Kurdistan: America's Perfect Storm of Opportunity

This is from another thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've posted on this before, and I don't have time to go over details but I think the way to destabilize and topple the mullah-ocracy in Iran is to start trouble on Iran's western borders with Turkey and Iraq. This trouble will involve the Kurds, who are Christian (Note: They are mostly Sunni Muslim.) and seeking their own independent, oil rich state.

There will undoubtedly be difficulty over this with the Iraqis and the Turks. Kurdish "territory" overlaps all three (Note: Four, including Syria.) countries in question. This region is a geopolitical swiss army knife of multiple uses. There is a lot of scope for measured, cadenced creativity in strategic initiatives in the region. Its a veritable cornucopia of chaos waiting to happen.

It looks like the ball is starting to roll in noticeable ways in "Kurdistan".

ca.news.yahoo.com...

Syrian conflict threatens to fracture Iraq

Semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan and the central Iraqi government are on a collision course as the Kurds increasingly side with the Syrian opposition and Baghdad stands by the Assad regime.

Everyone in the region is choosing sides as the game of political hardball takes shape there. On one side you have the Syrian rebels, Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds (all US backed) and on the other side you have Syria's Assad regime, Iran and the Iraqi government in Baghdad.

This is a real snake's nest. If ever a situation demonstrated how precarious a house of cards existed in the region's alliances and strong points, prior to America dropping over, this shows things clearly.

My guess is that America is steadily advancing pawns across the chess board in the direction of Iran. If serious trouble starts in Iran, this is where it will start, on Iran's western border. All of the countries mentioned have Kurdish minorities who live in a region that overlaps all four national territories. I'm sure that there will be an attempt to set up a completely independant Kurdistan and that attempt will involve all national borders in the region.

If it spills into Iran it will be a very important strategic development for America.

reply to post by ipsedixit

I agree that the Kurds have important tentacles in those areas, but they also have their own agenda, which does not fit into the agenda of other countries, according to tv interview with them that I've seen.

They are ostracized and despised by those countries you mentioned, so I find it hard to see where one would seek to negotiate with them. I can however see some elaborate ruse to manipulate them, to which I think you were perhaps alluding?

Some interesting things have been happening over the past week or so. One thing I did notice was Western countries putting the Irnian quds regiment on the terrorist blacklist while they took a notorious Iranian group off the list.

Are they preparing to send in the Mujahadeen and start a similar war to the one in neighbouring Syria? If we can learn anything from recent history, the only way Iran will fall is with an uprising from within whether it is legitimate or not. Iran are a proud nation and I'm sure their citizens will die for their country before any Western influence decides to surface inside its borders again.

reply to post by aboutface

Yes. What I think will happen is that they will go for independance, primarily from Iraq. Kurds from the other neighboring countries will become involved in this with them and there will be prolonged difficulties in the region that will spread to western Iran. This will create pressure on the Iranian government and possible opportunities for political opposition in Iran.

Of course this is all speculation and will take some time to acquire a recognizable shape if it actually occurs, but if the Americans want to destabilize Iran, ultimately, the western border seems to me to be "the soft underbelly" where it will begin.

Just to underline, these are not "informed" opinions. I'm not any sort of scholar of the region. I just read the news sources and look at recent history. America has taken to working through proxies recently. I think they will use Kurdish national asperations to perform a number of tasks that they would like to see accomplished in the region, most importantly, the creation in Kurdistan, of an ally that they can rely on that also is an oil exporter.

When you look at the map (the light colored region is inhabited by Kurds) it is interesting to speculate about a territorial grab in western Iran that would link the Kurdish region with the Caspian Sea. If you use language as a guide, the Kurds are an Iran related people. They are not Arabs like the Iraqis. One wonders just how far the Kurds (the US) could go and what they could get away with.

en.wikipedia.org...:Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_(1992).jpg

Another thing that could happen is that there might be cooperation between "Kurdistan" and Turkey to keep the Turkish Kurds under control, in exchange for Turkish assistance with Kurdistan's oil transportation needs.

This area, the region south of Turkey, is becoming like a kaleidoscope of shifting possibilities.

This, to the US State Department, must be seen as a golden age of Machiavellianism, playing high stakes politics in the cradle of politics. What a great time to be completely without redeeming features!

reply to post by ipsedixit


"Kurdistan" as a U.S. oil producer would be landlocked by Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. And so, would need to rely on them to transport oil to the Caspian (competing with Russia), The Persian Gulf (competing with the world's oil giants) or straight into the Mediterranean which would mean having to go through Syria.

Kurdistan's only goal, imo, would be to tie up Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian military power. It could also act as a buffer between Turkey and Iran, giving Turkey a greater defensive ability.

Ultimately, Kurdistan would only be brought in to give the U.S. another ally in the region, possibly losing them Turkey in the process.

reply to post by ipsedixit


the middle east has so many players, that, imo, nothing is more than transitory.

the kurds will pay a high price for any attempt to change the map, as they have in the past.

is it worthwhile for the kurds to become a pawn of american or isreali forieng politics?

what conditions will they have to live with when the american empire crumbles and go home and they have to deal with their ennemies alone?

that part of the world has been raped by an endless parade of empires, they come and go and so will the americans.

