I thought that the Iranians pretty much controlled Iraq?
I mean, our Left tells us this every day.
So why is Iran's media saying this about the proposed US-Iraq deal on the status of our forces in Iraq starting in 2009?
The papers accused Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of caving in to American demands over the pact.
Al-Maliki's government and the U.S. began negotiations in March on the deal meant to provide for long-term bilateral ties and a status of forces arrangement regulating U.S. military operations in Iraq.
The Jomhuri-e-Eslami daily said in a front-page editorial that the deal would be "capitulation the U.S. has imposed on the oppressed Iraqi people," and urged Iraqis to turn to "a popular revolution" that would bring about the "expulsion of the occupiers" from Iraq.
Shouldn't the Iranians just be able to tell the Iraqis to kick us out? I mean, if the Iranians control Iraq, that would be the obvious solution rather than publicly whining about the negotiations. Really, I thought Maliki was supposed to be an Iranian puppet? That's what the anti-war side says.
And how could any agreement post-Saddam be bad for Iran since by definition we "did a favor" to Iran by destroying Saddam. How could the Iranians object to this agreement?
It's almost as if we are winning in Iraq and the Iranians are losing.
Heck, it's almost as if the war opponents on the Left don't know what they are talking about.
