Last month, Robert Gates, then US defense secretary, said Iran-backed Shi'ite militias were responsible for the deaths of five US
soldiers on June 6, the single-largest toll for the US in two years. Overall, 15 US servicemen were killed in Iraq in June, also a two- year record.
Gates' successor, Leon Panetta, repeated the charges this week during his first trip to Iraq as defense secretary.
"We're seeing more of those weapons going in from Iran, and they've really hurt us," Panetta told reporters in Baghdad on Monday. He threatened Iran with unspecified retaliation if the attacks did not cease.
Panetta did not reveal any concrete evidence for the charges. US officials and military experts say he was referring to rocket-assisted mortars.
"The main mass casualty producer for US troops has been the IRAMS [improvised rocket-assisted munitions] which have been around for several years, and which I believe are used exclusively by Iranian-supported groups," said Michael Eisenstadt, an Iraq expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think-tank closely tied to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
"There are indications that they may have gotten more lethal lately, though I don't know if this is a function of modifications to the weapons or to improved training," he said.
United States accusations are hard if not impossible to prove given the fact that Iraq is awash with weapons and smuggling across the border with Iran is rampant. Iran denies the allegations.
"I believe the Americans are trying to make excuses, create Iranophobia, and cause doubt and anxiety among Iraqi officials and society," Iranian ambassador to Iraq Hassan Danaeifar told Press TV, an Iranian state-owned channel. "The Americans are trying to suggest that if they leave Iraq, Iraq will be threatened by Iran."
Analysts say the clashes - both rhetorical and real - may have more to do with Iranian anger at mounting US economic sanctions than they do with Iraqi security. Iraq - and Afghanistan - are convenient venues for Iran to target US forces.
"It's not about Iraq at all, it's about US-Iran relations," Vali Nasr, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a former State Department adviser, told Inter Press Service (IPS).
"There is no doubt that the Iranians are escalating" to retaliate for US sanctions over Iran's nuclear program, Nasr said.
The Barack Obama administration has been increasing economic penalties against Iran for the past year and pressuring foreign entities to boycott Iranian banks, shipping and airlines. The latest blow came on June 30 when Maersk, a major Danish shipping line, ended operations at Iran's three largest ports. A week earlier, the US had stated that the company operating the ports was controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
Iran has refused to suspend uranium enrichment although it is required to do so by six United Nations Security Council resolutions. Attempts to negotiate a resolution with the US and the other permanent members of the council plus Germany have failed due to internal Iranian political divisions and a lack of creativity and political will on both sides.
The fallout of the nuclear dispute is landing in Iraq, compounding political problems for Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki who has struggled to form a stable coalition government more than a year after parliamentary elections.
United States officials, concerned about the logistics of withdrawing troops on short notice, have been pressuring Maliki to make up his mind about keeping a residual US force. Under a 2008 Status of Forces agreement, all remaining US troops - which currently number 46,000 - are to be out by December 31.
"Do they want us to stay? Don't they want us to stay?" Panetta complained on Monday before a US military audience in Baghdad. Panetta also urged Maliki, who has been serving for months as interim defense and interior minister, to name full-time officials to head those key ministries.
"Damn it, make a decision," Panetta said.
United States officials have expressed concern over whether Iraq will be able to defend itself against terrorists and foreign intruders eight years after US invaders toppled Saddam Hussein's regime. No matter what Maliki decides, a few hundred US troops are likely to remain as military trainers for US weapons. Some special forces are also likely to stay as well as forces based in semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan, where the US presence is popular.
A smaller US military footprint would be in line with phasing out counter-insurgency doctrine, once in vogue in the Pentagon, in favor of counter-terrorism.
"There's been a shift in thinking in Washington," Nasr said. "You don't need as many troops. You need trainers and access to bases where you can use drones and Special Forces."
Testifying before the US Congress last month, Eisenstadt suggested keeping 1,500 troops in Kurdistan to prevent clashes between the Iraqi military and the Kurdish Peshmerga paramilitary force.
He told IPS that in addition, "a small Joint Special Operations Command task force would be essential for hunting down members of al-Qaeda. and Iranian-supported special groups. You might also need troops to serve as quick reaction forces to help Iraqi security forces deal with insurgent groups, and civilian contractors providing protection for US diplomats. Some military might serve as military movement teams for US diplomats and civilians as well."
However, a smaller US force will remain vulnerable to attack by Shi'ite militias. That in turn could cause clashes between the United States and Iran.
"The US is suggesting that the gloves will come off" if attacks on US forces continue, Nasr said. "The question is, 'Who will blink?' This is very dangerous."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MG14Ak01.html
No comments:
Post a Comment