It seems that no one in America - including the blogosphere - is wondering what will happen on January 1 if Iraq fails to sign an "agreement" with Bush allowing U.S. forces to remain after the U.N. mandate expires on December 31. Without complete legal immunity for U.S. troops and contractors, won't they have to leave to avoid Iraqi criminal charges or lawsuits?

Truthout's Maya Schenwar reports some huge news out of Baghdad that has otherwise gone unreported:

A surprise announcement by Iraq's Cabinet on Monday opened up the possibility that resistance to a prolonged US occupation may come from a much-ignored source: the Iraqi Parliament.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's administration, moving into the third round of negotiations with the Bush administration over a "status of forces agreement" (SOFA) to establish a long-term US military and economic presence in Iraq, declared that the agreement must be approved by Parliament before it becomes law. Previously, Maliki had maintained that Parliamentary ratification was unnecessary.

Maliki's flip-flop is crucial because the odds of Iraq's Parliament giving our troops and contractors immunity are between slim and none.

"Opinion within the Parliament is much less US-friendly than in the executive branch," [Catherine] Lutz told Truthout. "Parliament could add amendments and changes to the agreement."

And there's something else Parliament could do that would be even worse for Bush - absolutely nothing. If they simply delay action on the Bush-Maliki "agreement" until January, our troops will have no legal basis to remain in Iraq and they will be subject to arrest by Iraqi troops, police, or judges. And given Parliament's opposition to the U.S. occupation, there is a strong possibility Parliament will simply let it expire.

"If they actually send it to the Parliament, it will take forever," said [Raed] Jarrar, pointing to the example of Iraq's contentious "oil law," which has been traveling between Parliament and the Cabinet, in various forms, for a year and a half.

Of course Maliki knows this. So the question is: why did he decide to let Parliament be the "decider"?

"Maliki is trying to put the ball in the Parliament's [court]," [Ahmed] Ali told Truthout. "He wants history to talk better about him. If Maliki decides for [American troops] staying, all Iraqis will condemn him and his decision."

In other words, Ali's theory is Maliki wants Parliament to catch the spears from the outraged Iraqi people, rather than catching them himself.

But I don't believe that theory. Why would Parliament commit political suicide to approve an "agreement" to prolong the U.S. occupation when they vehemently oppose the occupation - and the Iraqi people who elected them oppose it even more vehemently?

I read the tea-leaves differently. To me, it looks like Maliki is deliberately sabotaging the "agreement" by giving it to Parliament with the certain knowledge that they will not approve it by January 1.

Maliki has always been polite to Bush in public, but he has never been a "loyal Bushie." He must have said something dramatic in private last summer, because the neocons began openly conspiring to overthrow him in what I then called the world's first Coup D'Internet.

In March, Maliki flagrantly defied Bush by rolling out the red carpet for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who traveled freely and safely from the airport to Baghdad - shortly after Bush snuck into a U.S. air base in the middle of the night.

More recently, Maliki again defied Bush when he sent Iraqi troops to Basra to battle Muqtada Al-Sadr's militia, rather than allowing Gen. Petraeus to carry out his own plan to send U.S. troops. I can only imagine the screaming inside the Green Zone, the Pentagon, and the American Enterprise Institute over that act of defiance.

The Busheviks like to say that Al Qaeda watches the U.S. political calendar - but so does Maliki. And just as Americans are counting the days until Bush leaves office, so is Maliki. Bush isn't just a lame duck in Washington, he's a lame duck in Baghdad too.

So if you connect the dots, it sure looks like Monday's announcement means Maliki wants to wreck Bush's SOFA.

Update 1: Will Maliki really let Parliament decide? He betrayed his Parliament last December when he promised to forward their letter opposing renewal of the U.N. mandate to the U.N., but never did. So he could flip-flip again and approve a SOFA without Parliament, but why would he antagonize Parliament and the Iraqi people for the sake of Lame Duck Bush?

Update 2: If U.S. troops leave Iraq, will Maliki's government fall? Obviously Maliki's fragile government needs a powerful force behind it to prop it up. But why couldn't Iran be that force instead of the U.S.? Iran wouldn't need to send troops, just work out a deal with its proxies - just as it did recently to end the fighting between Maliki's forces and Muktada Al-Sadr's.