The real reason for Britain’s Iraq withdrawal

We're going to hear those fateful words 'Mission accomplished' about Iraq again, unless I am very much mistaken. The British recognise that they have to get their forces out of the country soon after next January 1 because the UN could consider the presence of the American-British force illegal.

The Americans and British have been told that the UN Security Council Resolution allowing the international force powers of occupation in Iraq will not be renewed when it runs out on December 31. Being deemed illegal by any international authority, let alone the UN, has never bothered the Bush-Cheney regime. But for the British it is an entirely different matter.

Britain is signed up to the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Human Rights and both international and EU law now feature strongly in British military justice. Any British soldier deemed to be in breach of international or EU human rights law in Iraq after the expiry of the UN resolution could be brought before the International Criminal Court in the Hague for war crimes.

This is why the Brown government has started 'spinning' through political journalists the message that we have achieved 'stability' - even 'success' - in Basra and we must go by Christmas.

A few weeks ago when the Maliki government decided to take on the Shia militias of Moqtada al-Sadr and others, the British performance in Basra got far from favourable notices from the Americans or the Maliki team.

Miraculously, after some robust action by 1,000 American reinforcements and 30,000 Iraqi troops, and the British getting stuck into the 'asymmetric fight' - ie. taking out a few of the hothead leaders with targeted killings - all is sweetness and light in the old bazaars by the banks of the Shatt al Arab. To make the point, Britain's Defence Secretary Des Browne flew into Basra recently to be snapped sipping tea 'with the locals' at a downtown cafe in the city.

The Brits will go with the Americans' blessing - because they are likely to have to head for the exit door, too. The big development of the past few days in the region is the visit to Iran by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq - a surprisingly durable politician, as the Americans and Brits are discovering.

Somewhat rashly, Bush has been canvassing the idea that America should have a string of permanent bases across Iraq, from which they would keep an 'overwatch' on the things that interest them most, Iran and oil. This might form the basis of a regional security pact to be underwritten by Baghdad, Tehran and Washington.

Maliki was smart enough to mention this up-front in his talks in Tehran. Here the key interlocutor was not President Ahmadinejad, whose remarks during the visit have been hardly reported, but Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself. The Grand Ayatollah rarely speaks in public, but he chose to go on the record to say he was in favour of a security deal between Tehran and Baghdad - with the proviso that the Americans quit Iraq.

This view has been endorsed by the leading Shia spiritual authority in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani (left), who tries to keep his nose out of politics, at least in public. I am told that he has now informed the Americans and British they must go, because they must have no permanent security or institutional role in a future Iraq. This is a major development as Sistani had said previously the Americans were needed pro tem for security reasons.

So America and Britain are likely to have little or no toehold in Iraq as the country develops its huge new oilfields west of Basra. Contracts for the three large fields beyond the Rumailiya field, the richest in Iraq, are now being let.

Instead they will have to turn to the smaller kingdoms and emirates for their bases in the Gulf region - if the Saudis and the other big players will let them. Meanwhile Iran enriches its uranium apace. ·