Center for a New American Security

Dr. iRack has been writing a lot about the ongoing U.S.-Iraq negotiations over the SOFA and the related but separate Strategic Framework Agreement (outlining long-term military, economic, and political ties) in the last week. (For good summaries of the agreements, see here and here). In recent days there have been a lot of important developments on this front.

Maliki just returned from Iran, where Iranian leaders (including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) complained about an impending U.S.-Iraqi security pact and, as usual, blamed all the violence in Iraq on the U.S. "occupation." (Perhaps to mollify Tehran's concerns, Iraq and Iran agreed to increase their own defense cooperation.)

On the Iraqi side of the equation, the growing number of complaints against the SOFA negotiations include the number of bases (58 by one count), U.S. control of Iraqi airspace, contractor immunities, and the right of U.S. forces to detain Iraqi combatants. Iraqi leaders are also concerned that the U.S. would be able to define external "aggression" against Iraq in any way they wanted, perhaps dragging Iraq into a war with Iran. Lawmakers and officials in the ruling coalition (yes ISCI/Dawa, not just the Sadrists) are now loudly criticizing the draft SOFA:

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far." . . .

"It would impair Iraqi sovereignty," said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party of the proposed accord. "The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq... if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help."

Maybe this is all for show to appease the growing nationalist backlash and Sadrist-led protests, or gain bargaining leverage to get a better deal. (And the latter may be working since the agreement is reportedly being tweaked to address some of these concerns.) Nevertheless, although the administration still aims to complete a strategic framework this year (including the SOFA), they now admit that the uproar may prevent them from finalizing a deal this year and may force them to support an extension of the UNSCR instead.

If this happens, it would effectively kick the negotiations down the road to the next administration. Dr. iRack is on record that this would be a good thing, since that would allow the negotiations to occur within the context of a credible commitment for a phased U.S. redeployment--something that would lead to a better deal with less nationalist backlash.