FOR years, the Shiite political parties running Iraq have balanced the interests of their new allies in Washington with those of their old friends in Tehran. Now, with a vote due on a final draft agreed with the United States on a security pact that would allow its forces to stay in Iraq for three years, they may have to choose. The “yes-or-no” vote means they will have to anger one side or the other. Iran, which believes the pact would give its American foe a foothold in the region, opposes it. Iraqi politicians say Tehran has been exerting pressure to persuade Shiite lawmakers in the powerful coalition behind Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki not to approve the agreement. “The Iranian government has put all its efforts ... into stopping the agreement, and is putting lots of pressure on the Shiite (parties),” said a non-Shiite senior government official, who backs the pact. “The Shiites now are facing a very difficult choice: will they do what they think is in the interest of Iraq or will they take into consideration Iran's priorities in its struggle with the United States?”, asked the official. The bilateral pact replaces a UN Security Council resolution enacted after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and will give Iraq's elected government authority over the US troop presence for the first time. The agreement was submitted this week to Iraqi leaders for approval, a first step toward ratifying it in the Iraqi parliament. But, if the two sides do not sign it by the end of the year, Baghdad will have no choice but to extend the UN resolution or face immediate troop withdrawal, officials say. The commander of US forces in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, has gone further. He accused Iran of trying to bribe Iraqi lawmakers to oppose the pact, although he later said there was no evidence the parliamentarians accepted any bribes. Maliki's coalition is led by two main Shiite parties – Maliki's Dawa Party and Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council – which both forged close ties with Shiite Iran in exile when Iraq was ruled by Saddam Hussein. But after US-led forces ousted Saddam in 2003, Dawa and SIIC accepted US help to take over power in Iraq and then formed a Shiite Alliance that easily won elections in 2005. Since then, they have carefully avoided offending either Washington or Tehran. Sadr rejects, sistani silent A third powerful Shiite group – followers of anti-American cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr – quit both the Shiite Alliance and Maliki's government last year in protest at Maliki's refusal to set a timetable for US troops to leave Iraq. The group already said it opposes the pact. Perhaps the most influential Shiite of all, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the country's most senior Shiite cleric, has yet to pronounce on it. Maliki visited Sistani in the Shiite holy city of Najaf days before agreeing the final draft of the pact, a sign of how important the cleric's support for the pact would be. A senior Shiite official said that Sistani was not pleased with the pact, but may not bloc it. “He does not think it fulfils Iraq's requirements,” the official said. “This pact cannot pass without Sistani's blessing, but he will never say ‘Yes I approve it' – so it will only pass if Sistani does not object to it.” Iraq's interest Shiite Alliance politicians bristle at suggestions they are being swayed by the interests of either Washington or Tehran. “It is not as rigid as: ‘If you vote for it then you are American and if you do not then you are Iranian,'” said Abbas Bayati, a senior Alliance member. But as long as Washington still maintains 146,000 troops in Iraq, the consequences of voting against it could be grave. “There is a possibility that if the pact was rejected in the voting then the Americans might turn cold in supporting this Shiite-led political system,” said the non-Shiite official. “Therefore they will be faced with the decision of throwing themselves deeper into the arms of the Iranians. Other groups may revolt against them in this mixed and multi-ethnic country. – Reuters __
