Obama, Iran, and the US-Iraq SOFA

Why, after so many months, was the US-Iraq security pact approved now? True, the two countries were facing a deadline of December 31, when the UN authority for the occupation expires, but they could have gone back to the UN for a temporary extension or simply signed a bilateral statement not nearly as involved as the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)approved yesterday by the Iraqi Cabinet.

Here's the reason, in my opinion. The election of Barack Obama changed Iran's calculus, and so Iran decided, very subtly, to shift to neutral on the pact. As a result, many politicians in Iraq who are either influenced by Iran or who are outright Iranian agents now support the pact. It's an important sign from Tehran to Obama that they're willing to work with the United States.

For months, the United States has blamed Iran for sabotaging the prospect for an agreement, and there's little doubt that had John McCain won the election, Iran would have concluded that the likelihood was very high that Iraq would be used as a base for attacking Iran over its nuclear program.

The New York Times mentions the role of Iran in passing:

"Several political analysts suggested that Iranian opposition to the pact had softened because of the American presidential election victory of Senator Barack Obama. He has suggested a more diplomatic approach to Tehran and has described a withdrawal timetable from Iraq faster even than the one laid out in the security agreement, though recently he has qualified that stance.

"'If George Bush's presidency were going to continue on through 2012, I think people would be a lot more concerned,' said Karim Sadjadpour, a Middle East analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'Having this administration really lightens the blow for the Iranians.'"

The revised pact is designed to give specific assurances to Iran that Iraq won't be used as a base to launch an assault on Iran. Ironically, this part of the pact was added after US special forces crossed from Iraq to Syria last month to attack alleged insurgents there. That act, which outraged many Iraqis, only underscored the danger of unchecked US forces based in Iraq. Notes the Times:

"A section of the agreement that Iraqi officials said barred the United States from launching attacks on neighboring countries from Iraq also may have diminished Iranian resistance.

"'We sent messages to neighboring countries to say, "This is in our interest," ' said Mr. Fayyadh, the Shiite lawmaker. 'Specifically we spoke to the Iranians and gave them guarantees that "no one will use our country to attack you." ' There was no immediate reaction from Iran to the vote."

That doesn't mean that Iran is thrilled about the idea of American troops staying in Iraq for three more years, as the pact provides for. But the pact does restrict the activities of those forces, in a way that makes Iran happy, and it doesn't preclude the possibility of an even faster pullout, if President Obama decides to do so. But it does allow for US forces to stay in Iraq through the end of 2011, training and supplying the Iraqi armed forces and police, which means that the Iraqi government -- led by a strongly pro-Iranian coalition of Shiite and Kurdish parties -- will gain strength.

One sign of Iran's ambivalence: some Iranian media, at least, played up the opposition to the pact from Muqtada al-Sadr, the quixotic Shiite cleric whose Mahdi Army has been a force in Iraq since 2004. Press TV, an Iranian government mouthpiece, ran a headline today at the top of its news page reading: "Parliament will reject US-Iraq pact." The article cited opposition from the Sadr bloc, which will oppose it in parliament and carry out large-scale public protests. Sadr has also threatened violence against the US occupation if he and his allies are unable to block the pact.

So far Iran is content to have its allies inside the Iraqi government endorse the pact, and see what happens with Obama. If things go sour, expect Iran to shift toward a more radical stand in Iraq, even supporting Sadr and an increase in violence, in order to put pressure on the Obama administration.

So what happens in parliament now? It's not a done deal, but approval seems likely. Debate starts today, and it is scheduled to conclude by November 24. So confused is Iraqi politics that the government of Nouri al-Maliki is claiming that the pact needs only a 51 percent majority in parliament to be approved, while opponents assert that passage requires a two-thirds vote. That could make a big difference, because the alliance of Kurds, who strongly support the pact, and Shiite religious parties, which also back it (though less enthusiastically), can easily get to 51 percent, but they will have a harder time getting to a two-thirds majority.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the US government and the Iraqi government are "lobbying" members of parliament to support the pact. It isn't totally clear how the Sunni bloc will vote, and they're apparently divided. There is also Shiite opposition to the pact, beyond Sadr.

The opposition bloc in parliament includes a disparate group of nationalist and secular parties, including Sadr's movement, the Sunni bloc, the Shiite Fadhila party, the secular nationalist party led by Iyad Allawi, and assorted other Shiites, including some members of the ruling Dawa party who've broken with Maliki. If every single one of them votes against the pact, it will fail. But the US and Maliki and using a divide-and-conquer strategy, and Iran's likely behind-the-scenes tacit support will help pass it, too.

