While Monday morning’s headlines were dominated by the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the continued concerns on Wall Street, an article by New York Post columnist Amir Taheri detailing remarks by Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari went largely unnoticed by the mainstream media.

In the article, Taheri reveals that during Obama’s July trip to Iraq, the Illinois Senator “made his demand for delay [of U.S. troop withdrawals] a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders.” His article goes onto to state Obama felt “it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its ‘state of weakness and political confusion.'”

It goes without saying that a substantial amount of hubris is required to suggest to a sovereign country of 30 million people that it delay its foreign policy and strategic military objectives with the United States until after your assumed inauguration. However, this blatant display of arrogance is hardly the most disturbing aspect of the story.

The implication that Obama may have attempted to delay a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq (about 8,000 in all) until the next President takes office suggests that his intention was to manipulate Iraqi officials for his own political gain. After all, the success or failure of American military operations in Iraq will undoubtedly have a profound impact on the November election. And the Bush Administration’s proposal to withdraw 8,000 troops in January of next year would seem to signify that the situation in Iraq is improving and that the Iraqis are able to handle more of the country’s security issues themselves. While this would seem like good news to most people, it could be perceived as damaging to Obama’s campaign, as he has consistently scolded Republicans and the Bush Administration for their handling of the Iraq War.

Naturally, Obama campaign spokeswoman Wendy Morigi refuted Taheri’s column, claiming that it bore “as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial.” His campaign clarified that Obama had instead advised the Iraqi government not to follow through on the Strategic Framework Agreement (which had been agreed upon between the Iraqis and Americans) until after President Bush left office. We may never know what was said behind closed doors between Obama and Iraqi government officials, but even in denying Taheri’s claims, the Obama campaign has contradicted its previous stance on the Iraq War. Furthermore, one could argue that Obama’s actions were criminal, albeit based on an archaic and rarely implemented law.

Barack Obama was one of the earliest and most outspoken critics of the Iraq War before it began, and the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq has been one of the integral aspects of his foreign policy platform. However, it would appear from both the New York Post article and his campaign’s subsequent rebuttal that Obama is actually in no hurry to see American troops leave Iraq, especially if it may be at the expense of his political aspirations.

Another far more serious consequence of Obama’s actions is that they could be construed as a violation of federal law under the Logan Act. Granted, this act was signed into law over 200 years ago by President John Adams and has never been used to prosecute any American citizens; however, the text of the act is still on the books. The Logan Act makes it a criminal offense for any unauthorized citizen to engage in negotiations with foreign officials “with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government.” Obama’s authorization would have to either come from the Bush Administration or the State Department, and I was unable to find any record of any such authorization being granted during Obama’s overseas trip. While the odds of Obama actually being prosecuted under this statute are miniscule, the fact that he would attempt to circumvent the foreign policy objectives of the current and legitimately elected administration is troubling to say the least.

In late July, John McCain made the controversial statement that Obama would rather lose a war than lose a political campaign. While McCain’s comments were condemned by many at the time for being extreme and unwarranted, it would appear that Senator Obama has no qualms about placing his political career ahead of America’s strategic objectives in Iraq.