Considering the document will be subject to the Iraqi Parliament and public debate, it would be absolutely unrealistic to think its terms could be accepted without a murmur.

Some politicians, including primarily the influential Shiite leader Moqtada Sadr, already have called for protests against the treaty. Iraqi members of Parliament have written to the U.S. Congress, threatening to oppose any agreements with the United States, not only in the security sphere, unless a mechanism and timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops is agreed upon. It is easy to see what would happen in Iraq if the reported proposals become reality. Washington can hardly be so naive as to pour more oil on the flames in Iraq.

Washington insists that the leaks that led to the publication of some drafts in the media are a well-organized provocation by those who would like to sabotage any agreement between Iraq and the United States. Iran is the prime suspect. At the same time, the leaks could be a ploy by Washington to test the Iraqi reaction, and possibly make it more pliable by offering better terms than those published in the media. Although the quoted terms look outrageous, some of them could be discussed in reality, for instance, freedom of movement and legal immunity for U.S. troops in Iraq.

Be that as it may, the publications in the media have done their bit -- the Iraqi-U.S. talks have ground to a halt. Meanwhile, there is little time left for decision-making. The U.N. mandate for the presence of foreign troops in Iraq is expiring. So is the presidency of George W. Bush, with whom Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki conducted talks on strategic partnership. Last November both politicians set a July 31 deadline for decision-making. But today it is obvious the deadline will not be met.

If the media reports are to be believed, Washington is so desperate to get the deal described in the leaked document that it is threatening to lift immunity from part of the Iraqi hard currency accounts held in the Federal Reserve. According to The Independent, Iraq may lose about $20 billion out of $50 billion.

If the talks with the United States drag on much longer, Maliki will have to ask the United Nations to extend its mandate for the presence of international troops in Iraq. But who, other than the Americans, would want to stay? If Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., wins the presidential election in November, the American contingent could be withdrawn whether the United Nations extends its mandate or not. Debates in Congress on the future agreement with Iraq may be as fierce and long as its discussion in the Iraqi Parliament.

So, for the time being, Tehran has no grounds to worry. But the Iranian government does not want to leave anything to chance, and is upgrading its contacts with Baghdad. The Iraqi government will find it increasingly difficult to be torn between Tehran and Washington.

(Maria Appakova is a commentator for RIA Novosti. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

Related Links
Iraq: The first technology war of the 21st century

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News