Iraq Press Roundup

Iraqi lawmakers are scheduled to decide Wednesday if the country remains under a Chapter 7 U.N. mandate or sign a security pact that allows U.S. forces to stay in the country until 2011.

Al-Iraq lil-Kul news agency said Tuesday that since 2003, the Shiite community in Iraq has faced supporting either Iran or the United States as its primary ally.

The government of Baghdad between Tehran and Washington

The U.S. and Iranian governments have helped Iraq move against opposition movements and eliminate the former dictator, Saddam Hussein, despite Tehran and Washington holding strong animosities toward each other.

The intention of Iran, however, is to become a regional hegemony, while the United States is looking to keep Israel in a dominant position in the Middle East. These policies have placed the Shiites in a position to express their support for both sides, putting them in a difficult situation ahead of the vote on the U.S.-Iraq security pact.

The Shiites managed to please both sides, however, when the Iraqi Cabinet passed the measure after several dramatic revisions, leaving Iran in a position to voice few objections over the arrangement.

For its part, Tehran was able to keep a positive relationship with the Shiite parties in Iraq and position itself favorably with the next U.S. administration, all while destroying the regional Arab identity.

The Azzaman newspaper Tuesday highlighted some of the disputes over the U.S.-Iraqi security pact set to replace an expiring U.N. mandate.

The pact and enforcing the reality

Amendments to the pact offered by Baghdad, such as putting U.S. forces under the authority of Iraqi law, were denied by Washington, leaving the Iraqi public to view their government as a failure.

Crimes committed by U.S. contractors like Blackwater U.S.A. could be considered war crimes under international law. But in drafting the security pact, Washington insisted on immunity for forces accused of killing Iraqi civilians and other violations.

Other points, such as continuing the U.S. troop presence beyond 2011, were opposed by various national and regional powers, leaving Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in a position to soften his stance on the provision.

Beyond the security pact, there is a separate agreement that was signed that gives U.S. forces permission to extend their presence in order to "assist" Iraqi forces in security operations.

The separate measure allows Washington to exploit the situation in Iraq for its own interests, leaving President-elect Barack Obama to contemplate a continued military occupation of Iraq or a formal security pact.

Sot al-Iraq news service commented Tuesday on Iraqi political parties that have stated their opposition to the U.S.-Iraqi security pact.

Those in denial of the security pact

Iraqis expressed little surprise that some political parties acted against a security measure seen to violate the interests of the people.

The Sadrist Movement of Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, for example, tends to refuse any move Baghdad makes on the measure, even after the name was changed from a Status of Forces Agreement to an agreement on the U.S. troop withdrawal.

The Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq, meanwhile, followed suit by rejecting every measure of the security agreement because it puts the Shiite parties in a dominant position in Baghdad.

But this opposition violates the very principles of democracy, as rival political parties are expected to sit down together and hammer out their differences.

The security agreement, despite some negatives, is the best way for Iraq to achieve full sovereignty and control the movement of U.S. forces, the newspaper said.

--

(Edited by Daniel Graeber)