By Aram Mirzaei
2017-09-26. Last Sunday, the Kurdish regional authority defied the world and went forward with the scheduled independence referendum in Northern Iraq. With the definite result of the referendum not being official yet, there can be little doubt that an overwhelming majority of Kurds have voted Yes to independence. Despite Kurdish leaders announcing that the referendum is non-binding and that it is only the beginning of a negotiation with Baghdad on secession, Kurdish leaders hope that independence will be recognized by the central government sooner rather than later.
In the early stages of the Syrian conflict, and later during the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) many Western leaders claimed that the Middle East was facing changes. They were most likely referring to the establishment of an “Islamic emirate” in Eastern Syria and Western Iraq, which the Western powers helped to create. Today, the jihadist threat is on the verge of annihilation but peace still seems to be very far away from this conflict-ridden region. Why?
Where Moscow has had influence over the course of the Syrian war, Washington has had influence over the Iraqi conflict. Washington has used its influence in Iraq to exploit the situation in Syria in numerous ways. According to reliable sources, before the battle of Mosul began last year, the Iraqi military and its allies were planning to liberate the western Al-Anbar province, the largest and most troublesome province of Iraq. Only after liberating this crucial province which happens to border Syria, were the Iraqi Armed Forces to target the northern provinces of Kirkuk and Nineveh. According to sources in Baghdad, the US military command however rejected this idea and refused to offer any support if Nineveh (Mosul) was not liberated before Al-Anbar.
The US plan was simple: push ISIL towards Syria, lift the pressure of the Kurds by preventing ISIL to flee north and stir more trouble Russia and Syria’s way. Had Iraq decided to attack Al-Anbar first, ISIL would have been severely weakened across the Syrian-Iraqi border and pushed towards a well prepared Iraqi Kurdistan. This act would have also supported the Syrian Army and prevented the US from threatening to take Syria’s major oil fields in the eastern Deir Ezzor province. But most importantly, the border area would have probably been under Hashd Al-Shaabi control, thus preventing US troop movement between Syria and Iraq.
It is clear that the US has planned these moves and meticulously implemented it piece by piece in order to delay the inevitable fall of its ISIL proxies, only to be replaced by its newer and more “legitimate” (in the eyes of Western audiences) proxies.
The Kurdish narrative, one that has been hyped by the media to portray a people, fighting against impossible odds in one of the most “repressive regions” against the most “radical and violent” regimes in the world, has been almost universally accepted in the West. Today, many Western officials consider the Kurds as the only serious partner in the fight against ISIL, despite Kurdish regional government (KRG) president Masoud Barzani openly welcoming the ISIL occupation of Mosul in 2014 because it presented him with an opportunity to partition Iraq.
But Barzani’s shady relationship to ISIL is not a concern for Western powers when it comes to facts. Facts are that Kurds in Iraq control 20 % of Iraq’s oil resources and exports approximately 600 000 barrels per day via Turkey. The Oil has been a major source of dispute between the central government in Baghdad and the KRG especially since 2011 when the KRG signed a deal with US oil giant Exxon Mobil without the approval of the Central government.
It doesn’t take a genius to understand that the US goal of partitioning Syria and Iraq is to push back Russian and most importantly Iranian influence in the region, and tearing up the century old Sykes-Picot agreement in favour of a sectarian and ethnically divided Middle East is a perfect way to do it. Establishing a Kurdish state in Syria and Iraq would also open the path for further partitioning along sectarian lines – namely a Sunni Iraq and a Shia Iraq. This would leave both Syria and Iraq as severely weakened rump states and the Syria-Iraq-Iran-Hezbollah alliance in danger, but above all, it would guarantee the survival of Washington’s most precious gem in the region – Israel. It could be argued that the establishment of a Kurdish state was the primary goal right from the start of the Syrian and Iraqi conflicts, but that doesn’t take into account that the primary goal in Syria was to overthrow the Syrian government and control all of Syria rather than just parts of it. Partitioning Syria and Iraq was an option only after 2015 when it became evident that the Jihadist emirate project would fail and that Syria would survive.
Washington’s plan will however be challenged. Not only will the US have to deal with Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian resistance, but it will have to deal with its ally Turkey, who will not under any circumstances back down on this question.
Iranian opposition to the referendum has long been known and Tehran’s first reaction was to close it’s airspace to the Iraqi Kurdistan region. “With the request of Iraq’s central government, all Iranian flights to Sulaimaniyah and Erbil as well as flights passing through our airspace to the Kurdistan region have been suspended,” said Kayvan Khosravi, the spokesman for Iran’s Supreme National Security Council..
Several Iranian officials have also called out Barzani and the Kurdish referendum for what it is; a Zionist plot. Meanwhile, on Sunday, it was also reported that Erdogan and Rouhani had held a phone conversation discussing the referendum, while Iraq and Turkey have agreed to hasty military exercises close to the Iraq-Turkey border. This, coupled with Damascus opposition to the creation of a Kurdish state, presents a unique situation where Tehran, Ankara, Damascus and Baghdad are all united on a question. These countries can and will overcome their differences and otherwise conflicting objectives in Syria in order to prevent the creation of a Kurdish state.
Turkey, Washington’s ally in the region has voiced strong opposition to the Iraqi Kurdish referendum, despite the KRG-Turkish relations prior to this being excellent. Turkish president Erdogan went as far as threatening military intervention stating that “Our military is not (at the border) for nothing. He also added: “We could arrive suddenly one night.”
Whether Erdogan will “arrive suddenly one night” or not is uncertain. What however is for certain is that the US is not concerned about Erdogan and Turkey’s reaction to the establishment of a Kurdish state in both Iraq and Syria even though Washington and Ankara are supposedly allies. Erdogan has since last year’s coup d’état attempt been considered a loose cannon for Washington and applying pressure on Ankara and a Turkish leader, who keeps cooperating with Russia and Iran against Washington’s objectives might not seem a bad idea for the US.
