The Arabic press is sometimes ahead of the Western media. Amer had written about the US security (for occupation) treaty two days before the report in the Independent: "Al-Hayat, today, published several reports on the upcoming Iraqi-US “security treaty” organizing future American military and political presence in Iraq. The London-based, Saudi-financed, pro-US newspaper admitted that “a majority of Shi’as and Sunnis” reject the arrangement, which is seen by most Iraqis as a perpetuation of the US occupation of their country. In many ways, the treaty – “negotiated” by the Maliki government – is regarded by the Iraqi populace as a rubber stamp for US occupation by a government lacking independence. Ironically, the treaty was originally promoted by Maliki and the ruling team in Iraq as a step towards regaining Iraqi sovereignty, but with growing popular discontent, even ‘Abd al-‘Azeez al-Hakeem, a major ally of the US in Iraq, is trying to distance himself from its articles. Al-Hayat showcased a recent statement by the Shi’a I'tilaf bloc (currently composed of al-Hakeem’s SIIC and al-Maliki’s Da’wa) rejecting “articles in the treaty that affect Iraqi sovereignty.” In a major shift of positions, al-Hayat reported, al-Hakeem announced that “the I'tilaf rejects a long-term treaty with America,” which leaves the question: who sponsored the treaty – on the Iraqi side – in the first place? With news of the upcoming treaty leaked into the Arab press since late 2007, opponents of the Iraqi government, namely the Sadrist Current, have mobilized their popular bases around the rejection of the long-term arrangement, which allegedly allows the US to maintain “over 400 bases” in Iraq and allows foreign troops to engage in military operations without the permission of the Iraqi government. Al-Hayat said that thousands of Sadrists marched again in Baghdad, this Friday, to protest the treaty, and with the provincial elections approaching, the pro-US team in Iraq has seemingly decided to distance itself from the treaty as well. Evidence: after months of silence on the prospective treaty, al-Hayat published several reports (on the same day) quoting al-Hakeem, al-I'tilaf and the Najaf Marja’iya attacking the treaty and announcing that “a consensus among the Political Council of National Security and the United Iraqi Alliance (I'tilaf)” rejects “many articles in the treaty.” The paper also published statements by the representative of Ayatollah Sistani expressing the Marja’iya’s opposition to “any treaty that would tie the hands of future generations (of Iraqis).” In what would constitute a political scandal in most countries, an SIIC leader told al-Hayat that al-Hakeem’s newfound protests against the treaty “do not represent a shifting of positions,” because “honestly, we did not see the draft of the treaty until a few days ago.” The posture of al-Hakeem, the I'tilaf and Sistani come amid broad Iraqi protests involving, aside from the Sadrist Current, the “Political Council of the Iraqi Resistance” (grouping non-al-Qa'ida insurgent factions) attacking the treaty and the politicians who negotiated it. Tariq al-Hashimi, a leader in the Islamic Party, also joined the ranks of Iraqi officials attacking articles “breaching the sovereignty of Iraq” adding that such arrangements are considered “a red line” by his party. This concerted campaign against the treaty by pro-US politicians could be seen by many analysts as a (US-approved) abandonment of the arrangement, at least in its original form, due to the popular discontent, which could be translated into electoral defeats for pro-US parties in the upcoming elections."
And this: "Conspiratorial-minded observers may view these defiant statements as a cynical dance aiming at the ratification of the treaty after a symbolic “battle;” which would prevent the painting of the current Iraqi government as a willing puppet of the US occupation. London-based al-Hayat discussed the details of the prospective treaty, clarifying the points of contention between the Iraqi and the American sides. According to the paper, the treaty draft grants the US several permanent bases, complete control over the Iraqi airspace (up to an altitude of 29,000 feet,) unfettered right of passage on Iraqi soil and Iraqi territorial waters, in addition to the right of arresting any Iraqi considered to be a threat to US forces; and finally, the right to launch “anti-terrorism” campaigns without the prior approval of the Iraqi government. According to al-Hayat, the Iraqi side prefers a “Turkish-style” arrangement, whereby US bases would be temporary and renewed on a yearly basis, with the US forces allowed to leave these bases only after the approval of the Iraqi government. The Iraqis also want to restrict the US Air Force to specific airways that are mutually agreed upon, and that the US Army finances its operations in Iraq solely through the Iraqi Central Bank. An unnamed Iraqi official who spoke to the paper added that the current draft does not include a US commitment to “the protection of the democratic regime in Iraq from internal and external threats,” and allows the US forces to define the concept of “terrorism” freely, which would, in effect, grant the US a free hand in using its military in the country. "
PS Juan Cole also had written about it.