Rockets Target Bases in Iraq, Syria, Hosting US Troops

WASHINGTON DC, United States (Kurdistan 24) – Rockets were launched at military bases in Iraq and Syria that host U.S. troops fighting ISIS, AFP reported on Friday.

The rockets, apparently fired by pro-Iranian militias, caused no damage or injuries.

They were, however, the first such attacks since July 16, when two armed drones were launched against Iraq’s Ain al-Asad air base , one of the two bases that was just targeted.

The attacks appeared to be timed around the just-completed military talks between the U.S. and Iraq in Washington.

Following the July 16 attack, Reuters cited “a senior security official in Baghdad,” who suggested that the “attack was meant to ‘embarrass’ the Iraqi government before the security meeting.”

Pro-Iranian factions in Iraq have been pressing the government of Prime Minister Mohammed al-Sudant to set a deadline for the presence of U.S. forces in the country.  

They are acting in conjunction with Iran, which has exploited the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza to mobilize its proxies in the region against the U.S. and its allies. 

Security discussions between the U.S. and Iraq were held this week, from July 22 to 25. They resulted in an affirmation of continued close security ties between the two countries. However, no statement about the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq was issued.

Read More: US, Iraq Hail Continued Security Cooperation, as Second Dialogue Session Ends

If the July 16 attack on Ain al-Asad Airbase was meant to pressure the Iraqi government about the presence of US forces, something similar might be said about the most recent attacks.

They were the first such attacks in three months—when there was an attack at Rumalyn Landing Zone in Syria on April 21 and a second attack near Ain al-Asad Airbase in Iraq on April 22.

Did the US Contribute to the Latest Attack by Not Responding to Earlier Attacks?

Generally, the Biden administration has not responded with great vigor to the attacks by the pro-Iranian militias on bases hosting U.S. troops. It seems to be so paralyzed by a fear of “escalation” that it neglects what is necessary to deter an enemy from attacking. 

This U.S. weakness actually culminated in the deaths of U.S. troops. Between October 7, when the war between Israel and Hamas began, triggered by Hamas’ bloody cross-border assault, there were over 150 attacks on facilities hosting Coalition troops in Iraq and Syria.

Those attacks produced no significant response from the Biden administration. Only after a major assault that caused fatalities and widespread injuries was the administration moved to take serious action.

On January 28, three U.S. soldiers were killed and over 40 others wounded in a drone attack, carried out by pro-Iranian militias. Those troops were based at Tower 22 in eastern Jordan, near the border with Iraq, as part of the counter-ISIS mission.

That attack finally prompted the Biden administration to use U.S. military force in a meaningful way. On February 3, in just 30 minutes, the U.S. hit 85 targets in Iraq and Syria which were associated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC.)

That strike largely served to establish deterrence, at least for a while.

Read More: U.S. Says Attacks ‘Must Stop Right Now,’ as it Strikes IRGC, Militias in Iraq, Syria

However, it was still followed by drone attacks in Syria against the U.S. partner force, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), killing six fighters among the Kurdish-led force. An attack against U.S. troops in Deir ez-Zor soon followed.

There were no U.S, casualties, but the Biden administration did respond militarily. It bombed IRGC targets in eastern Syria. And that stopped the attacks—until April. 

But now they have been followed by another pair of attacks. The danger exists that the deterrent effect of the earlier U.S. assaults may be waning, or so Behnam Ben Taleblu, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, warned Kurdistan 24, following the July 16 attack.

“The irony is that Washington continues to pursue a contradictory and self-defeating policy formulation with respect to Iran and the so-called Axis of Resistance,” Ben Taleblu said. 

He contrasted a policy of de-escalation and one of deterrence. The two are not compatible.  “The moves employed to achieve de-escalation actually hurt the deterrence mission,” he said.

“The more the militias and their patron perceive Washington wants to back away, the greater their incentive to double down and resume attacks,” he explained, as he expressed his concern that absent another serious U.S. response, we may be “about to return to the era of more militia attacks.”