Turkey feels that it has been betrayed by the US. Ankara seeks closer ties to Tehran and Moscow because it feels that Turkish calls to halt Syrian Kurdish advances on its southern borders are being ignored by Washington and the West. As mentioned, Turkey, along with all concerned states will do whatever it takes to prevent the creation of Kurdistan. It is for this reason that Turkey sent its forces into Al-Bab, disregarding Washington’s warnings and prevented Rojava from linking up with the Afrin canton and occupying all of northern Syria. It is also for this reason that Iran and the Hashd Al-Shaabi forces closed the path for US forces in southern Syria, thus preventing any further US occupation along the Syrian-Iraqi border. In Syria, the Kurdish “federation” will likely push Damascus and Ankara into deeper cooperation, setting aside their differences.
It is clear why the Anglo-Zionist Empire wants to partition Iraq and Syria. It is also clear that Barzani is not insane, he would not go down this path if it was a suicidal one. He knows that he can count on international recognition to protect his ambitions of a Kurdish state when the time comes, despite verbal rejection from the US and the UK today. Despite an independent Kurdistan being surrounded by powerful hostile states, there are other countries in the region ready to support it, namely Israel and Saudi Arabia. Israel has openly declared its support for a Kurdish state, this should not come as a surprise, but Saudi Arabia has often been overlooked.
The Syrian Kurdish leader Salih Muslim Muhammad has already praised Saudi Arabia’s role in Syria and attacked Iran, it is only a matter of time before Barzani does the same with the KRG’ neighbours being hostile and Saudi Arabia happily wanting to pull the Kurds into its sphere of influence to use against Iran.
Project Kurdistan is the final chapter of the Anglo-Zionist plan to change the map of the Middle East. The US actions are polarizing the Middle East beyond anything previously seen during our lifetime. The end of the so called Islamic State by next year is certain, the future and survival of the region however is in danger.
Thank you Aram for a timely and true article. Seems the Yinon plan for Zion to take the land from the Euphrates to the river of Egypt, and the grand dream of Masonry to rebuild the temple of Solomon, plus the Vatican plot for a new Roman world empire, has failed!
The only thing the current antipope is plotting is to continue to ennoble buggery.
“2011 when the KRG signed a deal with US oil giant Exxon Mobil” (a Rothschild company, which hopes to bribe Turkey to continue piping oil from the Rothschild oilwells, renamed “Free Kurdistan”, to Israel).
“Israel has openly declared its support for a Kurdish state, this should not come as a surprise¨ (because Israel is a pet project of Anglo-Zio-Capitalism; see letter from Lord Balfour to “Dear Lord Rothschild”, WW1).
“but Saudi Arabia has often been overlooked.” (Why overlooked? Surely it was obvious, from Lawrence of Arabia WW1, that KSA is an Anglo-Zio-Capitalist oil company masquerading as an Arab Kingdom).
Two synthetic Anglo-Zio-Capitalist implants (KSA & Israel) have caused more than enough trouble in the ME. A third would disintegrate the Arch of Stability: Syria+Iraq+Iran. These countries must combine to nip in the bud any idea of “Dear Lord Rothschild” setting up a new Anglo-Zio-Capitalist “ethnic home” under the old slogan “A PEOPLE WITHOUT A LAND FOR A LAND WITHOUT A PEOPLE”
Thank you for an interesting article. The Kurds have wanted their own nation-state ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and they have seized on an opportunity.
It seems to me that a Kurdish state in Iraq is not necessary in US interests. True, they would like to divide and conquer, but since a Kurdish state is an existential threat to Turkey, US’ only official ally in the region, US would have to choose between Kurdistan and Turkey. The Kurdish issue is much larger than Erdogan, and that he has fallen from grace in Washington does not mean that they can afford to alienate Turkey with support of the Kurds. They know this. If no one else told them, then Gülen would have.
Besides, a weak, limited Kurdistan, or better, an autonomous Kurdish region to be used in the Power Game (or oil game), could serve US’ interests, but not a united and militarily successful Kurdistan. If US must choose between Turkey and the Kurds, then they cannon play both sides, and the whole divide and conquer business will be impossible.
I think that the Kurds just played their hand beautifully! They did what USA claimed to be doing, fighting Daesh, and they succeeded where the Iraqi army, failed. (I know one who were training the Iraqi Shia army, and he claimed that all the training in the world would not help as long as they fled when Daesh threw a severed head in their direction. The Kurds held their ground, and then advanced.) They proved themselves at the battlefield, and are far from exhausted, having extended their territory. (Possibly further than they should have, indicating that they are preparing to negotiate.)
USA can hardly brand them as terrorists or do more than protest, especially since Israel, the de facto prime ally in the Middle East, has supported them. Syria should also be careful about to strong opposition; they are severely weakened and the Peshmerga are not. That leaves Iran and Shia Iraq and Turkey and Sunni Iraq in an awkward alliance. Easterners are good at allying in single issues, but they are not good at explaining how this works to black-and-white Westerners. So, how Turkey will explain to USA that they are in make-shift alliance with Iran, without being seen as a turn-coat, is not clear to me. On the other side, USA cannot afford to lose Turkey, so they will not support the Kurds with more than lofty promises.
Personally I think it is about time that the Kurds get their own state. And that this should include Turkish, Iranian and Syrian Kurds as well, if they so wish. But they will be land-locked and without allies, so it might be that the time is not ripe. Because of the conflicting interests, I think that the only thing that will come out of this referendum is an negotiated extension of the autonomy, an fragile peace, and an opportunity to strengthen their position, economically, politically and militarily. Then, there will be possibilities later to establish a state.
Please read Saker’s moderation policy item 2. All comment have to be courteous to me, the blog’s author, moderators, any guest author and all the other commentators ….. mod-hs
Thank you for your thoughts. Could you or anyone please elaborate a bit on the statement:
“(…) but since a Kurdish state is an existential threat to Turkey, (…)”
Kurds constitute about 18-25% of the population in Turkey (depending on who counts). If such large part of the population were to declare independence and leave to join a united Kurdish stat, that would be a blow to all sectors of the Turkish society. But that is not the “existental” threat. If Turkey were to be further divided, that would change the very idea of Turkey. The reason why the figure of Kurds varies is that every citizen of Turkey is considered a Turk , independent of etnisity. If the Kurds leaft, this would demonstrate that this idea was an illusion, and it would be a blow to this very fundamental idea of what is Turkish.
