Maliki's Office - No US/Iraq Deal By July

By Cernig

A spokesman for Iraqi prime minister Maliki has said today that status of forces agreements between the US and Iraq won't be concluded by the end of July deadline, citing serious differences in the two nation's positions. Meanwhile, another Iraqi lawmaker says some of the differences are so deep that if the US won't budge then there will be no agreement at all.

Reuters reports:

U.S. and Iraqi officials began talks in March on twin agreements on the status of U.S. military forces in Iraq after 2008 and a strategic framework agreement that defines long-term bilateral ties.

Washington has said it aims to wrap up the talks by July, but Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said that was unlikely to happen.

"I don't think that we can meet this date. There is a difference in viewpoints between Iraq and the U.S. I don't think that time is enough to end this gap and to reach a joint understanding ... Therefore, we are not committed to July as a deadline," he told al-Arabiya television.

He also said Iraq was looking into possible alternatives if it could not reach agreement with the United States on their long-term relations, but he gave no details.

The Associated Press adds:

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."

...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.

Maliki is off to Iran this weekend and ahead of the visit his party issued a statement declaring that "Iraqi territory should not be used for military operations against any neighboring countries by foreign forces." His office has also denied reports in the Western press that he intends confronting Iran over alleged meddling in Iraq, saying Iraqi government enquiries are not yet completed.

Opposition to the US presence in Iraq now covers a wide spectrum - from Sunni Awakening to nationalist Shiites via Maliki's Dawa and the ISCI, who are most beholden of all Iraqi parties to Iran's sponsorship. What was that Bush said back in May 2007 about we'll leave when Iraqis want us to? It might be time to start eyeing the exits after all...but only for the US military, corporate contractors won't be going anywhere.

Update: Spencer Ackerman reports that two anti-agreement Iraqi lawmakers will testify on the Hill tomorrow.

Live from the Rayburn building, Rep. Bill Delahunt�s (D-MA) Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight will hear from Sheikh Khalaf al-Ulayyan of the Sunni Accordance Front and Nadim al-Jaberi of the Shiite (and anti-Moqtada, anti-Maliki) Fadhila Party. Both men oppose an open-ended U.S. troop presence, which is a rather popular position among the Iraqi people. Last fall, Maliki�s own mouthpiece told me that the Iraqi parliament would have to approve any open-ended troop presence deal, so it�s possible that Ulayyan and Jaberi�s perspective might actually matter. That, of course, would contrast starkly to that of our own Congress, since President Bush decided long ago that he can commit the U.S. to an indefinite war no matter what Congress thinks.