Hardly had Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced a fall in sectarian violence brought about by the joint U.S.-Iraqi crackdown on insurgents, when his assertion was overturned by stern reality. Iraq was shaken by a series of rocket and bomb attacks claiming over 80 lives.

The worst attack took place at the College of Administration and Economics, which is a part of Baghdad’s Mustansiriya University. A suicide bomber detonated an IED outside the college building killing over 40 and injuring at least 55 more, mainly students. Local observers say the college bombing was a response to another attack – one that took place outside the Sunni mosque in Habbaniya (40 miles west of Baghdad) the day before. A truck packed with explosives detonated in front of the building then, killing over 40 and wounding at least 60.

It is not even the first time the Mustansiriya University is chosen as target for a bomb attack. In January, coordinated car bomb and suicide bomber attacks killed over 100 students. Incidentally, this university ranks second in Iraq and is controlled by Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia.

Al-Sadr, an influential radical Shia imam who recently returned from Iran, responded with sharp criticism of the U.S. and the Iraqi government. He said that the U.S.-backed Baghdad security plan was not stopping violence in the Iraqi capital, and was doomed to fail. The security crackdown will not work until the Iraqi government takes the situation under control and the U.S. forces pull out, according to him.

In this connection, independent observers point out that Al-Sadr’s recent statements mean a large part of the Shia community no longer supports the U.S.-launched “decisive” offensive, the crackdown on insurgents in Baghdad and its vicinity. American press has more than once described the radical Shia imam as the “most dangerous” man in Iraq. US military also suspect him of contacts with Iran and orchestration of attacks on U.S. troops and its allies’ forces.

Al-Sadr is actually pretty open about his vision of Iraq’s future – pullout of all foreign troops, a state of “pure Islam” based on the Iran model, and the leading role of the Shia community. If implemented, this scenario would most likely lead to an all-out civil war and a possible disintegration of the country, observers say.

Many experts have earlier pointed out that the U.S. occupation forces in Iraq have been given a virtually impossible task. The latest plan commits them to disarm or kill all militants and insurgents in Baghdad, regardless of their sectarian affiliation.

However, the Maliki government, pressured by Al-Sadr and other influential Shia clerics, is only willing to support military operations against Sunni militants or carried out in Sunni neighborhoods. A similar situation has developed in the Iraqi army and security forces, with Shiites occupying all of the key posts, and many generals and officers having close contacts with Al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

Sources in the U.S. Headquarters in Iraq confessed, upon the condition of anonymity, that very few Iraqi government forces are reliable, while many high-ranking army and police officers supply intelligence, arms and munitions to the Shia militants. The Mahdi Army, in turn, is happy to use the results of the U.S. anti-Sunni operations to establish control over Sunni regions and drive the local civilians away.

However, whenever U.S. forces plan operations against the Shia militia, they get hampered by land mines planted in their way or shot in the back. As a result, U.S. commanders make a point of not taking on the Mahdi Army if it can be avoided, preferring not to annoy Al-Sadr and his supporters in Iraq’s government and military.

The U.S. has thus ended up in a situation where none of Iraq’s feuding communities supports its actions. This lack of popularity is fuelled by various incidents with U.S. servicemen involved. Insurgents skillfully use such facts, especially fatal incidents and rape cases, to boost anti-American moods both in and outside Iraq.

Even the U.S. allies’ coalition is splitting over the unpopular Iraq war. Great Britain, as is known, has recently announced its plan to dramatically decrease its force in Iraq, explaining the decision by its armed forces being “stretched to the very limit,” and the need to send more troops to Afghanistan. Denmark and Lithuania, too, said they intended to pull out from Iraq.

In this context, U.S. officials’ and pro-American Iraqi government members’ hopeful statements on the new security strategy’s success do sound weak. This new strategy is often criticized in the U.S. these days by both retired and active-duty military.

It looks like Washington officials do not really know how to bail themselves out of the Iraq deadlock, which they entered of their own accord in 2003. Only a miracle can help them now.