U.S. Presidential Politics and Self-Rule for Iraqis

Yet in recent weeks, diplomats and even some in the administration have begun to worry that the date reflects more concern for American politics than Iraqi democracy. Their fear is that an untested government taking power on June 30 may not be strong enough to withstand the pressures bearing down on it.

"When we went into Iraq, our plan was to have a government, build a structure and write a constitution that would be a source of longterm stability," said an administration official. "Now that's out the window."

Many in the administration say that while they have no proof that the urgency to install a government is politically motivated, it feels to them like part of a White House plan to permit President Bush to run for re-election while taking credit for establishing self-rule in Iraq."This is entirely a schedule dictated by Karl Rove," said an Arab diplomat who maintains close contacts with the administration, referring to the White House's political director. "Anyone who thinks otherwise is naïve."

One of the paradoxes of the situation is that France, Germany and other European countries were among those who last year pressed for an early transfer of power to an interim Iraqi government and for the United Nations to take over the political process of moving to a permanent democracy.

Now these countries are likely to insist that if the United States hands over power early, it must fulfill the other side of the bargain by agreeing to a central role for the United Nations.

Last year, the administration insisted that there should be no rush to transfer sovereignty to Iraq, citing the need to get a constitution written first. That plan changed on Nov. 15, when L. Paul Bremer III, the American administrator in Baghdad, set the June 30 date.

Administration officials bridle at the suggestion that politics have played a role in Mr. Bremer's announcement.

"All these people who think that not moving the deadline helps Bush politically are just wrong," one official said. "I can't understand why everybody thinks that if the handover is as messy as some say, that would be advantageous to the president."

According to administration officials, the early date was chosen by Mr. Bremer last fall because of his frustrations at not persuading the American-picked Iraqi Governing Council to agree on a procedure to write a new constitution. The deadline, he is said to have reasoned, would light a fire under the council.

Mr. Bremer, an aide said, telephoned Condoleezza Rice in the fall, reaching her at a Washington Redskins football game on a Sunday, and she urged him to come back to confer with President Bush on changing the date.

"Arbitrary deadlines in Middle East diplomacy are a bad idea, especially when they correspond, however coincidentally, to our electoral schedule," said Noah Feldman, a law professor at New York University, who has advised the Iraqi Governing Council on writing its constitution.

"It's not as if the Iraqis don't have television," Mr. Feldman added. "Everybody in Iraq believes that these deadlines are chosen by American electoral politics. Regardless of whether the June 30 deadline originated in Baghdad or Washington, it clearly reflected a coordinated administration policy to jump-start the process. That's an extremely high risk strategy."