Of course, in Iraq, opposition comes armed. Not only Sadr's forces, but the Sunnis -- including the Sunni-led resistance groups -- might express their opposition to the pact in the streets. That could be especially true if the scheduled January 2009 elections for provincial government take place on time.

None of this ties Obama's hands. The pact calls for the pullback of US forces to bases outside Iraq's cities by June 30, and for the complete withdrawal of all US forces by 2011. That isn't too far from Obama's own proclaimed strategy, which called for the withdrawal of all US combat forces -- about 75,000 troops -- by mid-2010. The rest of the US force, perhaps 60,000 to 70,000 troops might stay, under Obama's plan, as a residual force, in part to train and equip Iraq's armed forces. Or, Obama could choose to withdraw them, too. (During the campaign, he was vague about that.) The pact, at least, seems to put an end date on those forces of 2011, but of course it's all something that can be amended.

The real questions for Obama now are: Will he stick to his pledge to drawdown US troops at the rate of one to two brigades, as he promised, even though there will be enormous opposition to that plan from the US military? Will he agree to take out the so-called residual force, once the combat troops are gone? And, because Obama needs the help of all of Iraq's neighbors to underwrite a political accord there, can he reach an agreement with Iran -- the so-called Grand Bargain -- so that Iran doesn't try to destabilize Iraq in the future?

Comments (28)

1. I think with this information it shows how Iran is prepared to work with the new President, because he had made it clear he would talk to them. On the other hand McCain was more of a war monger and they weren't prepared to deal with him. This must be good thing for the U.S, as we sure as heck don't need yet another war in Iran. It goes to show that military power and constant sabre rattling is not always the answer to everything, diplomacy does work.

   Posted by Caj at 11/17/2008 @ 07:21am

2. 2011. Just around the corner.

   IF Iraqi security forces are functioning. In 2005 Herr Rumsfeld told us that was just around the corner, measuring close to 200,000.

   Plus, chimpy just told AQ when we "might" leave, something the cons have warned us NOT to do, EVER!

   At least this new pact gives a semblance of law to address the 14ok mercenaries in the country. But, like the withdraw date, it is another maybe.

   If the elections take place in 2009, look for gains by Al Sadr and other Iranian backed groups, as well as Sunni nationalists (former Ba-athists). Won't that make for a nice liberal democracy?

   Now.... how about Jerusalem? The road to there goes through Baghdad, remember? Maybe in 2034.

   Posted by crabwalk at 11/17/2008 @ 07:25am

3. So, after 8 years of war, it looks like in order to establish an actual peace in Iraq, Iran will be in control.

   Heckuva job, Chimpy!

   The election of Obama does bode well for a chance that the Iranian smallfolk will elect a less rightwing government, but Iran is still run by the clergy, so the effect will be moderate.

   Posted by crabwalk at 11/17/2008 @ 07:29am

4. "diplomacy does work."

   Posted by Caj at 11/17/2008 @ 07:21am

   It does?! Let's take a look shall we? China's crushing Tibet, the Janjaweed are continuing slaughtering every civilian they see in the Darfur region of Sudan, the Tutsi rebels in Congo are hacking civillians up while they fight with the Congelese army, North Korea threatens to blow away South Korea when they don't get their way, Somalia has been in a constant state of war since 1991.

   Yeah, diplomacy works alright!!

   Posted by ACook at 11/17/2008 @ 09:06am

5. Posted by ACook at 11/17/2008 @ 09:06am

   Okay, ACOOK, from Tibet to Darfur to Congo to Korea to Somalia...

   what would YOU recommend???

   Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 09:08am

6. Posted by ACook at 11/17/2008 @ 09:06am

   So do you think that fighting is the answer to everything....is there no room in your mind to be able to talk to anyone!! In some cases, a war may have to be the answer, but it can't be the only one...just because we or other countries may have a great military, that does not give us/them to right to fight our/they way out of everything. No, diplomacy does work, you have to give it a chance at least surely.

   Posted by Caj at 11/17/2008 @ 09:50am

7. "The pact, at least, seems to put an end date on those forces of 2011, but of course it's all something that can be amended."

   The important part of this deal is the residual forces--so-called non-combat brigades and mercenaries. It looks like they're all going to be forced out by 2011. That's the way it should be. The author's comments above suggest it wouldn't be so bad if they stayed. In a criminal occupation, our responsibilities are essentially to leave the country--entirely--and pay reparations. We'll likely never do the latter, so we should at least do the former.

