US piles pressure on Iran as Rice flies into Baghdad

Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, made an unannounced visit to Baghdad yesterday to check on the progress of the American-led "surge" against militia violence in the Iraqi capital - violence which Washington is increasingly seeking to blame on Iran.

The American commander in Baghdad, Major-General Joseph Fil, said bloodshed had declined since troops had poured into the streets, but warned that the lull was unlikely to last: "Many of these extremists are lying low and watching to see what it is we do and how we do it."

Related articles

• Troop reduction in Iraq delayed after pressure from US
• Patrick Cockburn: First, the US deluded itself about the war, then about the source of the weapons
• Search the news archive for more stories

He added: "We do expect there are going to be some very rough, difficult days ahead. This enemy, they understand lethality and they have a thirst for blood like I have never seen anywhere before."

The question raised, but not answered, by Maj-Gen Fil was who the Americans see as "the enemy".

The past few days have seen a torrent of sometimes inconsistent US accusations that Iran is supplying sophisticated technology to Iraqis kill American troops. Ms Rice did not address the issue, merely saying that "if in fact militias decide to stand down and stop killing innocent Iraqis ... that can't be a bad thing". What was important was how the Iraqis used the breathing space created by the "surge".

Unlike the allegations made in the run-up to the Iraq war, however, the claims against Iran have not gone unchallenged. Senior Democrats were sceptical, and on Friday the party used its majority in the House of Representatives to pass a resolution, also supported by 17 Republicans, to condemn George Bush's decision to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq. Yesterday, the Senate was considering a similar motion.

Iran has not considered it necessary to answer the claims, made in most detail in an anonymous Baghdad briefing by three American officials. But with Tehran facing a UN deadline this week to cease uranium enrichment, and the US sending a second carrier group to the Gulf, there is concern in Iran that the Bush administration is seeking justification for a new war.

The questions have multiplied since last weekend's briefing, especially when an Iraqi newspaper disclosed that one of the briefers was Major-General William Caldwell, the chief US military spokesman in Iraq. The Americans said they had delayed the event until they were sure of their evidence, but if that was so, why did they not present it publicly?

The briefing introduced a new acronym: instead of the humdrum IED, or improvised explosive device, pictures were shown of EFPs, or explosively formed penetrators, which had killed 170 coalition troops. These were of a sophistication that pointed to Iran, it was claimed. As the week went on there was a growing sense that the Bush administration was creating a narrative which is not supported by facts. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace, declined to support the conclusions of the briefers in Baghdad.

He said: "It is ... clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit." Later comments from Washington suggested that a section of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, rather than the government, might be responsible. This line was supported by President Bush, although he denied he was preparing for war. Critics also pointed out that Shia militias had killed 100 Americans, but more than 1,000 had died from IEDs planted by Sunnis, who would be unlikely to have connection to Iran.

Why is the US pushing this? The claim that Iran has been supplying weapons components is not new. Dr Michael Knight, a Middle East expert with the Olive Group, a British private security company, said British troops discovered as far back as September 2005 that a group operating out of the Jamiat police station in Basra was dealing in arms. Some components came from Iran: "They were selling the EFPs to whomever."

The British ambassador to Iran, William Patey, said at the time that Iran had been supplying technology used to kill British troops, and that he had complained to the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad. But again, after a flurry of accusations, military sources in Basra failed to support the claims.

Trita Parsi, the head of the National Iranian American Council and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University, believes the Bush administration has been persuaded to act now, not as a result simply of Iran's purported nuclear ambitions, but because Washington perceives that Iran has emerged as a regional power. "The Bush administration has so undermined the US's influence that Iran has become a contender for dominance - at least in the eyes of the US. There is a major push-back against Iran. The problem is that it ... will not fix Iraq," he said.

Hardliners in Washington see signs of the pressure telling on Iran and its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Opponents believe his inflammatory outbursts have increased the danger of sanctions at a time when the economy, despite his promises, is performing badly, and there has been a spate of attacks on him in the press and the Iranian parliament. Thanks to him, critics feel, it is Iran which is losing influence.

"[Mr Ahmadinejad] and his administration don't think there's a problem. They think they have won," said an insider close to the former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. "But the body of experts and the elite are worried by the political imbalance against Iran in the world." Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the last word on foreign, security and nuclear policy, is said by informed Iranians to have reined in the President while Iran's case comes up for international reappraisal. "The strategy is to protect Mr Ahmadinejad from himself," said the insider.

With little likelihood of a compromise this week on the nuclear issue, one former official was pessimistic, saying: "I think another [UN] resolution will come and the conditions will be much worse in the future."

That mood is matched on the streets, where people are worried about the possibilities of a US military attack. "Iran has the right to nuclear technology, but the price mustn't be so high that it hurts people," said Narmin, a student. "I just don't want a war."