Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has announced that extending the stay of US troops in Iraq was “nearly impossible”, justifying this by the fact that the majority in Parliament was against such an extension, in spite of the need for them to help confront Al-Qaeda, which has resumed its activity in some provinces, and to compensate for the shortage in terms of air forces, naval forces and intelligence. Talabani's realistic statement is based on the stances of parliamentary blocs opposed to the extension, on Sadr's threats of returning to military action, and above all on Iran's stance opposing US presence, as well as the fact that Tehran will use this as a bargaining chip in any potential understanding with Washington, which will not leave Iraq in a vacuum after all of the financial and human cost it has suffered since the invasion and to this day. This vacuum we speak of is not only the result of Iran's incursion into Iraqi state institutions and into Iraq's economic networks, but also the natural outcome of the absence of any Arab plan to confront this growing influence. And when we say “Arab plan”, we mean any official Arab strategic direction. Even when it comes to those who are rising up against the collapsing regimes in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia and Syria, their proposals and their slogans are entirely devoid of any hint to such issues. In other words, the negligence in this respect includes the regimes as well as the leaders of the uprisings. But that is a different issue. Facing Talabani's clear and frank statements, there are notable US statements that indicate Baghdad's approval of extending the stay of troops beyond the year 2011, while nevertheless remaining open to the possibility of the failure of pressures on the Iraqi government. Thus, the negotiations between the two sides, despite the Iraqis denying their existence, address maintaining a military force to protect the Embassy, Consulates and “interests” of the US, one amounting to about 20 thousand soldiers. It would only be logical for the two sides to reach an understanding on this issue to avoid having to sign a new agreement and present it to the Parliament to be ratified. Furthermore, such a loophole would spare the Iraqi government from embarrassment and from having to confront the refusal of the Sadrist Movement and of other groups – groups that represent the spinal cord of the political process which the US has made sure to maintain, as the sole indication of its success in Iraq. Moreover, the United States would have thus avoided any talks with Iran on the issue of Iraq at the moment. In addition to US troops, which are expected to remain in Iraq, being in charge of protecting Washington's interests, they will also have the task of overseeing the implementation of the strategic agreement between the two countries, i.e. the agreement that permanently places Iraq in the orbit of the US. And it is quite strange that no one talks about this agreement, neither the Iraqi opposition nor the government, nor Sadr, nor Iran. US troops will withdraw from Iraq, but they are staying!