   Posted by ATL827 at 11/17/2008 @ 10:55am

8. Posted by ATL827 at 11/17/2008 @ 10:55am

   I don't know how you got the idea that I suggest we stay anywhere!!! All I'm saying is that if we had more diplomacy to start with, we wouldn't need to be in any of these places in the first place. If it's a "just" war then you have to be there for as long as it takes....but this Iraq war was a trumped up war and we should never have gone there in the first place. We are absolutely occupying that country and need to get out, we have no business being there another minute. Afghanistan has been going on for years...if the Russian's could not win against them and they were driven out, why do we think the U.S. can fare any better. It is proving we are not winning that war either and I don't wish for our troops to be stuck there forever. You can't really win a war with terrain you know nothing about...makes the troops sitting ducks.

   Posted by Caj at 11/17/2008 @ 11:14am

9. So do you think that fighting is the answer to everything....is there no room in your mind to be able to talk to anyone!! In some cases, a war may have to be the answer, but it can't be the only one...just because we or other countries may have a great military, that does not give us/them to right to fight our/they way out of everything. No, diplomacy does work, you have to give it a chance at least surely.

   Posted by Caj at 11/17/2008 @ 09:50am

   What I think is irrelevant, but what you need to understand is that war is brutal and there will always be someone, at some point, who is more than willing to wage it. Diplomacy may work for a few, but for the vast majority, they will continue warring until their enemies are conquered. History keeps reminding us that we will never escape that carnal side.

   Posted by ACook at 11/17/2008 @ 11:49am

10. Okay, ACOOK, from Tibet to Darfur to Congo to Korea to Somalia...

    what would YOU recommend???

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 09:08am

    Like you, I can recommend nothing.

    Posted by ACook at 11/17/2008 @ 12:33pm

11. Heckuva job, Chimpy Posted by crabwalk at 11/17/2008 @ 07:29am Your racist slurs need to stop-if you can't have an intelligent discussion without them, then spare us your remarks and proceed to a locale where others of your ilk gather. BTW we wouldn't be in this mess if it were not for BushII, so your racist namecalling should be directed at him.

    Posted by oldintel at 11/17/2008 @ 1:02pm

12. I want us out yesterday! We have no business being there, and the Iraqis will either have to get along or fight. I am really big on self determination, which means Iraqis will have to do the work of fixing their country. It was and is not any of our business!

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/17/2008 @ 1:10pm

13. Thankfully Iraq is finally taking a stand and setting a complete withdraw time. Now with that being said, it is still up to Obama to get the troops out before then. I think he needs to start by first removing ALL the Private Mercenary groups like Blackwater. There are as many of those guys as there are actual U.S. Troops in Iraq! They cost more per "soldier" per year, as well as being reckless outside the accountability or jurisdiction of any laws. Using Private Mercenaries also undermines the entire reason for having a Military. The sooner our troops are completely removed from Iraq the sooner there will be No More U.S. Soldiers being killed or Iraq Civilians killed by the U.S. Soldiers or Blackwaters Mercenaries. The sooner we leave Iraq the sooner the Middle East can begin working on setting up their own version of Democracy amongst themselves, without any interference of U.S. Imperialism or the Idea of democracy through the barrel of a gun. The sooner we are out of Iraq would also mean the Iranians do not need to feel threatened and we can start peace talks with them. And the sooner we are out of Iraq means the sooner we can stop wasting money we don't have on a War we don't need! There are so many valid reasons for ending Iraq, it is unfortunate it is taking so long to realize and to reach an actual decision of peace in these times of excessive turmoil. Anyway, lets hope for the best and an end to these Wars. I really do hope to see some more anti-War protesting back in the streets again. http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com

    Posted by kristofeR! at 11/17/2008 @ 1:31pm

14. Posted by ACook at 11/17/2008 @ 12:33pm

    Go over to the Afghanistan thread, ACOOK....I am recommending diplomacy.

    YOU on the other hand either offer-

    a. isolationism...which is fine. Old conservative tradition broken by Dubya and his pals.

    b. a hint that you would accept military interventions in hot spots around the world.

    which is it?

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 2:42pm

15. Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 2:42pm

    And, I told you, I have nothing to recommend. I don't know what would work for those conflicted countries. What I do know is countries who are always fighting will probably never agree to anything until one of them is dead.

    I find that too many times the West has gone down the diplomacy road with all parties involved and wound up at a dead end.

    Sometimes I think the fault lies with us and that we haven't learned the nuances of how other cultures handle their own political strife. We barge in and assume they "need our help". Why is that?

    To them, the problem is not necessarily the message but the messenger.

    Posted by ACook at 11/17/2008 @ 4:23pm

16. I find that too many times the West has gone down the diplomacy road with all parties involved and wound up at a dead end.----Posted by ACook at 11/17/2008 @ 4:23pm

    Like Ireland?