If Kurds in Iraq get their own state, that would give Turkish Kurds inspiration, a possible ally, and good argument. PKK have fought for it for decades. Thus, it is a threat to Turkey.
I should have chosen my words more catefully, it is not an existential threat, not really. But I actually think that many in Turkey would consider it so.
@ Lagopus
Your second sentence “The Kurds have wanted their own nation-state ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and they have seized on an opportunity.” it doesn’t work, because you are mixing up the past with the future.
It is true that during the fall of the Ottoman Empire, there were opportunities for people to declare independent states or to grab land from other minorities. For example Albanians declared the independence, Greeks, and Serbs expanded their territories and legalized the borders and many other nations used this opportunity, but not the Kurds. All these changes didn’t happened smoothly, but through a lot of blood and horror. Some opportunities happened during the WW1, Romania expanded it’s territories in expense of Hungarians, and some other territorial changes and settlements happened, but Kurds were not able to create their independent State. At this time Ottoman Empire was in great crisis. The Allies (British, Italian, French and Greek forces) occupied Anatolia. The occupation of Constantinople, which was followed by the occupation of İzmir (the two largest Ottoman cities in that period) sparked the establishment of the Turkish National Movement and the Turkish War of Independence. On 10 August 1920, the Ottoman Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha signed the Treaty of Sèvres, finalizing plans for the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, including the regions that Turkish nationals viewed as their heartland. This was the only widow of opportunity for the Kurds, and they failed to seize this opportunity. After WW2 all nations borders were recognized and legalized once and forever. Now to create an Independent Nation or increase the territories of any Nation that can be done by “Grabbing the territories of another nation by force.” That is considered n opportunity by Kurds but they have to deal with Iraqis, Syrian and Turks forever. Kosovo is a very small territory. The province as in its outline today first took shape in 1945 as the Autonomous Kosovo-Metohian Area. By the 1974 Constitution of Yugoslavia, Kosovo was granted major autonomy, allowing it to have its own administration, assembly, and judiciary; as well as having a membership in the collective presidency and the Yugoslav parliament, in which it held veto power. Kosovo, self-declared independent country in the Balkans region of Europe. Although the United States and most members of the European Union (EU) recognized Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia in 2008, Serbia, Russia, and a significant number of other countries including several EU members did not. So today Kosovo is a banana republic, and a hot potato in the hands of the West. On 1945 Potsdam conference gave most of the Eastern Prussia to Poland. We se now and then people asking” When Poland will give back Eastern Prussia to Germany? An all of us laugh. A lost land that belongs to someone else can be taken only by force. That is what the Kurds are trying to do. Do you believe that Germans doesn’t want theirs territories back. And they have enough force to do that. Hungary can attack Romania to get back their 50% of the territories lost on 1920 by Trianon Treaty. Why this isn’t happening. Because they are smart enough not to live only for 15 minutes fame. The Unipolar word Projected to be completed on 2012 it is far from the reality, and a Multipolar world is emerging. To make things more complicated a covert WW3 has started since 2014 in Ukraine and Syria. With complications in North Korea there isn’t any guaranty for a further escalation to be transformed in an overt war between the great powers. With the Limits to Growth nearing up I can see only black clouds in the Horizon, and the smart People and Nations are trying to stay away from the trouble.
Thank you for the historic insight, but I beg to differ. Just because the Kurds did not have the leadership that could speak their cause in the aftermath of WWI, it does not mean that they did not dream about their own national state. And they certainly dream about it today.
Regardless of that, desicions about which state one should belong to should be taken by the people, not by agreement between foreign powers. Like in Crimea, Scotland and hopefully in Katelonia.
But you are right about the dark clouds on the horrizon. There are many interests in this, and it must be seen in the larger picture where Korea, the Ukaraine and USAs struggel to maintain the semblece of sole superpower must be considered. That is why I think that we will not see an independent Kurdistan, not yet. But they will use their referendum, the prestige of fighting Daesh and the expantion of their area as barging chips.
And small but smart nations uses grand scale trouble to change their lot. I am Norwegian. We did that in 1814, after Denmark lost us tothe Sweeds in the Napolic war. We jsed that to declare our constitution. We were forced into a Union with Sweeden, but as a soavereign nation with a democratic constitution. In 1905 we seeded from that union. Small steps when the big guys look the other way, that is the smart way.
I do not think that the Kurdish initiative in Iraq is an American scheme. I think the Kurds are “scheming”, trying to use USA and others to reach their long term goal.
There are enough facts that support the Kurdish struggle for Independence, but no matter they tried hard they failed.
In the early 20th Century, many Kurds began to consider the creation of a homeland – generally referred to as “Kurdistan”. After World War One and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the victorious Western allies made provision for a Kurdish state in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres.
Such hopes were dashed three years later, however, when the Treaty of Lausanne, which set the boundaries of modern Turkey, made no provision for a Kurdish state and left Kurds with minority status in their respective countries. Over the next 80 years, any move by Kurds to set up an independent state was brutally quashed.
In my opinion the Kurds failed because they were corrupted, tribal, and the lack of a strong educated, patriotic elite.
In the 1920s after the failed Kurdish rebellions in Kemalist Turkey, there was a large influx of Kurds to Syria’s Jazira province. Even though Kurds have a long history in Syria, the government has used the fact that many Kurds fled to Syria during the 1920s to claim that Kurds are not indigenous to the country, and to justify the status of autonomy.
Kurds make up between 7% and 10% of Syria’s population. Before the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began in 2011 most lived in the cities of Damascus and Aleppo, and in three, non-contiguous areas around Kobane, the northwestern town of Afrin, and the northeastern city of Qamishli.
Another negative factor against the Kurdish independence is the fact they are spread among 4 States (Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria) and they re considered minorities in all these states.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/78409000/gif/_78409411_kurds_map624_kobane.gif
I believe that in this moment, Kurds are in a very unfavorable position to start a struggle for independence.
