Maliki vs Hill … Talk Article VII

February 9, 2010 · Posted in NEWS
Maliki vs Hill … Cut the U.S. ties, back to Iran for rescue
February 8th, 2010

The U.S. volatility attitude towards the Iraqi issue, made Maliki to come to the conclusion that he has nothing to lose, and all what the U.S. interested right now is “an Iraqi election” described by the Americans in two words “transparent and fair”, which allows the U.S. to with*draw its military forces in the August of this year.

In the absence of a clear U.S. policy in Iraq compared to its concerns in Afghanistan, the U.S. intervention in Iraqi affairs is no longer built on a “moral issue” such as what it was in the Republicans era, with the presence of strong American ambassadors in Iraq, like Zalmay Khalilzad, Negroponte, and Ryan Crocker. The presence of the current ambassador Christopher Hill, is only represents the type of pres*sure that may not lead to solutions.

Maliki’s solution

Maliki’s statement against the American Ambassador Christopher Hill, warning him not to go beyond his diplomatic mission is something new in Iraqi politics. The Americans are still strongly present in Iraq with an army of 140 Thousand soldiers, and they are also present under Article VII, therefore, Maliki’s talk about sovereignty is not very welcomed by the U.S. However, the U.S. Embassy responded to Maliki’s accusation by saying that its role is limited with providing advice to the Iraqi leaders, which means that the U.S. doesn’t recognize Maliki’s statement.

During the past period, everything was moving in the direction of holding elections that could exclude all those who stand against certain projects in Iraq. The most prominent among those, is former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and his majority Sunni political force, which is a major blow to the the Iranian Islamic project in Iraq.

The decision taken by the Justice and Accountability Commission to exclude certain members from partici*pating in the election came as a surprise for all, even for Prime Minister Al-Maliki, who used the chaotic situation to turn the table against the American upside down, understands that if they are not harmful right now, they are no longer useful, especially with their definitive decision to leave Iraq despite the warnings issued by American politicians (the last warning came from Kissinger who advised Obama to change his plans against Iraq).

For his part, Maliki wants to employ his critical position towards the Americans against his opponents, especially the Iraqi National Coalition (INA), who made the Iranians to understand that Maliki is motivated by the Americans not to join INA coalition. Crossing the “red lines” against the Americans means that Maliki presented his credentials to the Iranians who will find him from now on a strong ally who can clash with the Americans and in the current U.S. — Iran relations, this is what the Iranians exactly need.

Changing seats and places, this is reason behind Ammar Al-Hakim’s visit to the U.S. ambassador Christopher Hill yesterday, to find if he can replace Maliki as the U.S. favorite.

http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2010/02/08/maliki-vs-hill-%E2%80%A6-cut-the-u-s-ties-back-to-iran-for-rescue/