From Patrick Cockburn's Independent article - the state of the empire, indeed:

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000 ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

[snip]

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

I concur, RMP, about the testimony for the need to an end to the occupation from the two Iraqis - in particular in response to questions from Jeff Flake of AZ - in order to remove the cover and rationale for the gangs and resistance elements participating in most of the violence in Iraq. Flake asked about the 'timetables only allow the bad guys to wait us out' cover story, and the Iraqis blew it out of the water. They both (one an Anbar Sunni, one a Baghdad/Fadhila Party Shiite, both nationalists) made clear that without Americans in Iraq, the fighters would be without a cause - and setting a firm withdrawal deadline is likely to lower violence in advance of, as well as after, any actual departure of our occupying forces.

I admired the Iraqi Representative who called Ambassador Bremer's sectarian "quota" system (which underlies the dysfunctional Iraqi army and police forces, among other things) "primitive" and not fit for a civilized nation. It would seem Iraqis know a little more about civilization than either the United States Congress or the bad faith, abusive actors it's let run wild in our Executive Branch.

With reference to that "proxy war" with Iran we're instigating, I thought there was a very chilling development when the HFA subcommittee reconvened with its second panel witness (a Congressional Research Service expert) late in the afternoon. An ominous telegraphing came during questions asked by, of all people, Jim McDermott of WA (who wondered in passing how Israel would like an Iraq divided into three), and Walter Jones of NC (who's on the Armed Services Committee) - neither of whom are members of the subcommittee that held the hearing but who were invited to participate.

Based on their cavalier inquiries, seemingly based on a common understanding of a specific proposed course of action, I'd have to lay odds that the Congress has been apprised of - and appears sanguine about - Executive Branch plans to bomb Iran - specifically, apparently, a Quds Force 'training camp' somewhere west of Tehran. They were both matter-of-factly, casually theorizing with the witness about the after-effects of such an unprovoked American air attack, which is apparently intended to be executed in the name of eliminating Iranian 'training' of Sadrist elements of the Iraqi resistance.

Nothing was said about the major Iranian influence upon al-Maliki's Dawa/IISC coalition that makes up the American-sponsored Green Zone Government. It was appalling to listen to, even though they may both have been simply trying to obtain evidence for why such an attack at this point would be completely uncalled for and a monstrously irresponsible act by the United States, unsupported by any meaningful evidence of alleged Persian support for Arab Nationalist Iraqis who are fighting the Iranian-backed, American-sponsored "GZGovernment" of Iraq.

Regarding Iran's influence on the Bush-supported al-Maliki government, Juan Cole provides more information indicating that it is Iran whose influence is helping to raise the alarm in Iraq about the secretive security agreement Cheney's trying to ram through against the will of both a majority of the Iraqi parliament (per the letter Rep. Delahunt received) and a majority of the American Congress:

Asked what makes Iran concerned over the agreement... ..snip.. ...and [Iran] feels that the US presence might obstruct this project, if this presence remains." He adds that "accordingly, Iran instructed its allies in Baghdad in one way or another to apply brakes on the US project concerning this agreement," explaining that this is why Vice President Adil Abd-al-Mahdi visited Tehran and met with the Iranian president and other Iranian officials. He also explains that when Iran rejected the agreement, Abd-al-Aziz al-Hakim [of the IISC and its Badr Corps] stated that the agreement encroaches on Iraq's sovereignty, wondering "where this sovereignty was when Abd-al-Aziz al-Hakim brought the US forces to Iraq or blessed their presence or occupation."

http://www.juancole.com/2008/06/aljazeera-iraqi-reactions-to-security.html

Yet still AIPAC and friends keep on rolling, right over the people allegedly representing the United States in our Congress. The members of both irresponsible political parties in Congress deserve every bit of contempt they're receiving, for backstabbing the American people while dealing for dollars with powerful, democracy-hostile insiders.