Dealing with a strong Turkey and Iran, means taking chances that in the future could lead in severe oppression, which can culminate to cleansing actions against Kurds in these areas.
Regarding your opinion “I think the Kurds are “scheming”, trying to use USA and others to reach their long term goal.”, in my opinion I believe that things are much more complicated.
First – No other development over the past 15 years better epitomizes the clash between and the merger of, modernity and tradition than the rise of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham), also known as ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) or Daesh.1 Appearing seemingly out of nowhere over the course of 2013-14, the organization captured the attention of international audiences through widely broadcast acts of barbarity, followed by the proclamation of its own state and upending state borders in the process. A longtime observer of Middle Eastern affairs, Patrick Cockburn, wrote that “the birth of the new state is the most radical change to the political geography of the Middle East since the Sykes-Picot Agreement was implemented in the aftermath of the First World War. And it is continuing chaos that provides it with the best chances to persist
and expand. Its main goal is to expand its caliphate to all current Muslim countries in the world and fight and win the apocalyptic war against the “West”. In fact the West did a symbolic fight against ISIS and only the intervention of the EAST put their expansion to a halt, and now theirs controlled territories began to shrink.
The most likely causes of the eventual demise of the caliphate will be the fact that the nation-state as an organizing principle will continue to prevail—and that, as a result, there will be no space for ISIS in Syria and Iraq—and because opportunistic behavior will lead to defections both inside and outside the caliphate. The number of foreign fighters moving to Syria has already significantly dwindled today, with only about 50 jihadists crossing the Turkish border down from a peak of 2,000 per month. As a result, The ISIS state will at best remain a small lawless pocket in the way the Taliban persists in Pakistan, or remnants will revert back to being ‘classic’ jihadist terrorist groups
and choose a different country from which to operate, possibly Libya or elsewhere in North Africa.
So, with a weaken ISIS, new players joined the game, and created a real danger for the Syria, and they are Kurdish actions supported by NATO and US. It is crisp clear that the goal is the partition of Syria, and this goal could be accomplished by using brutal force only. This could escalate with new players joining the game as China, and this small fire could spread in Northern Hemisphere as WW3.
I fully agree on your analysis of Deash. Eventhough I believe that Deash ans the Mujahedins before them, have an agenda of their own and probably consider US support as something they are using temporarely.
I still think that the Kurds are using a chaotic situation to further their interests, rather than acting as a proxy for US interests. USA cannot support an independent Kurdistan in Iraq, not without permanently damaging the relation to Turkey. To shift their alligience from the strongest state in the region to a new, landlocked Kurdish state does not seem likely to me. USA thought that they could replace Erdogan, and they still plan for a post Erdogan Turkey. Supporting Kurdistan in Iraq would permanently damage the relation regardless of who is leading Turkey. Therefore they cannot support Kurdic indpendence in Iraq. They would in Syria, but that is not on the table right now.
Kurdistan as the 2nd Israel was the keystone of the new ME in the vison of the Oded Yinon Plan.
Thank you Aram Mirzaei for this timely piece.
In addition to the Iraqi Civil Aviation Authority issuing flight suspensions to the Kurdistan region to begin on Friday (following Monday’s unconstitutional independence referendum) and in support Jordan, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Qatar and Lebanon will also ban all flights from their countries reaching the Kurdish region in northern Iraq. So the Saudis and Israelis are looking more and more isolated.
Barazani should remember which countries surround Iraqi Kurdistan – how is he going to get his oil out to be sold? How are flights going to arrive as the airspace is closed? The Iraqui central bank has stopped money flows. Russia has just invested billions in pipelines there – so its going to be very hard to function without the support of all these countries….
It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Putin/Erdogan meeting today.
Note to commentator …. please read saker’s moderation policy moderation-policy .. we are here to discuss the ideas and events of the day … not to trash authors or other commentators … in addition off topic items are to posted in the ‘Cafe’ … mod-hs
We obviously have a very complex situation here. The Kurds, ofcourse, are entitled to rights, like everyone. However, there are two questions which need to be taken into consideration. First of all, are the Kurds, from the historical perspective, really entitled to all the lands they claim as theirs. Secondly, using the US to back them in their rights will see plenty of suspicions being raised if all of their claims are really justified. After all, the US created ISIS. It is now backing the creation of a Kurdistan. On whose lands ? Kurdish, or are their claims questionable, bearing in mind the available oil ?
Are they (Kurds) really in majority on those lands? When they say 97% voted for independence, I ask whose 97%? Did total population vote or people perceived to be Kurds? Who witnessed and signed off the voting? Was the referendum performed democratically? I say, probably as democratically as the Barzani’s position, whose mandate lapsed long time ago but he still hangs on the power, thanks to his sugar-daddy.
What about Armenian?
The Kingdom of Armenia at its greatest extent under Tigranes the Great, who reigned between 95 and 66 BC.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Armenian_Empire.png/1024px-Armenian_Empire.png
Article gives a good summary, however there are more into it than meets the eye IMO. There was a very interesting short article in the Oriental Review by A.Korybko (https://orientalreview.org/2017/09/25/russias-kurdish-turkish-pipeline-eu-makes-moscow-mideast-mediator/). This article shows that there are lots of backdoor dealings happening as we speak. For one, Russia is not much concerned about an independent (and secular) Kurdistan (compared to ISIL which she perceives a direct threat as over 25% of Russia’s population is Muslim). Russia also has excellent relationship with Israel. The main opposing members of the ME game are Turkey and Iran for obvious reasons. Russia has to find a compromise in between the Astana group and Israel somewhat, which is not that easy. Looks like for the time being, Russia and Syria hashing up the idea of an autonomous Kurdish region in the North of Syria at Turkey’s border. Will see how this flies. Sultan Erdogan had deep relations with Barzani clan, especially through his sons oil dealings. About a few months ago he even invited Barzani to Ankara and received him with Kurdish flags hanging all over (instead of Iraqi flags). This was a blow and obvious humiliation to current Iraqi government of Abadi. Today he sort of shows his teeth to Barzani and I assume the change of heart came with some immense internal pressure from the kemalist flanks of the army and partly because of Iran. Turkey may settle for a limited and rather symbolic autonomy for the kurds in the north of Syria, but I don’t believe they will accept anything remotely resembling a Kurdish state. Iran thinks the same. It is simply an existentialist threat for Turkey and Iran and it will not be allowed, whatever the cost. The fact, as the article highlights is not about the independence of the Kurds but it rather winds down to so called Greater Israel. This is a fact. Kurds are merely some regional cannon fodders for Israel and the US. Judging by historical facts and the alchemy of the region, it is impossible to have a Kurdish state. There is no “lebens raum” for the Kurds, on the lands where Arabs, Turks and Persians have their state and had their empires once upon a time. At the end, I think the biggest losers will be the Kurds as always, unless they settle for a limited and symbolic autonomy. That is all they will have, it seems, and they may get it only if they cooperate with three regional powers Arabs, Turks and the Persians. Otherwise, they will in most likelihood be crushed to pieces. Kurds unfortunately don’t hold their own destiny in their own hands and they always seem to be ready to do the dirty work of others with costly miscalculations.
