If you are one of those casual political observers and have begun asking all the important questions this political season, such as “when are gas prices coming down? Why doesn’t Obama wear a lapel flag pin? And who would you rather have a beer with, Obama or McCain?” Perhaps now it’s time to ask another question: how to start a war with Iran?

The answer to that is simple: provide the legal means to do it. An earlier attempt to hint at that was the now infamous Kyl-Lieberman amendment , which labeled Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and which the “progressive” Hillary Clinton voted for and Joe Biden, chairman of the important Senate foreign relations committee and not exactly a dove, voted against. Many people properly feared that it would lead, directly or indirectly, to war with Iran; however the Bush administration and pundits claimed it was only for purposes of freezing financial assets. Well now it appears that it was just part 1 of the long saga, i.e. war with Iran. Part 2 is what is happening now - US-Iraqi security deal that is currently being negotiated, if that term may be used in discussion of a global superpower and its client state. The major part of this so-called deal is “Status of Forces Agreement” (SOFA), which US has with many countries, especially in the post WW II/Cold War era. However, in this case it’s not just being negotiated in order to provide legal means for keeping a certain troop level necessary for stability and protection (such as protection of the embassy and other US interests). In fact its purpose goes well beyond its standard usage.

Relevant to this issue is UN mandate which provides the legal framework for US troop presence in Iraq. The mandate is set to expire in December of 2008, which means according to international law, which Bush may not care much about, it would be illegal for any US troops to remain in the country. Either UN mandate must be renewed, which is unlikely, or US must negotiate an agreement with Iraq in order to resolve this US troop presence issue. Hence, SOFA is being negotiated.

The negotiation of SOFA, as mentioned above, is a standard routine. However the demands that Bush administration is making as part of the negotiations are extraordinary. It basically comes down to ceding of Iraqi sovereignty to US. According to Iraqi lawmakers, US is demanding unreasonable concessions: it
- wants to establish 58 military bases
- the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq, which lawmakers “fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran”
- judicial immunity to US soldiers (remember Blackwater?)
- control of Iraqi skies
But wait there is more: the Bush administration also wants to make this an “executive accord”, which means it bypasses Senate ratification.

So to sum it up, we invaded the country under the pretext of WMD’s and then later democracy promotion. We killed hundreds of thousands of people, not to mention 5 thousand of our soldiers; inflicted collateral damage beyond belief; and now desire to take away a major component of Iraqi sovereignty, which was the very reason (reason #2) for invasion. I wonder if the word “hypocrisy” ever crossed the Bush officials’ minds.

According to Center for American Progress, a major progressive policy think tank, the real reason for such drastic demands in the SOFA is accomplishment of the legal basis for future war with Iran. According to their report, “Since the administration is unlikely to get an Iran war authorized through Congress, it’s instead trying to sneak it through the Iraqi parliament”.

This should be a lively summer…