I agree with post previous posters. If the Kurdish people were Shiites as the Azeris in Western Iran are, then I think Iran could be split up. But they are not and the Azeris have strong revolutionary Islamist credibility.

However, this is an old, old land, where as has been said, power has shifted many times. People in this region are very politically adaptable. They make the Americans look like infants by comparison, powerful infants, but simple infants all the same. The State Department knows how to appeal to "flexible" minds and they are not to be underestimated.

Interesting situation.

Here is a new development that would seem to take Turkey out of the plans for Kurdistan, at least for the moment. The PKK are moving fighters out of Turkish territory, presumably into Iraqi territory. Will this mean the push for an independent Kurdistan will start to gain momentum? Is this the beginning of a Western threat on the Western border of Iran? Has some deal been made with the US in this matter? Time will tell.

reply to post by ipsedixit


You can't overlook the north Georgia and Checnyian region - the Checnyian islamic rebels have been a thorn in Russia's side for decades. AND the 2014 winter olympics are to be on the russian/chcnyian border.

Russia is making moves also. No wonder the boston bombers hailed from Chechnya.

Huge strategic area here. I think I read somewhere that China was moving troops into the area from the east.

Slowly, but surely - Who's going to be who's ally when it's all set up?

reply to post by Happy1

It is a very interesting caldron of possibilities. I think the Turks must have made some kind of deal, guaranteed by the Americans, in order to get the PKK out of Turkey. It may signal the beginning of Kurdish activism in Iraq in a more aggressive way than up 'til now. They have already made independent oil deals in the West.

It will be very interesting to watch developments.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Just questioning. The Kurds and Irag - they've been against eachother for years - are they going to side with Nato?

Iraq and Iran are against eachother - would Iraq stand with Iran and Russia?

Georgia and Chechnya - have been fighting with Russia forever - would they stand with NATO? Especially after the very suspicious on all counts, Boston bombing incident?

I don't know - looks like doomsday to me. Add in Pakistan and India and their alliances ? plus the BRIC's summit and trading in the chinese yuan, instead of the US dollar.

I really feel for the people who just happened to be born there. What can they do? They're mostly poor. This is downright ugly.

reply to post by Happy1


I know this is ridiculous - but why can't we put these idiot leaders (US included) into a soccer field - hand to hand combat - and just let them kill eachother? Leave the rest of us out of it.

This is an older thread but it might be worth reviving because a lot of things are happening in the region of the north and east of Syria.

The al Nusra Front is attempting to set up an independent state inside a Syria in disarray. In response Syrian Kurds have set up their own Kurdish controlled entity in the easternmost region of the country. There has been friction between the Kurds and the anti-Assad jihadis with a recent massacre of Kurds being reported by RT.

One must keep in mind that the jihadis fighting Assad are backed by NATO and that the main body of the Kurds, in Iraq are also backed by American interests. If left unchecked it appears that there may be two independent entities created in the eastern part of Syria, the most important one being the Kurdish one because it would be one precursor to an independent Kurdistan comprising Kurdish regions of Syria, possibly Turkey, Iraq and most importantly from the American perspective, Iran.



Syrian Kurdish leaders have made statements to the effect that they are not seeking independence from Syria but, even if these statements are genuine, they may be pushed into it by forces they cannot resist anyway.

I've posted on the demographics of this region in other threads, but here's a map to give people the general idea.



The color shaded area of Iran highlights Iranian territory heavily populated by Azeris, Iranians who form an ethnic group which is the same as that in neighboring Azerbaijan (staunch ally of Israel and enemy of Iran). The adjacent area to the south, in Iran, "Kordestan" on the map, is populated by Kurds, as are the areas of Turkey and Syria shown, as well as the niortheast corner of Iraq.

The next map gives a rough idea of the linguistics of the region, which can be a possible indicator of fault lines within the Iranian state.

The gold and blue colored regions of western Iran are Kurdish and Azeri speaking regions, respectively.

en.wikipedia.org...:Iran_main_languages.png

Kurdish refugees from Syria are now pouring into the Kurdish autonomous region of Iraq.

The Kurds are fighting the anti-Assad, NATO backed jihadis in north eastern Syria, who are attempting to set up their own independent state. The Kurds are struggling to keep control of their region while fellow Kurds are going to Iraq to avoid "ethnic cleansing" being carried out by the NATO surrogates.

It is very interesting from a geo-strategic point of view to watch this process. What Turkey does will be interesting to watch. They have their own Kurdish issues in that area. Will NATO try to force all the Kurds in the region into Kurdish Iraq preliminary to the establishment of the new state of Kurdistan?

It's an appalling idea to think that people could be so cold and cruel. We will have to wait to see if it happens. In the meantime I think the pawns are advancing toward Iran.