Apologies if this is just too painfully obvious, but I ask a genuine question:
how is the Kurd vote differenct than the Crimea vote to part from Ukraine and rejoin Russia? There are obvious differences, of course, but some similarities, too. How does one, on principle, distinguish approval of Crimea’s referendum from that of the Kurdish people?
@Ed. The similariies are greater than the differences. The Jewish-American coup to transfer control of Russian Crimea to NATZO had to be resisted by Putin and the Russian inhabitants of Crimea — and it was, successfully. Likewise the Zio-Capitalist plot to carve a Rothschild oil company (to be named Free Kurdistan) out of lraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey must be resisted by the majority ethnic groups of those countries – and I think it will be, successfully. “Dear Lord Rothschild” owns the oil wells of Kirkuk; it is their welfare (and not the welfare of the Kurds) which is behind this drive to set up Free Kurdistan, Inc. In sharp contrast, President Putin acted for the welfare of Crimean Russians as well as Russia as Mother Russia. There is no way that a Rothschild-owned, Israeli-controlled Free Kurdistan can improve the welfare of Kurds in the ME, nor of the EU & USA as a whole.
Crimea was bloodless and without ethnic cleansing before it happened. Plus Crimea was part of Russia much longer than it was part of Ukraine. Crimea was given to Ukraine by Khrushchev without any vote of the people there.
Kurds have been involved in working with terrorists against the government and have killed Assyrians and other minorities. The Kurds also steal Iraq’s oil and sell it to Turkey.
Unless the Kurds were the ones that financed and built the oil infrastructure, they are thieves.
What valuable infrastructure did Ukraine finance and built in Crimea?
The most obvious is the “circumstances”. The Kurds and Iraqis had an agreement (kept by the Iraqis) for a large amount of autonomy. Almost a “state within a state” for the Kurds. The Ukrainians chipped away constantly at the rights of the Russians in Crimea. And then after a bloody coup threatened to do away with any federal rights for the Crimean’s.And to kill or ethnically cleanse any that objected.Those are the most easy differences to name.But the most important situation there, in the Kurdish speaking regions, is international,not local. Kurds are large minority groups in 4 states. If those in 1 of those states are permitted to break an autonomy agreement and declare independence. It means that the other 3 states must worry about that happening in their countries.They can’t allow that if they want their territorial integrity to remain.
Daniel – I appreciate your explanation. I had already sent your earlier post to the Trash Bin as it was waaaay out of line. I’m happy to approve your current (on-topic) posting. Thanks. (Moderator J)
EDIT: I accidentally pasted other links while attempting to post my response. I should not have written my response as a post-it note. I often tend to add input to old sources that I save as notes or MS Word files, so other stuff gets mixed in. Saker and Co., I apologize for taking up so much bandwidth. Kindly feel free to delete the other post that contains so many links. ;) HERE is what I originally intended to post, HOW I originally intended to post it:
There are still many reasons to be cautious rather than jubilant about the prospects for a multipolar-led MENA peace. First, the regional members of the Resistance—Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah—are, even at current levels of Russian support, in no position to prevent the U.S. from supporting “Kurdistan.” Simplistic assessment must not cloud geopolitical reality. Kurds have always been heavily divided and, like the rest of the tribal MENA, easily corrupted, bought, and discarded. Empires have made ready use of tribal cultures, the U.S. and its British predecessors being supreme examples. Remember that Turkey, by staying on the sidelines, implicitly backed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, even though doing so led to the creation of a Kurdish protectorate under the Barzani clan. But Barzani and his family of Iranian-Kurdish expatriates had long been sympathetic to Turkey, and had tried to exploit NATO and Israel for use against Iran, and hence against its ally Syria.
While Barzani’s “right-wing” KDP had long been at odds with the “communist” PKK and its Syro-Turkish affiliates, both agreed on the need to internally partition Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Both Kurdish factions shared the Wahhabi jihadists’ hostility to Assyrians, Yazidis, Alawites, and Shia, many Kurds being Sunni Muslims who had often embraced Salafi and/or Muslim Brotherhood currents in the ummah. Turkey tried to play both sides of the coin. Anyway, decades of Western subversion had weakened the secular nationalists, the traditional Kemalists and their right-wing MHP rivals, within Turkey, who would have opposed the Kurds at all costs. By 2001 the Salafi-tinged Muslim Brothers took control of Turkey through the “democratically elected” AKP. Of course, in NATO-controlled Turkey, governments don’t last long or come into power unless they receive Western funding and support. Under the AKP, Erdoğan and Gülen, allies until 2015, followed U.S. diktat by cleansing Turkey’s secular heritage and implementing an Islamist foreign and domestic policy. Now, while often described as neo-Ottoman, this Islamism was and is more Salafi- than Turkish-oriented. Salafi ideology puts its version of Islam above the nation-state, and is amenable to cooperation with “enemies,” so long as they convert to Salafi Islamism or support Salafi goals. Hence the usefulness of pan-Islamism against pan-Arabism. This is why the West has embraced the Muslim Brothers and the Wahhabi clerics since Sykes-Picot, just as it has embraced the Zionists. Both fulfil the same, shared objectives.
