By Lennox Samuels 

As recently as last May, American and Iraqi negotiators were at a dead end in efforts to forge a security agreement that would cover withdrawal of U.S. forces. For one thing—an important thing—some opponents of a deal were framing the discussion in terms of the Americans trying to establish a permanent occupying force in the country. When U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari signed the agreement on Monday, it was a testament to the fact that both sides had reached a point where they were satisfied, if not thrilled, with the final terms. Perhaps more important, it showed that negotiators could read a calendar.

That calendar has an asterisk at Dec. 31, the date the United Nations mandate expires, leaving the U.S. military with no legal basis for being in Iraq. There was much talk that the United States and Iraq would be unable to reach common ground by that deadline, and chatter swirled around possible scenarios for such an eventuality. Would the Americans simply stay on "illegally"? Would the two sides stitch together a temporary pact setting up an extra-legal interregnum? No scenario had the United States packing up its 150,000 troops, plus equipment and ordnance, and leaving. As the deadline loomed, realpolitik set in. Dec. 31 "focus[ed] the mind on what happens the next day if there were no agreement," says a senior U.S. official involved in the negotiations.

A breakthrough came when negotiators began to treat the talks as a framework for establishing a broad bilateral relationship that deals with more than just "the technical matter" of U.S. troop withdrawal, the U.S. official says. Negotiators, who formally began talks last March, say the accord really has two pieces: the much-discussed Status of Forces Agreement and a wider deal on matters that extend beyond war. "This agreement provides the framework for cooperation in the fields of economics, culture, science, technology, health and trade, just to name a few," Crocker said at the signing ceremony. "It reminds us that at a time when United States forces will continue to withdraw from Iraq in recognition of superlative security gains … our relationship will continue to develop in many other ways."

That development will come despite the apparent machinations of Iran. Last month, Gen. Ray Odierno, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, caused an uproar when he charged that Iraq's eastern neighbor was trying to derail the agreement, going so far as to say the country was bribing Iraqi politicians. The allegations outraged Baghdad legislators. "The Iranians have not been unduly involved in any way," an Iraqi government official tells NEWSWEEK. But American officials who will not speak for attribution say the Iranians were among those talking up the threat of a permanent U.S. occupation. "Iran wants to dominate the country in every area," including politics, security and economics, says a second senior U.S. official. Because the Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988 with an Iraqi victory, Iran wants events in 2008 to end in an Iranian victory, the official says.

Even some Iraqis agree that the Iranians have been stoking anti-agreement sentiment. Some point to the exploits of radical Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is studying in Iraq to become an ayatollah and has called for mass demonstrations against the security agreement and warned of renewed fighting by his militia, the Mahdi Army. "He's supported by and working with the Iranians," says an Iraqi journalist who asked not to be identified for security reasons. "Iran doesn't invest millions in supporting these people and not ask for a return." Some Iraqi politicians had talked about running any pact by neighboring countries, taken by most observers to mean Iran, for their input. With an agreement signed, Tehran is among the biggest losers in the regional political skirmishing. Still, Iran may not be done yet—it is likely to lobby Shiite Muslims in Iraq's parliament to reject the agreement, which they are expected to vote on in the next week. Both Iran and Iraq have Shiite majorities.

But most Iraqis and American officials expect the parliament to ratify the agreement, which will then go to the presidency council for a final sign-off. The feeling is that both the United States and Iraq have gotten the best deal they're going to get. "This is in many respects everything we've been working for. The fact that they made tough demands and we made tough demands back was entirely natural," says one of the senior U.S. officials. The American side is well aware that Iraqi factions will spin the agreement in different ways, and to their advantage. Some in the government are already calling it a withdrawal agreement. "How it is marketed by either side is one thing," says the second U.S. official. "What it is, is something else." Public relations aside, Iraq seems poised to move on to the next phase of its political journey

By Lennox Samuels

One of the stickiest points in efforts to work out a deal on the presence of American forces in Iraq after the United Nations mandate expires December 31 has been the question of immunity for U.S. troops who commit crimes in the country. Iraqi negotiators rejected demands that such offenders be allowed to remain under U.S. jurisdiction, and the Americans balked at ceding control to the other side. Now, after months of wrangling, not to mention posturing, the nit has been smoothed, clearing the way for the Status of Forces Agreement to be signed. Iraq’s Cabinet approved the deal Sunday and the full Parliament should follow suit in another week or so. But things aren’t quite as simple as they appear.

The immunity provisions themselves hardly give Iraq what it wanted: “The United States shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the force and civilian component for matters arising inside agreed facilities and areas; during duty status outside agreed facilities and areas…” On the other side, “Iraq shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the force and of the civilian component for the grave premeditated felonies enumerated [below] … when such crimes are committed outside agreed facilities and areas and outside duty status.” In other words, if an American military staffer commits a major felony when he is off base and not on duty, he may not have immunity.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who described the immunity issue as a key obstacle to a deal, now backs the current SOFA. “He’s switched from negative to positive and decided it is better than the alternative, which is no deal,” a Western adviser to the government tells NEWSWEEK. Maliki’s support had been unenthusiastic and low-key, no surprise given opposition by many Iraqis suspicious of any possible diluting of national sovereignty. But he is now preparing a major speech explaining why the nation at large should accept the agreement. Once a reluctant prime minister, he now wants to stay on, get re-elected, and even expand his influence. He therefore has positioned himself as a tough defender of sovereignty while still relying on the Americans to help shore up his political career. But Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who has interrupted his studies in Iran to attack the SOFA, has called for a huge demonstration for next Friday. Some more mainstream Sunni and Shiite leaders and politicians also have expressed reservations about the agreement. Only Kurdish politicians have fully embraced the measure.