What does a new attack by Iran proxies on a US base in Iraq mean?

Two armed drones recently attacked the airbase in the Ain al Asad region of western Iraq, which mainly hosts US forces, according to Iraqi military sources.

The strike occurred on Tuesday, July 16, just days before a high-level Iraqi military delegation was expected to visit Washington for further negotiations to end the long US-led military presence in Iraq.

In February, Kataib Hezbollah, Iraq's largest Iranian proxy group, announced a suspension of operations against US forces. But not all factions agreed with this decision.

Another proxy group, Al Nujaba, has vowed to continue attacks on US forces until American troops withdraw from Iraq and Israel's war on Gaza ends.

Since February, attacks by Iran-backed groups on US forces in Iraq have notably decreased. Since two drones were reportedly intercepted near the same air base in April, Tuesday's attack was the first such incident.

Although defence systems successfully intercepted one drone and no injuries were reported, the timing of this attack is significant given the ongoing discussions between Washington and Baghdad, which are progressing towards a potential US withdrawal from Iraq.

While no one has claimed responsibility for the attack yet, experts believe it is natural for suspicions to fall on Iran-backed Shia militia groups, which are eager for the US military to leave Iraq.

"The best way to view the attack is as a pressure tactic by Iraqi Shia groups to continue urging the United States to leave Iraq," Glen E. Howard, the former head of the Jamestown Foundation, told TRT World.

Can Iraq easily be conflict-free?

The two-year-old government of Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al Sudani is working to de-escalate long-standing conflicts in the country.

That is why he supports the US withdrawal, but is also urging Iran-backed groups to de-escalate and avoid provoking a harsher US response, Howard noted.

He said he believes the drone attack might be the latest move by the Sudani government to pressure the US to leave Iraq.

"It's a form of carrot-and-stick approach used by the Sudani government for its own domestic agenda," Howard said, adding that the attacks, which targeted only a gas station and commercial centre rather than directly hitting the air base, suggest an attempt to avoid American casualties, unlike the attack in January.

Bilgay Duman, Iraq Studies Coordinator at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies (ORSAM), agreed that the Iraqi government is striving to regain its prestige and secure its sovereignty both regionally and internationally.

"It also seems to be taking steps to at least limit the American presence," he told TRT World.

However, limiting it might not be that easy.

"Iraq is a base of operations for Iran, which is trying to establish its front line in Iraq and is conducting all its activities, threats, and manoeuvres through there," Duman added.

It became a traditional method to use proxy groups to push adversaries for certain expectations in the Middle East, and Iran-backed groups are the most common tools for this.

The new Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian is not expected to change the use of these proxies in Iraq against the US because the militias respond to the military, not the government, one analyst told TRT World.

Decades-long invasion

"I don't think we need a wider war in the Middle East. That's not what I'm looking for."

This was what Joe Biden said in January after a suicide drone attack killed three American troops and injured tens of others at a military centre in Jordan, near the Syrian and Iraqi borders.

The attack was claimed by a group of multiple Iranian-backed militias.

Iraqi and American officials began talks in January to reassess the gradual draw-down of the US-led coalition in Iraq, established in 2014 to combat the Daesh terror group after it seized large areas of the country.

This marked the second American invasion of Iraq. The first began in 2003, two years after the historic 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers, under the pretext that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

The first invasion ended in 2011, but following the rise of Daesh, the American administration justified another military intervention and returned with forces in 2014.

Over the past 21 years, the US military presence in Iraq has been a topic of extensive global discussion, especially among the American people.

It has become increasingly evident that the US presence was not solely to combat Daesh but also to exploit the power vacuum in the war-torn country, using it as a stage to confront its regional adversaries without accountability.

Since 2021 when the US announced that it ended its combat mission in Iraq, there are only 2,500 American personnel left there with the aim of training and advising the Iraqi army.

Despite the reduced number of military personnel compared to the past, each one is, for some experts, a potential target that could spark future conflict.

Any retaliation from the numerous proxy groups in the region against these troops could put the American administration at risk of imminent war on multiple fronts.

With the US presidential elections around the corner and a new president just beginning his term in Iran, the biggest adversary of the US in the Middle East, plans may change anytime to what to discuss at the table when an Iraqi official arrives in Washington.

Donald Trump's potential win in November and the heightened tensions in the region due to Israel's relentless war on Gaza might bring a tougher strategy on the agenda for the upcoming US administration.

Looking ahead

While the gradual withdrawal of US troops has long been anticipated, fluctuating policies and shifting balances may have blurred expectations.

A second term for Biden, though unlikely according to current polls, would probably maintain a military presence in Iraq and Syria while gradually reducing its footprint, some analysts suggested.

Analyst Duman noted that steps were also taken during the previous Trump administration to withdraw American troops from Iraq.

"However, if attacks on American forces continue or if pressure on Israel increases, Trump's re-election could lead to a shift towards a more aggressive American policy in the region."

And Howard expects Trump to adopt "a big-stick approach" to dealing with Iran, directly targeting the proxy groups while considering a drawdown of forces.

"Unlike Biden, Trump's big-stick approach will involve a military response to strike these groups when they attack US air bases," he said.

He noted that JD Vance, potential Vice President in a possible Trump administration, made it clear in his recent speech that if Iran or its allies act against the US, the Trump administration will retaliate with lethal military force, "as the IRGC learned when Trump ordered the killing of former IRGC leader Qasem Soleimani."