The AKP, like the Kurds, followed NATO’s divide-and-rule strategy: promote internal domestic warfare while undermining nearby states for geopolitical purposes. Remember that NATO perfected this strategy in Cold War-era Turkey, as well as Italy and Greece, through its local CIA, MI6, and Mossad affiliates, as part of the “strategy of tension,” the Italian form of which was Operation GLADIO. Tactics developed in World War II and in Indochina came into play not just in Turkey and Europe, but also in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. These included counterinsurgency, false flag, torture, paramilitary, mafia, drug, and other means. As always, the Western military-industrial complex bribes, threatens, and controls all sides, then manipulates these expendable assets whenever and however needed. Of course, Western corporations and banks are the chief benefactors, along with their civilian puppets, as money is the driver of Western expansionism since 1492. Of course, ideology drapes finances in the cloak of the flag, religion, and biological and cultural superiority.
While diversifying its energy sectors to include Russia as well as the West, and while engaging in record trade with Syria and Iran, Turkey, along with the U.S., U.K., Israel, and Saudi Arabia, covertly backed the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) against Iraq. Along with the importation of Salafi mujahideen, support for the KRG allowed the West to undermine Iraqi sovereignty, while installing a weak and corrupt puppet, Nouri al-Malaki, who hardly represented Iraq’s Shia majority, and who was to be the “patsy” for Western infiltration, theft, and corruption. Of course, his Shia background served the Western agenda perfectly, as “Shia” could, through ubiquitous Saudi and Israeli propaganda, be understood as “pro-Iran,” “Iranian puppet,” or, in Wahhabi parlance, “apostate” from “true” Islam. While the West’s private security contractors, intelligence operatives, corrupt local assets, and Salafi extremists conducted false-flag attacks to deepen sectarianism, the West’s media and political apparatuses worked overtime to pin the blame on non-existent Iranian influence. After all, most of Iraq’s Shia supported the West’s then-handpicked CIA puppet, (Sunni) Saddam Hussein, in his war against the nascent Khomeini regime in the 1980s. Most of Iraq’s Shia, indeed, are Arabs, not Persians.
Recall that Richard Helms and George H. W. Bush, along with financial elites and future PNAC operatives, ordered the Iranian military not to defend the Shah, while the BBC and France installed their son-in-exile, Khomeini, as an anticommunist bulwark in Iran. At the same time, the West secretly armed and financed the Iraqi government’s preparations for war against Iran. The West was planning to play both sides against each other, selling Iran faulty equipment through Iran–Contra, in which the West implanted moles, Mossad and CIA assets, within the Iranian government. Often of mixed Iranian, Saudi, and Azerbaijani ancestry, these intelligence assets defrauded the Iranian government while aiding its enemies. This was easy to do: the CIA, MI6, and Mossad had installed the late Shah, building up his security service, SAVAK, and the Iranian military. The Shah was a Western satrap. Khomeini was supposed to be, but quickly went rogue. Yet Western assets remained entrenched in Iranian society.
It is this corruption that has weakened not just Iraq, but also Iran, Egypt, Syria, Libya, and countless other resistors. These states have attempted, not wholly without success, to break the chains of Western hegemony. But the legacy of history means that their native elites are largely under the Western thumb. They are easily manipulated and corrupted. Contrary to Western myths, there is no “totalitarian” system in Iran, Syria, Russia, or China. In fact, Western influence in these countries is significant, often to the detriment of their national interests. Cultural and ideological forces have infected much of the educated youth in these multipolar players, making them as susceptible to Western guile as the uneducated, tribal forces in Iraq. Their sophistication perhaps lead them to believe that they can make deals, as the (fragmented) Native Americans did with white invaders, however much the interlopers “speak with forked tongue.” It is this corruption that allows the West to buy off local elites. That is why the NATO and its proxies are successfully delivering a flood of small arms and advisers to the SDF and the KRG. If Iran, Iraq, and Syria cannot prevent this now, then they will never be able to, unless Russia and China agree to a much larger footprint in the MENA.
That is partly why, in addition to shared interests, Turkey backed the KRG against Iraq and Syria in 2011-15. During that time, the KRG and ISIS worked together and were often one and the same, as the PKK-led SDF has been to ISIS in Syria. KRG middlemen sold ISIS oil to Israel and the global market via Turkey, with profits going to Erdoğan’s family. In Syria, the SDF has never fought ISIS, but merely occupied as ISIS retreated, ethnically cleansing whomever ISIS hadn’t yet. So not only do the Kurds work with ISIS, but also in many cases are ISIS, as recent events near Deir ez-Zour reveal. ISIS and Kurdish militias often contain the same personnel, both in Syria and Iraq, and have swapped uniforms and banners. Both the Islamists and the Islamist-tinged Kurds are sympathetic to Israel, detest “infidels,” hate ethnic outsiders, are thuggish, work with each other, and target the same groups—ordinary Sunni Arabs, Shia, Assyrians, Orthodox Christians, and Alawites. The Kurds have strikingly little legitimacy as a separate people; their centuries-old genetic extraction is the same as their Turkic brethren, yet for no apparent reason the Kurds have alternately targeted the Turkish nation and abetted its worst atrocities, such as the massacres of (Christian) Armenians and Circassians—though, contrary to Western mythology, Ottoman depravity had much to do with Western encroachment on the Ottoman Empire. Many Kurds are also crypto-Jews, which, along with their ties to foreigners, explains their sympathy for Israel and disdain for Orthodox Christians. The enemy of the Orthodox, Slavs included, is the friend of the Kurds.
Frankly, the Kurds have contributed practically nothing to human history, have only stolen from their brethren, and have only destroyed viable nations. Like Western minorities in the PC era, they blame their plight on racism and oppression rather than their own, irrational hatred and corruption. Their hatred and corruption is 100% a product of ideology, not historical deprivation; wherever it came from is irrelevant. Ditto for the Salafi and Wahhabi jihadists. Most poor, white Americans do not engage in the same depravity as their equally poor black neighbors, Kurds, and Sunni Islamists. That depravity is culturally and ideologically mediated, not a product of supposed historical injustice, which is nil or even non-existent, or at the very least SIGNIFICANTLY manipulated (read: manufactured) to support elites’ agendas. If blacks, Kurds, and jihadists were to give up their hatred of the “other” and become productive members of society and of the multipolar world, there would peace in a day. But the people prefer hate, as do the elites.
