Juan Cole: Khamenei Tells al-Maliki not to sign Security Pact with U. S.

[seafan]

Juan Cole reports today:

June 10, 2008

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met Monday with Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.



According to Farsnews writing in Persian, Khamenei told al-Maliki that the most important and fundamental problem for Iraq at present is the presence of Occupation forces. He affirmed, "We are certain that the people of Iraq, through their intrinsic unity and effort, will cross over these difficult conditions and arrive at a place befitting them. The dream of the Americans most certainly will never be realized." He emphasized that the Islamic Republic of Iran considers helping the government and people of Iraq a religious duty. He expressed the hope that al-Maliki's visit to Iran and the agreements he signed there would strengthen relations between the two countries.

Al-Maliki expressed his conviction that Iraqis were attaining a consensus and beginning to speak with a single voice. Khamenei expressed his concern that the Americans would interfere illegitimately and "impudently" in Iraqi affairs and disrupt this building consensus. He compared the current role of the US with the one the British used to play in promoting divide and rule policies even in independent Iraq after 1932. He also expressed his worry that the US would worm itself into every aspect of Iraq's affairs.

Al-Hayat writes Tuesday morning in Arabic that Khamenei advised al-Maliki not to sign any such security agreement.

Leila Fadel reports that Shiite lawmakers in Iraq told her that the US has requested 58 bases from the Iraqi government as part of the security agreement now being negotiated. The US also is said to want the authority to decide when Iraq has been attacked, and when and how to respond. The lawmakers are afraid that Washington will use that provision to drag them into the middle of a war between the US and Iran.

On being informed by McClatchy of some of these details, the campaign of Senator Barack Obama demanded that any such stipulation of 58 bases be submitted to the US Congress for approval, and that the Iraqis be told that the US does not seek permanent bases in that country. The McCain campaign had no comment.

Al-Hayat reports that Kurdish MP Mahmud Osman is saying that he has seen a second version of the agreement in which the Americans reduced their demands.

.....

We're getting to the point where the rubber meets the road.


From the Asia Times:


Hawks still circling on Iran

By Jim Lobe
June 10, 2008

WASHINGTON - Once again, notably in the wake of last week's annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference and the visit to the capital of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, there's a lot of chatter about a possible attack by Israel and/or the United States on Iran.
Olmert appears to have left the White House after meeting with President George W Bush and an earlier dinner with Vice President Dick Cheney quite satisfied on this score, while rumors - most recently voiced by neo-conservative Daniel Pipes - that the administration plans to carry out a "massive" attack in the window between the November elections and Bush's departure from office, particularly if Democratic Senator Barack Obama is his successor, continue to swirl around the capital.

.....

Since the abrupt resignation of Admiral William Fallon as CENTCOM commander, which I saw as a major blow to the realist faction in the administration, and Cheney's subsequent visit to the region, however, I've been increasingly concerned about the possibility of an attack, and the past week's events have done nothing to allay that concern.

Let me just lay out a few items, other than those mentioned above, that I find disturbing.

First, there were Olmert's very confident comments about "vanquish(ing) the threat" after his meeting with Bush last Wednesday. "I left with a lot less question marks (than I had entered with) regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and America's resoluteness to deal with the problem," he said after the meeting.
This, of course, was the day after Olmert had told AIPAC, "The international community has a duty and responsibility to clarify to Iran, through drastic measures, that the repercussions of their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will be devastating." (Emphasis mine). Now, this may just be the hawkishness of a politically besieged Israeli prime minister dishing up red meat for a hawkish AIPAC audience, but I don't think it can be so easily dismissed (in contrast to the even more bellicose remarks last week of Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, whose domestic political motivations are much more clear and who is now being blamed for much of the historic jump in oil prices last Friday).

Second, there is the "Cheney" role which is becoming more prominent. I am referring not only to Olmert's dinner with Cheney last Wednesday evening in which the two men reportedly addressed "operational subjects", whatever that means. (Remember, it was Cheney's top Middle East aide, David Wurmser, who, during the spring of 2007 when the realists were clearly in the driver's seat, was shopping around to sympathetic think-tanks a scheme - from which the vice president's office was later forced to disassociate itself - for forcing Bush into war with Iran by getting Israel to launch a cruise missile attack on some Iranian nuclear facilities and counting on Tehran to retaliate against US forces.) In other words, Wednesday's dinner was not just a courtesy call; the Israelis clearly believe that Cheney is a player.

