Posted By Robert Zeliger Share

June has been the deadliest month for U.S. soldiers in Iraq since May, 2009 -- with 11 deaths, including two soldiers killed Sunday in northern Iraq. The American combat mission officially ended in August 2010, and the 45,000 U.S. forces that are still there -- ostensibly in an advisory and training capacity -- are supposed to stick to their bases and not take part in combat missions without the Iraqi government's permission. So, what's behind the jump in deaths?

Beyond the fact that the security situation is still tenuous, U.S. soldiers are likely being targeted more now because there is talk that Iraqi and American officials will try to keep additional troops in the country past the December deadline to pull all U.S. forces out, according to Feisal Istrabadi, a former Iraqi diplomat to the United Nations who now teaches law at Indiana University. A coalition of militant groups and outside actors is strongly opposed to that and are using violence to send a message to Washington.

"That's the primary driver," said Michael Knights, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who tracks Iraqi security issues closely. "The Iranians and Sadrists are taking it very seriously."

The Sadrists are a sectarian militia affiliated with hard-line cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who adamantly opposes the U.S. presence.

In 2008, the United States and Iraq agreed that all American forces would leave the country by the end of this year. The U.S. is open to keeping troops beyond that date, but only if Iraq asks, according to the Associated Press.

And it's not clear yet that the Iraqis will. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is under significant pressure from political allies, including Sadr, whose backing last year allowed him to win a second term as prime minister.

According to the New York Times, Sadr has said that unless the United States fully withdraws its troops by the end of the year, he will reactivate his Mahdi Army, which was responsible for much of the violence against U.S. troops earlier in the war but was formally disbanded in 2008.

Iran also opposes an extension, said Istrabadi. He said various groups that don't necessarily completely agree with each other are working together. "It's a situation where the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  

Knights said that when talk of an agreement heated up beginning in the spring, attacks on U.S. soldiers and personnel also increased -- including attacks on U.S. bases, with more sophisticated weaponry and an increased quality in the attacks, which Knights said indicates Iranian backing.

"They raised their game, so to speak," Knights said. "They brought in more experienced operators and are supporting Shiite militants in southern Iraq. The result has been better lethality."

The message, Knights said, is "Don't stay. Reconsider."

"They think the U.S. is casualty-adverse."

AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, IRAQ
 

HASS

10:36 AM ET

June 28, 2011

What total rubbish

So let me get this straight: the sum total of evidence provided in this article to support a hysterical headline which rhetorically accuses Iran of "killing Americans" is that some guy from a pro-Israeli think tank says the attacks are growing in sophistication?

Should I point out that the US has been pressuring intelligence agencies to produce evidence that links Iran to the mess in Iraq?
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_interrogators_complain_of_%22sickening%22_pressure_for_evidence_on_Iran

 

HASS

10:38 AM ET

June 28, 2011

"Got to find a link with Iran"

" 'Got to find a link with Iran, got to find a link with Iran.' It's sickening."
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/11/iraq.usa1

 

COMETLINEAR

7:15 PM ET

June 28, 2011

 

WEMEANTWELL

7:42 PM ET

June 28, 2011

US v Iran Proxy War

Iran has been waging a proxy war against the US all across the Middle East, though most of the active killing of Americans has been focused on targets of opportunity in Iraq.

By the time my tour in Iraq was wrapping up, the mine resistant vehicles we traveled in could take a solid hit from pretty much anything out there and get us home alive, except for one thing: (allegedly, cough, cough) Iranian-made IEDs. These shaped lens explosively formed penetrating devices fired a liquefied white hot slug of molten copper that was about the only weapon that really scared us.

The Iranians were players in all parts of Iraqi society post-2003, including the daily violence. You found Iranian products in the markets, and the tourism business around significant Shia shrines was run by and for Iranians. They were at minimum fighting a proxy war in Iraq, and that war was very, very real for me.

Have a look at wemeantwell.com/blog/2011/04/18/proxy-war-us-v-iran-in-the-middle-east/

Peter
wemeantwell.com

 

MACCHIAVELLI

12:33 PM ET

June 29, 2011

If iran gets nukes...

they won't use them to attack Israel. If they do, they get annihilated by Israeli and US stealth bombers.

Iran wants them because once you have them, you get a seat at world rulers table.

If they do, it will spark an arms race in the region - which obviously isn't a great thing but i think it would be crazy to say that once Iran gets a nuke that they'll bomb Israel or give it to extremists to use in Israel. Either way they get their asses turned into glass in about 20 minutes.

 

LOGICAL123

1:53 PM ET

June 29, 2011

You make and you don't

You make sense when you say that, if Iran had nuclear weapons it would not use them. But, you make no sense they want to develop nukes to sit on this imaginary table. Iran has no interest in being one of the rulers of the world. It is the US that has to stop imagining that it is one of these rulers. Iran is not wasting a penny on useless nukes.

 

HASS

2:26 PM ET

June 29, 2011

IF IF IF

IF (insert country here) gets nukes, then (insert prediction here)
So what? There is no evidence that Iran seeks or wants nukes.

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More