The Iraqi parliament's vote today to hold local elections by Jan. 31 won quick praise by an American official but is actually a reminder of the decreased leverage the United States has here and that, in fact, the elections are in danger.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki promised more than a year ago that the balloting would be held by the end of 2007. That didn't happen. Then the parliament this spring voted to set an Oct. 31 vote. By late summer, no one really expected that to happen, in part because the country still had no rules to govern the voting. Today, in a bill meant to set those rules, parliament chose a new deadline, Jan. 31. State Department deputy spokesman Robert Wood told the Associated Press that the vote was a "positive sign" of "maturing Iraqi democracy."

At this point, it's more a ratification of the fact that Iraqi leaders don't seem to want the vote as much as the Americans do and it's possibly an ominous sign that the relative calm of the past few months could again deteriorate.

The elections would choose the country's provincial councils, which will then select Iraq's powerful governors. The people holding those jobs now were chosen in 2005, when the incipient political system was at its crudest. Voters selected from big party lists that did not disclose the actual candidates. The winners were considered barely representative of the people and new elections, most observers hope, will be a huge step toward bringing alienated (i.e. potentially violent) factions into their share of power. (Even with the new January schedule, elections won't be held until later still for the three Kurdish provinces and one province disputed between Kurds and Arabs.)

As he was installed in his new job as top commander in Iraq last week, Gen. Ray Odierno called the provincial elections "critical" for bringing stability and emphasized the expectation they would take place this year. The holding of provincial elections is one of the benchmarks Congress required the White House to use in measuring progress in Iraq.

But to the major Iraqi parties in power, the prospect of elections probably looks more like a threat. They're loath to admit it but members of mainstream Shiite parties worry they will lose governorships to loyalists of radical cleric Muqtada Sadr. The Sunni minority leaders in the government fear they will lose seats in Sunni areas to upstart tribal factions who take credit for fighting off al Qaeda and barely participated in the vote the last time around.

In July, NEWSWEEK talked to Baha al-Araji, one of those disaffected Sadr followers in the parliament, and he accused the leading parties of seeking to keep pushing the date into next year. Then, he said, they will argue that it just makes sense to postpone the local vote and hold it along with national elections for parliament at the end of 2009. It seemed a little conspiratorial at the time but only elections by the new deadline will prove him wrong to suspicious Iraqis.

The dress code for the handover of American power in Iraq from Gen. David Petraeus to Gen. Ray Odierno was different today than it had been when Petraeus took the job 19 months ago. For reporters riding the armored military bus – the "Rhino" – to the ceremony, helmets and bullet-proof vests were optional. Last year, amid the anarchic sectarian violence and frequent deadly attacks on U.S. forces, protective gear was a must, even with the armor, on the ride down the dangerous airport road to the American military headquarters west of Baghdad. In February 2007, when Gen. George Casey handed off command to Petraeus, 81 U.S. troops died. Last month, 23 American soldiers were killed. Attacks are now at a four-year low and Iraqi deaths have also dropped steeply.

Under the enormous glass chandelier in an atrium of one of Saddam Hussein's old palaces, the home of the U.S. command, today's ceremony was formal and full of the usual pomp; a military band, color guards, anthems and the ritualized hand off of military banners from Petraeus, who ascends to command U.S. troops throughout the Middle East, to Odierno, now in his third major Iraqi command. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates came along to praise both men.

But the goals for Odierno's term remain tempered by reality. While some Americans talk about victory in Iraq, American commanders steer clear of that value-laden term and generally come back to earth in terms that are more about salvaging an acceptable end to a war that has taken more lives and years than they expected when it started. There was little talk of democracy in Iraq, let alone throughout the Middle East, and a lot of talk about lost comrades. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullin stretched things the most, claiming that Iraqi reconciliation had "begun to blossom," something most Iraqis would dispute bitterly. But Petraeus' bottom line was measured. He repeated his promise last year that the war in Iraq was "hard but not hopeless" and said U.S. troops have turned it now into "hard but hopeful."

Odierno was even more cautious. In his speech he said he would work toward "complete success." But in comments to reporters later he outlined what that meant. "[Iraq is] in a fragile state now. What I want to do is build it into a more stable state." He added, "What we have to do is maintain the stability so the [Iraqi] government can grow." Asked to describe the best possible scenario, Odierno said that would mean continued security and improvement in the government's ability to bring things like electricity and water to Iraqis.

