baghdad. It said they were made in response to a question by a follower on what it termed "claims in the media" that the cleric supported the pact. Al-Sistani does not speak to journalists or give media interviews, communicating his views through edicts or in answers to questions sent to him by followers.
The Iraqi Cabinet has overwhelmingly approved the pact, meaning prospects of it passing in parliament are good since Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's coalition partners dominate the legislature.
A senior official close to al-Sistani has said that the cleric, who can bury the agreement if he publicly speaks against it, told two al-Maliki emissaries Saturday that while not ideal, the document seemed to be the best possible option.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicize what took place in the meeting, said al-Sistani made clear to the two that it would be "unbecoming" for him to speak publicly in favor of the agreement because of his religious status.
Al-Sistani wields enormous influence among Iraq's majority Shiites and his nod to the agreement removed a potential hurdle in the way of the pact, which provides for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009 and the entire country by Jan. 1, 2012.
The statement said al-Sistani wanted the agreement to secure the "restoration of full sovereignty and the realization of Iraq's stability and security." It also quoted him as saying that he wanted it to "win the support of all Iraqis and their main political groups."
He did not suggest that he wanted it passed unanimously, instead using the Arabic word for "accord," or support by a large and representative number of lawmakers.
"Any agreement that does not meet those two demands ... cannot be accepted," said al-Sistani, who called on lawmakers to "rise to their historic responsibility before God and the people."
The agreement places U.S. military operations and movement under stringent Iraqi control. It also gives the Iraqis limited judicial powers over American soldiers and defense contractors in the case of serious crimes committed off-base and off-duty. It prohibits the U.S. military from using Iraqi territory to launch attacks against Iraq's neighbors, including longtime American adversaries Iran and Syria.
Al-Sistani's comments did not constitute a change in the cleric's position on the agreement, but the timing and the tone of the statement suggested that he may have lingering concerns.
Parliament can only reject or pass the agreement, since the document was officially signed by the two nations and cannot be changed unless negotiations reopen, which is highly unlikely with less than six weeks left before the expiration of the U.N. mandate.
The main blocs in parliament — the Shiites, the Kurds and most of the Sunni Arabs — support the agreement and can easily muster a comfortable majority in the Nov. 24 vote, but any one of the three members of the presidential council led by President Jalal Talabani can veto it.
Source: AP News

Iran supports US SOFA agreement.

This turn around will probably ensure that the SOFA will pass the Iraqi parliament although it certainly does not guarantee it. It seems that Iran is optimistic that they can have a positive dialogue with Obama. However, given the Iranian and US positions on Iranian nuclear development this may be a temporary thaw.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Iran's Sudden Support for Iraq-US Security Pact
Omid Memarian explains Iran's turnaround on the Iraqi-US security agreement, which it was rejecting only last month:
'Obama's victory disarms leaders such as Ahmadinejad, who for decades have used inefficient American foreign policies as excuses to justify their own failures, mismanagement and corruption. Earlier this year, Ahmadinejad said that the "U.S. (political) establishment will not let Obama win the presidential election." This was believed because in none of the Muslim countries, including Iran, does a man of a minority ethnicity like Obama have even a slim chance of getting a position in a high office. But American democracy allow this.' McClatchy has more: "Reports from Iran's state news agency called an Iraqi Cabinet vote that advanced the security compact a "victory for the ruling party and its Kurdish partners," referring to the Shiite lawmakers who supported the agreement." Me, I agree with Memarian that the turning point was the election Obama. The Iranians would never have trusted McCain enough to hope for any good outcome from a security pact. But I think they are convinced that Obama really does want US troops out of Iraq, and that he wants to talk to Iran.The Iranians haven't changed their minds about the goal,of getting US troops out of Iraq,but they can now afford to be a little patient.
posted by Juan Cole @

SOFA deal with Iraq close to collapse

This is from the Times (UK)
The US press seems much too pre-occupied with the US election to bother itself with trivial matters such as this it seems. Although the US has modified the agreement considerably from its original form there is still not much Iraqi jurisdiction over US troops and defence contractors. It is on missions that most US troop and contractor crimes are committed. The depth of resentment of US occupation seem not to be appreciated in Washington or perhaps by the US populace either. It is ironic that the timing of troop withdrawal is debated vigorously in the US as if Iraq had nothing to with the matter.


