We've known for years that the biggest winner in Iraq was Iran. After all, Iran sacrificed untold blood and treasure fighting Saddam's Iraq in the 1980's, and was delighted to see the U.S. capture and kill their nemesis Saddam. Better yet for Iran, Saddam's Sunni regime was replaced by a Shia regime with close ties to Shia Iran, led by Nouri al Maliki.

Bush and the Neocons wanted Chalabi to run Iraq, but had to settle for Maliki. As Maliki got closer to Iran, the Neocons wanted to stage a coup but quickly abandoned the idea. Today Ned Parker of the Los Angeles Times reports U.S. influence over Maliki is practically nil, while Iran's influence is steadily growing.

"Unfortunately, the American government is not an active player in the Iraqi affairs as they were before. They participated previously in successful projects like national reconciliation and establishing the Sons of Iraq, but now they are only acting as spectators," said Salim Abdullah Jabouri, a spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance Front, the main Sunni bloc in parliament.

At the same time, Iraqi officials complain about the United States' failure to create a lasting foundation beyond its military presence. Iran has created more than $2 billion in trade with its neighbor, including fuel and electricity exports.

"The Iranians will stay in this place forever till the Judgment Day and the Americans will withdraw," said Sheik Jalaluddin Saghir, a senior Shiite politician. "The Americans built their status on their military and their political viewpoints. They didn't try to find shared lines of interest or common ground. . . . The Iranians dealt with this matter in a more positive way."

Now that Iraq is permanently aligned with Iran, what's the point of keeping 150,000 U.S. troops there at a cost of $12 billion per month? Is it just to keep Maliki in power while he brings Iraq even closer to Iran?

McCain insists he would keep U.S. troops in Iraq until we achieve "victory." Sadly, the only "victory" in Iraq already belongs to Iran.

Update 1: Ned Parker's article also provides an update on the SOFA:

But Maliki and other Shiite leaders are juggling intense pressures, in part because of their close relationship with Iran. Maliki appears particularly leery of being branded an American puppet. This has been most prevalent in negotiations over the U.N. security agreement, meant to provide a legal mechanism for American troops to stay beyond this year.

"The prime minister has shown everyone he means business," said lawmaker Sami Askari, a close advisor to Maliki. "Not everything America wants, America can get."

The Iraqis are prepared to simply ask for an extension of the mandate of one year or less if Washington doesn't agree to Iraq's terms, said lawmaker Sheik Humam Hamoodi.

So far, the White House has balked at Iraq's demands for an unconditional U.S. troop withdrawal date and for Iraqi courts to have some jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers.

If Maliki is willing to extend the U.N. mandate until Bush is gone, that removes all pressure on Maliki from Bush to sign a SOFA Maliki doesn't like.

And it gives Maliki the upper hand in negotiations with the U.S., because only Maliki - not the U.S. - can request U.N. extensions.

So if Bush doesn't give Maliki the terms he wants,  Maliki will simply wait to cut a better deal with Bush's successor.

U.S. troops are now serving in Iraq entirely at the pleasure of Nouri al Maliki. As long as our troops serve his purposes he will let us stay; as soon as we stop serving his purposes, he will send us home.

Update 2: Agence France Presse has more info on the stalled SOFA. Remember how many articles have been published quoting anonymous U.S. officials declaring the deal "done"? As I pointed out each time, U.S. officials were lying.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Wednesday warned that the contentious security pact with the United States was facing "serious and dangerous obstacles."

"There is very serious and dangerous obstacles to the deal," Maliki told a group of Iraqi television journalists.

"They (US negotiators) requested 10 to 14 days to respond to our demands and the time is over now. American negotiators have not responded to our proposals.

"If they implement our demand quickly, the deal will be signed soon, but if they refuse our demands, it will face obstacles and could lead to new negotiations."