He talked about Iraq as an "evolutionary" process and noted ongoing threats. An agreement with Iraqi officials about the future of U.S. troops here is still "extremely important," he said. American diplomats had said a deal would be wrapped up about July 31, but talks continue. He noted that local elections, already delayed and now hoped for by the end of year, will be critical. He cited rival Kurdish and Arab claims to disputed territories as another volatile issue still unsettled. He did not need to mention that bombers have struck several times in recent days but there were repeated warnings from speakers that Al Qaeda in Iraq is not dead.

Odierno and the other speakers showered Petraeus with praise, the real occasion at hand. The mood was practically jubilant compared to last time, when Casey told reporters that "history" would judge whether he erred by rushing to put Iraqi troops in charge – a policy Petraeus basically reversed. But much of the joy was relative, with frequent references to the horror that gripped the country last year. A helmet-less ride down the airport road today is good news. But it does not equal victory in Iraq.

It's easy to come up with reasons why Baghdad's relative peace might not last. There are still assassinations almost daily. Militias continue their saber-rattling exchanges. Only a tiny fraction of the displaced Iraqis have chanced a return to their homes. But in the instant snapshot of today, western reporters are moving around much more freely in the last six months.

I'm still not ready to risk a lunch in a restaurant, sitting long in public speaking English. But this weekend I decided to make a carefully considered trip to a grocery store I used to frequent regularly until early 2007. It just gets tedious and seems so colonial specifying for local staff the exact brand of Kellogg's cereals, granola bars and non-sugar fruit juices to fit my western tastes – upscale groceries stock these things inconsistently but commonly. A trip to a supermarket is a pretty good barometer of life in any city.

My looks are inconspicuous among Iraqis and I planned not to speak English in the store until I got to the check out, when I'd be almost out the door. But when I got to the milk and cheese fridge, I came across one of the most prominent Iraqi government spokesmen and his wife. "HELLO! HOW DO YOU DO?" he bellowed with characteristic joviality as other shoppers turned to look. I leaned into a handshake to whisper that I was trying to avoid English and he quickly understood. Whatever happens in the coming months, it's safe enough now for an American reporter and an Iraqi spin doctor to share a few words in the dairy aisle.

On a side note, I was pleased the cashiers remembered me and asked where I'd been.

A soon-to-be released book by The Washington Post's Bob Woodward reportedly confirms the most open secret in Baghdad's Green Zone – that you never know who's listening on your phone. The book, "The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006-2008," quotes one source saying the Americans hear "everything" Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki says. The scoop was heard in Baghdad and might complicate the oft-contentious relations between the two ostensibly allied governments. In his bright salon living room where he spent his Friday weekend time, government spokesman Ali Dabbagh fielded calls about the report, eying an Arabic translation of an Agence France-Presse version. "Definitely the Prime Minister will be upset. All the government will be upset" if it turns out to be true, Dabbagh said. He vowed that Iraqis would raise the allegation with their American counterparts. At the White House, spokeswoman Dana Perino declined to comment on the report.

The Iraqi government might be upset, but no one will be too shocked. Reports surfaced in January, 2007, that U.S. agencies were listening in on Maliki. The Green Zone is probably among the most thoroughly spied-upon pieces of turf on the planet. Tales circulate of phone transcripts of top Iraqis passed among embassies. Drones frequently buzz like flying lawn mowers overhead. It's reputed that U.S. government employees' calls are monitored and people can be disciplined for speaking the details about top officials' movements. This means the Americans think insurgents could have the equipment needed for listening in on mobile connections, carried by local phone companies. It can make it tough for embassy press aides, who have to invite reporters to press conferences without naming the speakers.

They use phrases like "senior U.S. official" when a cabinet secretary has come from Washington. Reporters have to gamble on whether showing up will get them a meeting with a top State Department power or someone on a junket from the Department of Commerce.

There's also the old-fashioned in-person spying. I know of one operative from Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army who was arrested by U.S. troops at his job in a Green Zone police station. People worry that Mahdi Army spotters could be phoning in the locations of rocket strikes to provide better aim to the attackers. U.S. advisers assigned to Iraqi ministers are sometimes suspected of reporting back to American commanders.

And, yes, the phones are highly suspect. Dabbagh acknowledge that Iraqis often joke about who might be listening to them chat. They are especially suspicious of the mobile phones that coalition officials have handed out since early in the war. They carry the U.S. country code and a 914 area code. Dabbagh would not say whether Iraqis also spy on U.S. officials but he said spying is not a two-way street. "It is our right if we want to do it," he said. "As long as there's no problem with international law, for our national security we have to do it. But the U.S. should not do it in Iraq." Surely, they're both doing it.