Deal on American presence in Iraq close to collapseMarie Colvin
Senior Iraqi politicians have warned that a crucial deal between Baghdad and Washington governing the presence of American troops in the country is doomed to failure after eight months of talks.

“The Sofa [Status of Forces Agreement] is dead in the water,” said one Iraqi politician close to the talks.

He added that Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, believed that signing it would be “political suicide”.

The collapse of the deal would severely undermine American policy. An agreement is needed to put America’s presence on a legal basis after the United Nations mandate for its 154,000 troops in Iraq expires on December 31.



The draft pact, painstakingly negotiated in Baghdad by Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador, and US generals, calls for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq’s main cities by the end of 2009 and a complete withdrawal by 2011.

The Americans made what they considered to be a significant compromise by agreeing to Iraqi jurisdiction over any troops who committed “serious crimes” while off duty.

They also agreed that American soldiers acting on their own would no longer be able to arrest suspected insurgents. They would need Iraqi permission to make arrests.

Despite the concessions it emerged this weekend that Maliki, who has grown in stature as the Iraqi armed forces have taken control of security in the main cities of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul in the past year, would block the deal.

Two other serving members of Maliki’s government confirmed his view. Iraqi politics is focused on the forthcoming provincial elections, due early next year. Maliki also faces a general election in a year’s time.

Open support for the American presence is seen as a vote-loser, even though most Iraqis tacitly acknowledge the need for troops to remain in the country until their own army can enforce order.

An unofficial poll of MPs last week revealed that the deal would fall far short of gaining majority support in parliament.

“It is absolutely impossible under any circumstances that we will accept this booby-trapped agreement,” said Nasser al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the opposition group of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shi’ite cleric.

“This is an agreement which takes Iraq out of direct occupation and puts it under colonialism with the help of the government of Iraq. It only serves the occupier,” said Rubaie, who is also an MP.

That view was echoed across the political spectrum. Politicians also pointed out that they saw no reason to sign such a contentious accord with the lame duck administration of President George W Bush.

“From a political point of view, how is it possible to sign an agreement with an administration which only has a few days left in power, taking into consideration the changes that will possibly take place if the Democrats were to come to power?” said Hussein al-Falluji, an MP for Iraqi Accord, a Sunni party.

If the deal fails the Americans may be forced to ask Iraq to return to the UN security council for a temporary renewal of their mandate, but the legal status of many of their actions will become uncertain.

Additional reporting: Ali Rifat in Am

Maliki Won't Submit US Security Deal to Parliament

It will be interesting to see what happens now. Theoretically, Maliki can sign the deal without approval of parliament but that would probably be political suicide. Only US presidents can pull off stunts such as that! Interesting that Russia will not block any agreement through the UN as long as Iraq agrees. I suppose this makes sense since Russia wants in on oil deals so it wants good relations with the Iraqi government.

Maliki Won’t Submit US Security Deal to Parliament
Posted October 24, 2008
With political and popular support drying up and the Iraqi Council of Ministers unanimously demanding several amendments, the last draft of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the US seems all but dead as top Dawa party members say Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will not submit the deal to parliament. The latest draft was reportedly finished last week, and at the time was said to be the final one.
The United States is reportedly unwilling to entertain further revisions to the SOFA, with Admiral Michael Mullen saying he was “increasingly concerned” that Iraqi officials were publicly criticizing the draft and Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell blaming Iran for the delays. The Iraqi government has condemned the warnings as “inappropriate.”
If the SOFA is not ratified by the end of the year, when the UN mandate expires, the United States will lose all legal authority for its military operation in Iraq. According to top Dawa party figure Sheikh Jalal al-Din al-Sagheer, the government is considering asking the UN to extend its mandate for another 6 months to a year. It was previously speculated that Russia might be an obstacle to extending the mandate, but Russia has said they will not object so long as the request comes from the Iraqi government.