But the U.S. actively seeks chaos to make a gradual multipolar transition impossible, and it will not cease doing so unless confronted. Russia and China cannot continue to play an indefinite game of whack-a-mole with the U.S. That is exactly what the U.S. wants: for Russia and China to “duck and cover,” revising their infrastructure plans and retreating to an ever-smaller number of safe havens (friendly states). Meanwhile the U.S. works to undermine each of these friendly states, one at a time, and target each and every move Russia and China make, until the multipolar powers are forced to “shuffle the deck” and move their investments to another state. It’s like a game of hide and seek, and would be ridiculous if the stakes weren’t so high. You can run, but you can’t hide. At some point Russia and China must back up their soft power more consistently and forcefully with hard-power assets. Syria is a good start, but it is just that, a start, and Russia and China, guarantors of the multipolar order, could and should do more to understand the ideological dimensions of the struggle and that there is no equivalency between resistors and aggressors.
These great powers should work unceasingly to protect small powers from neoliberal aggression, up to and including by military force, or else the Empire will continue to sow slow-motion chaos, as it is doing in Myanmar, where Russia and China have yet failed to deploy hard assets to safeguard what was once a multipolar-friendly government. Ditto for Serbia, Libya, Macedonia, Cuba, Sudan, Nigeria, the Central African Republic, Brazil, Argentina, and other anti-imperialist holdouts that have now tilted toward Western neoliberalism and NATO, or are reduced to fragmented and blown-apart husks. Western-backed interventions have either overthrown or undermined formerly OBOR-friendly states, raising the financial and political costs for Russia and especially China. While the U.S. has unlimited resources thanks to the Fed and the petrodollar, Russia and China, both dependent on each other, do not have that luxury. At some point, Russia and China must take note that the “Great Western Firewall,” both psychological and otherwise, is an extremely powerful weapon that prevents Westerners from acquiring the knowledge, will, and means to understand the truth about their exploitation of the world for millennia.
Russia and China must find a way to expand their media outreach in a way that effectively breaks down the barriers between the Western publics and the rest of the world. The messaging must be consistent and of the highest quality in both tone and research. They must send a clear and unambiguous message to Western publics that the goal of Western neoliberal elites is world domination, and that such a path, if pursued to its logical conclusion, will inevitably lead to nuclear war, and should signal Russian and Chinese willingness to put military assets in place on a global scale to counter neoliberal imperialism. After all, the West has long viewed its competitors through the prism of cultural, biological, and economic superiority, the apparent absence of which, like appeal to morality (one of the West’s chief ideological weapons), is taken as either deception or weakness. It is well known that the U.S., once in possession of nuclear monopoly, was more than willing to countenance a nuclear strike on the USSR and China, until those states developed nuclear arsenals of their own. Even that did not stop the Western drive for total control, by nuclear conflagration if need be.
History is clear: if the West cannot find a threat, it will make one up to advance its interests, period. What one does doesn’t matter from a Western perspective; one’s mere existence as an economically and socially independent polity does. The West has always sought to destroy an alternative, independent pole that implicitly challenges its divine right to control every inch of the globe and its resources. Russia and China, starting from positions of relative weakness, cannot and should not operate on the basis that if they act as pillars of “stability and predictability,” while providing financial alternatives to the Western banking system, they will eventually tilt the “correlation of forces,” to use the old Soviet concept, in their behalf. As much as they wish to be fully independent of the West, Putin and Xi know that their nations’ elites, and much of their youth, are financially integrated with and/or sympathetic to the allure of the post-1492 Western-dominated global order. Through its pillaging and destruction of other cultures and institutions, and by imposing its own controlled institutions, the West has built a system that is as much a moral and mental as a financial prison.
Putin and Xi understand the financial aspects, but they fall short on the moral and mental aspects, whereas the former communist states, especially the USSR, understood the latter, however much one may deprecate communism and its shortcomings (at least by the biased standards of the capitalist West). That is why Russia and China have a disquieting, albeit understandable, tendency to cut deals with the West that benefit their commercial elites but cement their nations’ relative weakness and vulnerability to Western aggression. For example, Trump successfully threatened economic warfare against Beijing, and since Moscow did not want to be seen as slighting its Chinese partner, both states deferred to the Western-friendly corporate-minded segments of their elites by backing U.S. sanctions on North Korea, while gaining little for themselves. In the long run, I think that the U.S. will eventually succeed in its aim to dominate the world, if not economically, then by cultural subversion—be it Hollywood, Wahhabi ideology, or other means to infect the youth of the world, including in Russia and China.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/08/10/why-siding-with-washington-korea-may-be-dangerous.html
History is clear: if the West cannot find a threat, it will make one up to advance its interests, period. What one does doesn’t matter from a Western perspective; one’s mere existence as an economically and socially independent polity does. The West has always sought to destroy an alternative, independent pole that implicitly challenges its divine right to control every inch of the globe and its resources….Through its pillaging and destruction of other cultures and institutions, and by imposing its own controlled institutions, the West has built a system that is as much a moral and mental as a financial prison.
Western “civilization” is a world-devouring civilization.
For the past 500 years at least, they have sought to expand and dominate the entire world–not only militarily, economically, or politically, but also culturally, morally, and spiritually.
There is no arena of human activity that the “democratic West” will not attempt to assimilate or dominate or control. It’s a kind of Western totalitarianism in all but name.
This is true not only of Western regimes but their people and nations in general..
On most issues of significance, Westerners love to colonize the moral high ground and appointment themselves the judge and jury of what is right. You even see this perverse tendency among those Westerners who posture as anti-establishment critics, dissidents or alternative media voices.
This is nothing more than Western Moral Imperialism in disguise.
Most Orwellian of all, however, the West disguises their will to power behind deceptions like freedom, democracy, human rights, or the rule of law.
