FROM TEHRAN: ALI AL-HAJ YUSEF

first draft

Ali al-Haj Yusef is as-Safir 's reporter in Tehran. Here’s a summary of his article which appeared on 11/21/08, titled” “Tehran Between as-Sadr’s Rejection and Maliki’s Excitement About the [SOFA] Treaty.”

Yusef says that Tehran has not formulated a clear official position on the Treaty. In the absence of an official stance, Yusef says, there have evolved essentially two points of views about what had in fact taken place.

One such point of view stresses that the “Iraqi negotiator” had been able over eight months to competently “empty the Treaty of its content.” Here’s more:

“The Treaty restricts the movement of the American occupation forces in Iraq through the imposition of Iraqi legal jurisdiction on the American soldiers, and the banning of raids [by these troops] without Iraqi judicial permission, and the restriction over the freedom of these troops in conducting operations against neighboring countries through assurances that Washington has presented in this area.”

Those holding on to this positive view of the Treaty stress that Baghdad had been able to impose a time certain for the withdrawal of the occupation forces and not have this withdrawal be tied to developments on the ground. Too, say these, the Iraqi government has succeeded in picking June of 2009 as the date by which the American forces would have to withdraw from the cities to military bases.

These people -- those who see Maliki’s government as having succeeded in its negotiations with the Americans -- point to the success of that government in dodging November 4 as the deadline by which the Bush Administration had wanted the Treaty signed. That deadline had been hoped for by that Administration to influence the presidential elections. These optimists (my word) point to the fact that Iran had stood behind this maneuver of (evading November 4) to affirm Tehran’s role as an influential player in Iraqi politics.

The second point of view, though understanding of Maliki’s position, sees the assurances about restraints on attacks on neighboring countries by American troops as empty and weak. Too, these realists (my word) see problems in the application of Iraqi law on U.S. soldiers when defining whether these were “on duty” or “off.” These realists point to extensive construction of bases by the occupation forces which indicates their intent to stay beyond 2011.

These realists were surprised when the Maliki government gave the occupying Americans so much time to withdraw. That the Maliki government should’ve stuck to President-elect Obama’s promise to withdraw the troops within 16 months.

Yusef asserts that neither perspective can be said to typify an official position of the Iranian government. It seems, he says, that this government intends on running the Iraqi show with calm. The Iranian government seems to be torn between Maliki and Sadr, not wanting to alienate either. He notes that when watching official television one can see that the Iranian government is trying to please both parties. It’s giving both factions (Maliki and Sadr) plenty of air time.

* * * *

SaudiPolitics’ bottom line: Iran is waiting on Mr. Obama.

I can’t imagine the alert Iranian government not having evolved a strategy on dealing with the Treaty. For now, that government’s bottom line is to wait on Mr. Obama -- to wait for January 21 of 2009. Depending on how the new President handles differences with Iran, Iraq could sink back into chaos and the new administration would have to face the issue of whether or not to war with Iran --directly. That wouldn’t be a palatable decision in the midst of bankruptcy, would it? For the bottom line is one where Iran couldn’t be expected to accept tens of U.S. bases in Iraq, restraints or no restraints, promises or no promises. (The Iranians know that once out of bankruptcy, even though it could take years, the harmful idiots might just be all too happy to war with Iran. And they’d have the bases to help them.) That would be tantamount to accepting Israeli bases there. As tough towards Iran as the military wants Mr. Obama, the new President’s got more serious – even dire – domestic issues to confront. Direct war with Iran would be a truly unwelcome event that should sink the country (ours) yet deeper into financial chaos. Courage and independent decision-making ("change") is a must.