Washington Post: Why Are Democrats Joining Iran In Opposing Long-Term US/Iraq Relations?

A good question:

[Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's desire for a long-term US/Iraq alliance] would seem to be an obvious U.S. gain in what, according to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as well as President Bush, is the urgent task of countering Iran’s attempt to dominate the Middle East. It means that Iraq, a country with the world’s second largest oil reserves and a strategic linchpin of the Middle East, just might emerge from the last five years of war and turmoil as an American ally, even if its relations with Iran remain warm. So it’s hard to fathom why Democrats in Congress have joined Ayatollah Khamenei in denouncing the U.S.-Iraqi agreements even before they are written. . . .
If the United States were to make a formal commitment to defend Iraq from external aggression, congressional consideration and approval of the pact would be appropriate. For now, the biggest risk is that Tehran and its allies will pressure Mr. Maliki into backing away from a partnership with Washington. In that case, Iran would hasten to substitute itself as Iraq’s defender and strategic ally, with momentous implications for the rest of the Middle East. Surely this is not what the Democrats want.

I don’t think it’s what the Democrats want for the middle east, but the problem is that right now the Democrats (up to and including Barack Obama) are letting partisan politics inform their stance on Iraq and the middle east rather than a desire for sound US policy in the region. Which is troubling because Democrats have to know that their continued threats about a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq – thus leaving the Iraqi government wide open to the machinations of countries like Iran and Syria – aren’t doing anything to help Iraq/US relations, and thus are harming America’s position in the middle east as a whole. Yet they do it anyway, because it pleases their far-left base and they know that they can’t win any elections without those votes.