Indeed, Western liberal democracy itself is nothing more than a *civilizational lie.”
There is no greater example of this than the United States of America, which never fails to boast that is is the Land of the Free or Leader of the Free World, with the US Constitution as some kind of quasi-religious document.
This is coming from an America that imprisons more of its own citizens (particularly Black and Brown people) with its Prison Industrial Complex than most other countries in the world, And one that has created a planetary surveillance state, (as documented by Edward Snowden’s expose of the NSA) that would make Orwell jealous.
In fact, America is in many ways a religion, as even people like Rudy Guiliani have admitted.
But it is aggressive religion that seeks to expand and impose its value system on the entire planet, preaching and proselytizing the gospel of Americanism.
America Is a Religion – An Aggressive One
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/how-its-exceptionalism-makes-america-dumb-and-aggressive/ri12257
If there is one thing that the Anglo Americans or Europeans hate it is an alternative civilizational /developmental model that is a rival to their own.
After all, what was the Cold War really about–defending freedom and democracy against “totalitarianism” or in actuality destroying an alternative developmental path in opposition to Western capitalist “democracy.”
In the Post-Cold War era, the West proclaimed the End of History, There Is No Alternative, and Western values are “universal” values.
It is thus long overdue that nations like Russia, China, Iran, or other targeted countries reject these assertions and the worship of the West by calling the West out for what it is:
A false idol and a malevolent “God.”
I agree with you fully – America is based on religion (the original totalitarianism and enforcer of fraud) and slavery. People are brainwashed early to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge or else.
Most of my American friends are educated at best university (MIT, Berkeley etc) and I am often surprised how little they know about anything at all and how mentally trained to only obey their perceived master (real or imaginary).
they cannot connect the dots, or really think deep about anything and they don’t even want to. They have been trained that they are fundamentally bad, (god/celebrities/saints is everything and you are nothing kind of thing), fed with drugs (many of my friends told me they were forced to take ADD drugs as children even the ones whose parents were doctors).
Un-reality is promoted, the last thing people are encouraged to do is study what is really going on around them. It’s a society irreparably fractured and there is a critical mass of psychopaths in power and stupid idiots worshiping them to create a downward spiral of tragic destruction of all the biological instincts and social glues that have evolved over millions of years.
But the psychos in charge have long ago figured out the power of propaganda, Orwellian renaming and how to repeat lies until sheeple start believing them.
Luckily in other cultures like in Serbia, Argentina, japan etc people are not that brainwashed to be their own worst enemies.
It appears to me that much of the current situation in the Middle East may be attributable to a single overriding cause. That is, the depletion of the Saudi oil reserves. I have seen claims that production in the Ghawar fields may have peaked as early as 2006. If so, this has profound implications.
Michael Hudson has pointed out some interesting details of the 1974 Saudi oil agreement. Under this agreement, the Saudis receive a guarantee of stability from the US and the right to benefit from their oil revenue. However, oil must be sold in dollars and recycled into US based assets or financial instruments. Should the Saudis fail to comply, regime change would proceed and the monarchy would be removed.
Assuming that Saudi oil production is in decline, the Saudi monarchy would be under extreme threat. Once the oil is gone, the Saudis would have no further purpose. For the US, the loss of recycled oil revenues would also be a serious threat. A possible logical outcome would be a mad dash by all concerned to seize any and all productive oil and gas assets that are not well defended.
The involvement with the Kurds would not simply for the purpose of providing them with a nation state but to groom them as local managers of seized oil wealth. They are well suited for this role since they require significant military backup to avoid being overwhelmed by Turkey, Iraq, etc. There would of course, be overlord masters above them who would have perhaps the final say in exactly how the Kurds could make use of their oil revenues. This would be pretty much the mirror image of the current petrodollar system.
The interesting question is who would be the masters of the Kurds. It doesn’t look too good for the Saudis. As far as I know, they are of little consequence as a military power. The Kurds would have no use for them. Israel is certainly a contender here as is the US as well as Russia.
It will be interesting to see how this develops.
The Kurds have always been divided and tribal. Barzani represents one strand of this people. A look at a map will confirm that without the support of at least one of its neighbors in this region, Kurdistan is a non-starter.
A Kurdistan can never become like Switzerland. It offers little to the elites of Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq. While it is true that oil is currently being exported through Turkey and that the Ordegan clan is a major beneficiary, Ordegan will have weigh up his priorities. If he encourages Kurdish separatism, the Turkish Deep State will eliminate him.
” It could be argued that the establishment of a Kurdish state was the primary goal right from the start of the Syrian and Iraqi conflicts, but that doesn’t take into account that the primary goal in Syria was to overthrow the Syrian government and control all of Syria rather than just parts of it. Partitioning Syria and Iraq was an option only after 2015 when it became evident that the Jihadist emirate project would fail and that Syria would survive.”
This is patently not true. The partitioning of the Middle East based on ethnicity is a plan that goes back to the Odel Yinon Plan for the Middle East in the 80s. But the real plan took shape with Dick Cheney and his Energy Task Force in 2000 when the following revised map of the Middle East was proffered. That map can be viewed here: http://oilempire.us/new-map.html
This has been the plan all along, and an independent Kurdistan has been an integral part of it since its inception. It is all to protect Israel by creating new and weakened states from the original Sykes-Picot Partition.
As I’ve said several times, any look at the map shows it all. The Kurdish region is a “landlocked” region. If Iran,Turkey,and Iraq,close their borders and airspace to travel (of any kind) to the Kurdish region it will starve and collapse.Neither the US, nor especially Israel, can provision the area. Its simply a matter of that.And if that isn’t fast enough.A joint occupation by Iran from the East,Turkey from the North,and Iraq from the South and West.Would quickly “put paid” to the “Kurdish project”.The US and Israel (nor Saudi Arabia) is going to go to war with those states to try and stop them.Especially,with an uncertain reaction by nuclear giant Russia looming nearby. This crisis is one for “those countries to lose”,not the US to win.Only if they don’t take those actions can the US win. If they do, its certain that the US “Project Kurdistan” loses.