A Deal With Tehran?

Juan Cole wonders what this passage in a Daily Telegraph story could possibly mean:

The two countries did agree to form a security committee, with Iraq, to focus on containing Sunni insurgents. The committee would concentrate on the threat from groups such as al-Qa'eda in Iraq, officials said, but not those [Shiite] militia groups the US accuses Iran of funding and training.

Well, staying in Iraq with our current force levels means picking sides either permanently or provisionally. Every side we pick brings us more enemies. We have Krauthammer backing a pro-Sunni policy, and now this hint of an anti-Sunni policy. Each posture makes us less secure, even as it might bring some short-term security to Iraqis in any particular place and time. The hard question is: do we have the forces and resources to create a genuinely national government in Baghdad? The answer is obviously no. We can do some good in the short term, but we have to leave sooner rather than later. Picking sides to make our withdrawal less bloody is defensible. Picking them to keep ourselves as an occupying power for the indefinite future? Not such a good idea.