The Iraqi delegation that went to Iran got its head handed to it by the Iranians:

On Monday, the hard-line Iranian newspaper Jomhuri-e-Eslami accused al-Maliki of lacking backbone in talks with Washington, which include the long-range status of U.S. military operations in Iraq. The daily, which is considered close to Iran's ruling clerics, claimed Washington wants a "full-fledged colony" in Iraq.

It was a rare public jab at al-Maliki, a Shiite. But it was mild compared with the closed-door recriminations during the high-level Iraqi visit, according to accounts by Shiite politicians close to Iraq's prime minister.

The five-member delegation sought to pressure and cajole the Iranians into cutting suspected support for Shiite militias that have battled U.S. and Iraqi forces. But the Iraqis mostly received a scolding, the politicians said.

"The Iranians were very tough and even angry with us," said one of the delegates in the Tehran talks. "They accused us of being ungrateful to what Iran has done for the Shiites during Saddam's rule and of siding with the Americans against Iran."

Iran is worried that (1) the Maliki government might make a deal to authorize a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq through the Bush-Maliki accord that is supposed to be signed this summer, and (2) that the war against Muqtada's JAM has gone a little too far. To understand this tangle, I'd look at the emerging possibility that the Iraqi government itself is split: that Maliki is increasingly opting for a pro-American stance, while the hard-core pro-Iranian ISCI faction around the Hakims is more willing to align itself with Tehran. Problem is, Tehran isn't willing to make a choice between Sadr and Hakim.