We've said before here that Bush is trying to do a Status of Forces Agreement that would keep troops in Iraq by the behest of an *agreement* with Al-Malaki, deliberately not callling it a treaty so as to try to prevent Congress from ratifying it. On the Iraqi side, Al-Malaki is attempting to prevent parliament from ratifying it. So, the people who LIVE THERE would have no say in having such things as permanent bases, immunity for US troops, etc. Some sovereignty, eh?

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that there is broad Sunni and Shiite uneasiness with the agreement, even inside Iraqi governing circles.

Al-Hayat says that those familiar with the current draft of the agreement says that it speaks of the establishment of 400 US military sites and bases through the country, of legal immunity for American troops and citizens, and an abrogation of any undertakings previously made, to share in the reconstruction of the country.

Another source told al-Hayat that US Ambassador Ryan Crocker is pressing for language permitting permanent US bases, and removal of other language forbidding the US to attack a third country from Iraqi soil. (This source does not sound reliable to me. US officials have repeatedly said they do not want "permanent" bases, and the provision disallowing the use of Iraqi soil as a launching pad for one country to attack another is in the Iraqi constitution.)

The Iranian Speaker of the House, Ali Larijani, called on Iraqis to resist the security agreement with the US with the same courage that they oppose the Occupation itself.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is also said to oppose provisions of the agreement.