Bush's Economic Pom-Poms

And what about an American commitment to defend Iraq in case of attack? "Administration officials have conceded that if the agreement were to include security guarantees to Iraq, it would have to go before Congress. But the leaked draft only states that it is 'in the mutual interest of the United States and Iraq that Iraq maintain its sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and that external threats to Iraq be deterred. Accordingly, the US and Iraq are to consult immediately whenever the territorial integrity or political independence of Iraq is threatened.'"

Iran Watch

Damien McElroy writes in the Telegraph: "British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the US-backed Baghdad government.

"A strong statement from General David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a US attack on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment."

Yochi J. Dreazen and Laura Meckler write in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) about ongoing "disagreements between U.S. civilian and military policy makers about the true threat posed by Iran -- and what to do in response.

"Within the State Department, some senior officials believe that Iran has worked to curb the flow of advanced weaponry into Iraq and deserves some credit for the recent declines in violence there. Many top U.S. military commanders, by contrast, believe that Iran is supporting an array of militants inside Iraq and is actively working to destabilize the country.

"Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, who served as the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, said recently that Iran posed the greatest long-term threat to Iraq. The general said the U.S. had 'pretty clear' evidence that Iran continued to train Shiite extremists and provide them with rockets and other weapons."

Gary Kamiya writes for Salon: "It's blame-blame-blame, blame-blame Iran. We've heard this song before. The Bush administration warbles it every time it needs to justify its failed Iraq policies and rally a skeptical public. . . .

"The truth is that the Maliki government and its allied Shiite faction, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI, formerly known as SCIRI), are much closer to Iran than the Sadrists are. Maliki's campaign against Sadr isn't a noble crusade by the good Iraqi government against the bad Iranian-backed Sadrists, but a battle waged by a weak Shiite leader backed by one militia, ISCI's Badr Corps, against another, stronger Shiite leader, Sadr, with his own militia, the Mahdi Army. Not only that, the 'good' militia, the Badr Corps, was created in Iran by Iran's Revolutionary Guard -- the same organization whose Quds Force the United States notoriously declared to be a 'terrorist organization' last year. The maraschino cherry on this sundae of absurdity: It was the head of that Quds Force, an Iranian general, who bailed out Maliki after Maliki's assault on Basra ignominiously failed, forcing him to send officials to Iran to broker a truce."

Kamiya also notes that Middle East expert and blogger Juan Cole questions U.S. claims that Iran is intentionally supplying weapons to the Mahdi Army. "There's no proof for that, and whenever the U.S. Army is pressed for evidence, they always back off," Cole tells Kamiya, explaining that the weapons are available on the black market and the Mahdi Army, flush with funds, can easily buy them.

Stonewall Watch

Carrie Johnson writes in The Washington Post: "The release last week of a Justice Department memo that authorized the military to pursue harsh interrogation techniques has ignited new demands for documents that underpin the Bush administration's most sensitive policies, including the treatment of detainees and the warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens.

"Despite repeated congressional requests, some made as long as three years ago, key legal opinions and other department documents remain under wraps. That has prompted Democrats to accuse the Bush administration of trying to run out the clock. . . .

"Justice Department officials have said that they deserve credit, however, for releasing -- last Tuesday -- a 2003 opinion approving harsh military interrogation tactics. . . .