For the first time since secret negotiations began in March, the Iraqi government has admitted that it does not see eye-to-eye on how the security relationship should continue, casting doubts on whether the two sides can arrive at a treaty by next month.

U.S. President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in November signed a non-binding statement of principles for the negotiations, aimed at concluding a final pact by the end of July.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said on Tuesday that "a joint vision on this issue is yet to be achieved between the two sides.… The Iraqi side has a different vision, and it will not undercut or be negligent toward Iraqis' rights and their sovereignty."

Much secrecy has surrounded the negotiations, but recent Iraqi leaks to the Arab media have raised internal and Arab opposition to what the Americans are said to be seeking in this oil-rich Arab country.

Iraqi commentators suggest that growing opposition and the neighboring countries' increasing concerns about how much leeway Baghdad is willing to give to the Americans is prompting government negotiators to "hit the brakes," as one put it.

An Iraqi source close to the government told the Middle East Times that because the treaty must be ratified by the National Assembly, the Iraqi government is trying to secure a text that would guarantee its parliamentary endorsement.

The pact includes two agreements: a strategic framework agreement, laying out the principles for long-term political, economic and security ties; and another that defines the legal status of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Iraqi politicians say the agreement proposed by the U.S. calls for consolidating their military presence on permanent bases and giving them control over Iraqi airspace, as well as legal protection and immunity to troops and contractors.

U.S. military spokesman Kevin Bergner told reporters in Baghdad Wednesday that his country "has no desire to have permanent bases in Iraq."

Despite U.S. and Iraqi government assurances, reports also indicate that the accord would give the U.S. military the right to use Iraq as a launching pad for attacks against other countries, which analysts in Baghdad say could only make neighboring Iran and Syria fear inevitable U.S. strikes from across the borders.

Iraqi government officials have repeatedly promised their Iranian and Arab neighbors that they would not allow U.S. forces to use their country to threaten their security or national interests.

But with Washington's political weight and strong military presence in Iraq – where there are currently 150,000 troops after the U.S. invasion in March 2003 – many Iraqi politicians and some of their neighbors have raised questions on whether there is a hidden American agenda that could be passed in a formal accord.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zibari and U.S. diplomats in Baghdad said this week that "there is no hidden agenda."

The diplomats deny plans to set up permanent bases or attempt to use Iraqi soil to launch attacks on other countries, insisting that U.S. forces in Iraq are interested only in "supporting the Iraqi government."

Nevertheless, credible independent sources say the U.S. military was already in the final stages of completing the construction of military facilities and runways for its future bases, which in themselves provoke concerns in neighboring countries the United States regards as "rogue states."

Sources say the Iraqis have many fundamental reservations about the proposed U.S. deal, complaining that the Americans were seeking to pull the sovereignty from under Iraqi feet, by seeking to place Iraqi security and military institutions and ministries, as well as armament contracts, under U.S. supervision for the next 10 years.

Arab media reports also say the U.S. proposal entails seeking to control Iraqi air space up to 29,000 feet; open-ended concessions on land, skies and waters of Iraq; the right to define terrorist activities; right to arrest and detain Iraqis considered a threat to American troops; right to launch anti-terror operations without prior approval from the Iraqi government; and immunity from prosecution to U.S. military and security contracting personnel.

The Iraqis, however, are negotiating on the basis that they have total sovereignty over their territory; limited rights for the United States in Iraqi skies; legal protection for U.S. forces during military operations only; Iraqi authorization for U.S. presence, operations and arrests of Iraqi citizens; and temporary bases whose status is to be reviewed annually.

Iraqi diplomats say the government would only sign an agreement similar to ones binding the United States with some 80 other countries, not one that would legitimize and prolong the occupation indefinitely.