At this juncture, with the prospect of an American strike on Syria immanent, notwithstanding the overwhelming opposition of the American people, strategic thinkers in Iran and Russia will be consulting. The Iranians will have to make a very serious decision; whether to wait for Russia to get up to speed so that it can help resist American encroachment when it comes knocking in the Iranian province of "Kordestan", marked "A" on the map.

maps.google.ca...:0xeecda6b7fe6e96b0,Kordestan,+Iran&gl=ca&ei=1p0oUratD4i02AWLzoHIDw& ved=0CKQBELYD



or . . . to fight its war with the Americans in Syria and hopefully avoid a lot of fuss muss and bother at home.

The following news article reveals a bit of cloudy thinking on the part of the Iranians, in my opinion. They vow to support the Syrians "to the end" but won't send troops or arms unless there is an "invasion".

I think this is extremely foolish . . . from a military standpoint.

They should be putting Iranian troops into Syria immediately. There is much advantage to fighting the Americans and NATO in the person of their proxies, rather than directly.

In my opinion, not to do so is a major strategic error. It is difficult to overstate this.

The following article from the Jerusalem Post is very revealing of "mullah think" and "mullah speak", if it is accurate.



www.jpost.com...

On Wednesday, 170 Iranian parliamentarians released a statement in support of Assad, and warned the US and Israel against attacking Syria. The Iranian legislators warned that "any invasion of [Syria] will herald the collapse of the arrogant powers' tyrannical and cruel system," Fars reported.

"If the Islamic Republic decides, we will be ready to sacrifice our lives beside our Syrian brothers against the (front)line of infidels and oppressors," the statement said.

Despite the messages of support from Tehran, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehqan ruled out sending troops or weapons to Syria.

Meanwhile, even the mullahs themselves can't seem to make up their minds whose side they are on in Syria, if the following report is accurate. Can there be disagreement among Iranian leaders as to where "the end" is for their support of Syria?

iphone.france24.com...

The controversy stems from a report by the unofficial ILNA news agency, which quoted the moderate ex-president as saying "the Syrian people who were the target of a chemical attack by the authorities must now face the threat of foreign intervention."

But the agency quickly deleted from the quote the words "by the authorities," and the foreign ministry denied that Rafsanjani had said such a thing.

But several conservative websites also took the opportunity to attack Rafsanjani.

One of them posted a video of a public meeting at which Rafsanjani is alleged to have made the comment. It was not possible to confirm that the speaker on the video, shot from some distance on a mobile phone, was Rafsanjani but the voice sounds like his.

I don't know how anyone can doubt that the US State Department is more than capable of finding chinks in the Iranian diplomatic and strategic armor and exploiting them.

One is led to wonder how serious and how united Iranians are on the subject of American hegemony in their region. It is a very important question.

Perhaps Rafsanjani is guilty, not of loose lips, but of "wisdom overflow". Maybe it is time for a marked change in Iranian foreign policy.

Just to give this post an ATS-style twist, I also can't help wonder if the new Iranian President is not already doing some kind of deal with "the Great Satan" to be able to shed a crocodile tear as the Assad regime dies in Iran's arms, while preparing for a future of eating cucumber sandwiches with Michelle and Barak in the White House garden.

Further developments have occurred in eastern Syria. The Kurds have proclaimed an independent state, or at least a nascent one in their part of Syria.

news.sky.com...

A government, autonomous of Damascus, has been declared in what the Kurds call Rojavaye in northeast Syria.

This is 10% of Syrian territory, although reports of the birth of an independent Kurdish state are greatly exaggerated.

If the Kurds spoke as one then it is possible Rojavaye would be a big step towards a contiguous greater Kurdistan, taking in parts of Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran, with a population of some 35 million people.

However, given the bitter infighting in Kurdish politics, and the forces ranged against the very idea of a Kurdistan, the dream of a state remains just that.

The American response to this development is hard to take seriously, except as disinformation.

www.hurriyetdailynews.com...

“We are concerned over the reports on efforts to declare an autonomous Kurdish region in Syria,” U.S. State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said during her daily press briefing on Nov. 13.

“The establishment of an autonomous Kurdish region should include the communities that live in this region, hence be part of a decision,” Psaki said, adding that Washington was committed regarding Syria’s unity.

“Our policy has always been to support Syria’s unity and territorial integrity,” Psaki said.

Saleh Muslim, the co-chair of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), which controls the northern parts of Syria known as Rojava, said that the constituent assembly was established to meet the needs of the Syrian Kurds.

“If preparations are finished there will be elections in three months,” Muslim announced.

The move was also harshly criticized by Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, who accused the PYD of not “keeping its promise.”

In the meantime as most people are aware, Iran has changed its tune considerably in talks concerning its nuclear plans and ambitions.

The game in eastern Syria, northern Iraq and western Iran is beginning to take shape on the board.

edit on 22-11-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

reply to post by ipsedixit


The problem for Turkey is the Kurds are always in the Whey.........

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


Along came a spider and sat down beside her.

2nd.