Maliki declares the US-Iraq Security deal is dead
I think it's important to note that the day after he met with the Iranian leadership Maliki went from negotiating to rejecting . Now, a couple days later, the deal is dead.
Iraq's prime minister (Nouri al Maliki) said Friday that talks with the U.S. on a long-term security agreement between the two nations have reached a dead end, saying the U.S. proposals "violate Iraqi sovereignty..
posted by mikevotes at
7:58 AM
8 Comments:
That deal may be dead. Another proposal will take its place. The US was probably asking for more than it expects to get. That's how bargaining works.
By
Anonymous, at 9:54 AM
Maliki needs the US military to secure his government. Bush has made it perfectly clear he won't be pulling out any troops, no matter what. In seven months Bush's opinion and demands will be moot.
So why in the world would Maliki -- or any Iraqi politician -- "negotiate" with Bush on the future of the American military in Iraq?
By
-epm, at 12:52 PM
Very good point epm....Maliki has nothing to gain. Bush will probably have to settle for another extension of the UN mandate.
By
Anonymous, at 1:07 PM
Anon, yes, and no. In a closed state, then yes, but in the open political arena, a breakdown is bad PR and makes the next one harder.
Plus, no you've told the Iraqis that they have power.
....
EPM, Very true. But note that Maliki is playing to the Shia majority and Iran here, too.
That's the Plan B. And with it looking likely that the US will begin to withdraw after Bush leaves, alot of this is about working within the future of Iraq.
By
mikevotes, at 1:57 PM
Of course Maliki is playing to many audiences; tribal, political, national, regional and international. It seems to me he has more to win/lose by negotiating with Iran than Bush's US. I'm guessing the Iran/Iraq diplomatic relationship is less master-servant than the US/Iraq relationship.
By
-epm, at 3:52 PM
Well, yeah. Iran is driving both of the major/politically dominant Shia groups, and long after the US withdraws, Iran will be pulling the strings.
As to your second statement, I don't know. I think their interests are more closely aligned so Iran doesn't have to use as much blunt force.
By
mikevotes, at 5:31 PM
Iran is driving both of the major/politically dominant Shia groups, and long after the US withdraws, Iran will be pulling the strings.
And Iran will still be their neighbour, while the U.S. will presumably remain on the other side of the planet.
Both Iran and Iraq remember that nasty war they fought. They both would much prefer to be on good terms, but Iraq will continue to be the junior partner for some time.
Unless we obliterate Iran, of course.
With relations with Iran going well, Iraq really has no threatening enemies (Turks, maybe), and thus have very little need for American "protection". All of Iraq's neighbours have more to gain by seeing regional stability. Unless we can manufacture a threat to Iraq, these "security" agreements will go nowhere.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 11:11 PM
That's an interestinmg point that they have no direct regional threats.
The other powers may keep the Sunnis bubbling, but I can't imagine they could ever get them on top again.
By
mikevotes, at 5:47 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home