US resists changing terms of SOFA with Iraq

This is from antiwar.com. This pressure could very well backfire. Perhaps the U.S. is pressuring Maliki to pull a Bush and simply sign the agreement without ratification as allowed under the draft. But this would be political suicide for Maliki. The Iraqis are not as tolerant of such undemocratic tactics as the US populace apparently: here are the ratification terms.

The Ratification:
Incredibly, the terms of the ratification appear identical to a previous draft leaked over a month ago, requiring only the exchange of diplomatic notes assuring the constitutionality of the ratification between the two parties for the agreement to come into force.
It has been speculated that under these terms Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki could bypass parliament by simply claiming the agreement is a bilateral executive agreement not subject to parliamentary oversight. The Bush Administration has similarly claimed the agreement is an executive agreement and that Congressional approval will not be sought for it.
This seems a dangerous route for the Prime Minister to take, particularly with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani insisting on parliamentary approval of the agreement. His office has insisted on multiple occasions that the pact would be sent to parliament for a vote, and that he might even withhold a draft unless he was confident of a two-thirds majority in the vote.
What They’re Saying:
Much of Iraq’s government and opposition is arrayed against the present draft and Iraq’s Council of Ministers, one of the pact’s first stops on its way to parliament, has unanimously agreed that amendments need to be made to the agreement as presently written.
Political analyst Ibrahim al-Somaidaee, however, urged the Iraqi government to accept the pact while it still could, citing unprecedented concessions giving the Iraqi government significant authority over US forces. He warned that “neither Obama nor McCain will accept this issue” in the way President Bush is willing to.
To a Kurdistan Islamic Union MP however, the agreement is basically dead in the water. He urged the Bush Administration to stop pressing Iraqi factions to support the deal, saying “it is impossible (for the pact) to be signed and approved by the Parliament in the remaining months of the current year or during the remaining period of President Bush’s term.”

US Digs In as Iraq Voices SOFA Concerns
Posted October 21, 2008
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen issued an unusually harsh warning to Iraq regarding the growing resistance to the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). Though he acknowledged that Iraq should engage in “a healthy debate” on the pact, he said he was “increasingly concerned” by the public criticisms of the latest draft, and cautioned the Iraqis that they are “running out of time” to approve the deal.
This weekend, Iraq’s ruling coalition said that it would seek amendments to the latest draft of the deal, a draft previously reported to be the final one. The agreement has sparked massive opposition protests and has been criticized by influential Iraqi religious leaders both Sunni and Shi’ite, including today when Ayatollah Sayyed Kazem al-Husseini al-Haeri issued a fatwa condemning the pact as “humiliating.”
But Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says that the US was reluctant “to engage further in the drafting process,” warning that the US would suspend military operations in the country unless Iraq agreed to the deal or got the UN to renew its mandate for US troops by the end of the year.
Instead, Gates advised letting “the Iraqi political process play out.” But in the week since the present draft was announced to be completed, the political process has taken the situation from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki talking about the struggle for a two-thirds majority in parliament to the Iraqi Council of Ministers, who needs to sign off on the deal before it can even be submitted to parliament, unanimously demanding changes to the agreement, suggesting momentum is not on the secretary’s side.

Gates: Door nearly closed on Iraq troop deal.

This is from Reuters via Yahoo.
I suppose this is meant as some sort of threat but if it is, it is not wise. There is already strong opposition to the deal, so much so that it is unlikely to pass parliament. It is not a great idea to threaten the Iraqis. The U.S. needs the deal just as much as the Iraqis.

Door nearly closed on Iraq troop deal, Gates says

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday expressed "great reluctance" about altering a draft agreement with the Iraqi government that would govern the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq after December 31.
"There is great reluctance to engage further in the drafting process," Gates told reporters.
"I don't think you slam the door shut, but I would say it's pretty far closed," he added, warning that failure to reach a new status of forces agreement (SOFA) or renew the current U.N. mandate for U.S. troops would mean "we basically stop doing anything."
(Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Kristin Roberts)