But I am also referring to another Cheney, namely Elizabeth, the former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs and Cheney's daughter, who, during the opening plenary session of the AIPAC conference last Monday, took every opportunity to attack the policies of her former boss, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Liz was particularly harsh on Rice's pet project, the effort to gain at least a framework peace accord between Israel and the Palestinian Authority before Bush leaves office, arguing that the Annapolis Middle East peace process was a waste of time compared to the importance of dealing with Iran in what she called a "zero-sum game".

"When we focus on that kind of arrangement (Israeli-Palestinian peace talks), we don't have time to focus on Iran," she declared, suggesting as well that Tehran's leadership was not "rational" and that previous efforts to engage it had also been a waste of time, or worse. Iran needs to be convinced that if it doesn't heed United Nations Security Council demands to halt enrichment, "They will face military action. We do not have the luxury of time," she said to (surprisingly) scattered applause.

Third, Liz Cheney's remarks should be seen in the context of a more concerted attack by the hawks on Rice of which the recent hatchet job by the Weekly Standard's by Stephen Hayes, the vice president's favorite reporter, was perhaps the most important piece. Hayes accused Rice of betraying the Bush Doctrine and focused much of his essay on her backing for US Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill's negotiations over the past year with North Korea, on which the State Department has already been forced on the defensive.

Liz Cheney (right)



More from Jim Lobe:

Now comes Liz's top-to-bottom repudiation of Rice's Middle East policy - from favoring Palestinian elections in 2006, to initiating the Annapolis summit in Maryland last year and then inviting Syria to attend it, to welcoming last month's Doha agreement on Lebanon. All of which, she charged, had given Iran a "real choke-hold on the region".

Now, I don't think there can be any question that the views of both Hayes and Liz reflect those of the vice president. Moreover, because their closeness to the vice president is so clear and unmistakable, the fact that these views are so harsh and so public suggests to me that Cheney feels more confident than he has felt for some time. Moreover, the campaign to discredit Rice seems to have hit its mark.

Not only did she sound defensive in her own speech to AIPAC last Tuesday morning, but she assumed a more-hawkish tone on Iran than she had previously. And, as noted by the New York Times, she was also markedly more doubtful about achieving even a framework agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians by the end of Bush's term than ever before.

(In fact, Bush and Olmert reportedly spent much more time during their meeting on Iran than on the Annapolis process, suggesting that the president, who has never been as committed to the process as Rice, had, in that meeting in any event, accepted Liz's notion of a "zero-sum game" in which Iran should take precedence over Israel-Palestine.) In other words, there appears to be a major battle over Bush's Middle East "legacy" (apart from Iraq) between Rice, who has hoped to redeem her own "legacy" by concluding some kind of a credible Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement, and the Cheneys, who believe confrontation with Iran is inevitable and, in Liz's words, "We do not have the luxury of time."

Judging from this past week's events, I would have to say the Cheneys have gained some ground.

.....

Those 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush introduced in the U. S. House of Representatives last night should be on the fast track for action by the House.

[annabanana]

1. I think it would be near impossible to overstate how important this is.

Maliki has been told "don't sign" by Khamenei. . .al-Jaafari (the PM before Maliki) has broken with the Dawa Party (ruling party) over this treaty and gone to talk to al-Sadr. .
Bush is claiming that ourCongress has no business ratifying or not ratifying this.. calling it an "Agreement" rather than a "Treaty"

The government of Iraq, for what it is, is unraveling.

[cliss]

2. The message is clear: wait.

Wait until the Bush administration is gone, and things will probably be more favorable.

I think Iraq is going to do the same thing: stall.

[Disturbed]

3. The Busholini Regime is engaging in territorial conquests.

*grants the U.S. long-term rights to maintain over 50 military bases in their California-sized country
* allows the U.S. to strike any other country from within Iraqi territory without the permission of the Iraqi government
* allows the U.S. to conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting with the local government
* allows U.S. forces to arrest any Iraqi without consulting with Iraqi authorities
* extends to U.S. troops and contracters immunity from Iraqi law
* gives U.S. forces control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft.
* places the Iraqi Defense, Interior and National Security ministries under American supervision for ten years
* gives the U.S. responsibility for Iraqi armament contracts for ten years

* gives foreign oil companies 90% control of Iraqi oil

[Hydra]

4. Iran's support of Iraq in telling us to go to hell will probably be used as an excuse to invade

Welcome to the new world, where telling the truth gets you nuked.

[slipslidingaway]

5. K&R al-Maliki has been in Iran since Friday or Saturday

meeting with various people, not much in the mainstream media.

Thanks.

[Monk06]

6. Why doesn't Condi tell Liz Cheney to shut her festering gob. Her position in Government was a case

of naked nepotism.

These political dynasties remind me
of the Roman Republic's destruction
by the Caesarii