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 4:47pm

17. Heckuva job, Chimpy Posted by crabwalk at 11/17/2008 @ 07:29am

    "BTW we wouldn't be in this mess if it were not for BushII, so your racist namecalling should be directed at him."

    Posted by oldintel at 11/17/2008 @ 1:02pm

    The namecalling was directed at bush. Bush is chimpy.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/17/2008 @ 4:53pm

18. "Like you, I can recommend nothing."

    Posted by ACook at 11/17/2008 @ 12:33pm

    Touché.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/17/2008 @ 4:56pm

19. I find that too many times the West has gone down the diplomacy road with all parties involved and wound up at a dead end.----Posted by ACook at 11/17/2008 @ 4:23pm

    Like Ireland?

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 4:47pm

    And the non-diplomacy works just...so damn well.

    How horrible that we even have to have such discussions, no? If we had only NOT invaded a sovereign country, we wouldn't have to worry about how best to take care of it's millions and millions of denizens.

    I kinda remember somebody saying this engagement wouldn't last more than a few months...

    His name escapes me. Musta been some elitist liberal America-hater!

    But as the Bush admin. wants to pound into everybody's thick skulls, the decision to go to war is just water under the bridge folks!

    LOL!

    Posted by TexasFlood at 11/17/2008 @ 5:51pm

20. Posted by oldintel at 11/17/2008 @ 1:02pm

    Who's more racist, the person saying "chimpy", or the person that automatically thinks it was directed at the black man, who hadn't even been mentioned?!

    LOL

    GOT to love the PC police.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 11/17/2008 @ 5:53pm

21. What I think is irrelevant

    Posted by ACook at 11/17/2008 @ 11:49am

    I see.

    Posted by winyahn at 11/17/2008 @ 10:47pm

22. I think there are several aspects going on here. And obviously Iran and the trategic implications of that are one of the major issues - with Ahmedinejads' note to Obama a certain level of communication, simple conversation that was lost has been found again and hopefully the new American President will carry that forward.

    The Act is clearly creating a lot of tension in Iraq and for ther neighbours as well, notably Syria. There has been some news about an unlikely pact between Sadr and Sunni politicians, who are calling for PM Maliki to answer questions in Parliament. IF the PM agress it could send out a clear message to the nation that some form of democracy is at work. BY ensuring that the laws in the pact are truly enforced, such as the one where the foreign troops have to take Iraqi permission before searching homes, he could also send out a strong message to the US and the Middle East that he is in control of the nation.

    Posted by Ambika at 11/18/2008 @ 01:32am

23. Ever get the idea that the U.S. with 14 percent of the world's population is spread a bit thin in trying to take care of all the world's problems? Who's putting out the bucks and taking the military losses-we are! Who is benefitting-I really don't know for sure but I do know that we are not! My real reason for voting for Obama was to get the Hawks out of Power in Washington and hope to God that Obama has the diplomatic skills to make the changes necessary to get a national coalition and World Opinion working on World Problems. The U.N. has gotten little support and the U.S. thinks that it's Superpower Status can reform the world as we see it-meanwhile hideous racial conflicts, nuclear proliferation, spread of Aids and economic disasters tell us this stand alone, shoot from the hip Hawk philosophy SHORE AIN"T WORKING!

    Posted by RITEON at 11/18/2008 @ 06:45am

24. "BTW we wouldn't be in this mess if it were not for BushII, so your racist namecalling should be directed at him." Posted by oldintel at 11/17/2008 @ 1:02pm

    sorry for your confusion.

    Chimpy McFlightsuit would be Dumbya, The Worst President Ever. I mean no slight to primates and apologize if any you know feel any angst over my comments. Have a banana, relax. Or some chitlins. :)

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2008 @ 07:28am

25. What I think is irrelevant Posted by ACook at 11/17/2008 @ 11:49am

    glad we cleared that up.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2008 @ 07:29am

26. Posted by Malcontent at 11/17/2008 @ 4:56pm

    Eric, did you notice I DID offer a recommendation...that of "using diplomacy"?

    Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 08:45am

27. Posted by TexasFlood at 11/17/2008 @ 5:51pm

    You still don't get it. Ireland is a European nation and they think the same way as other Europeans when it comes to "their" brand of diplomacy. Peoples from other races and cultures do not. You cannot assume that your white way of thinking will be the best fit for them.

    Posted by ACook at 11/18/2008 @ 10:23am

28. Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 08:45am

    Just giving her some small bit of credit. She so seldom makes a coherent post.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/18/2008 @ 6:10pm