Kurdistan: America's Perfect Storm of Opportunity

This report from RT discusses the idea of the formation of a new state in the middle east, Kurdistan.

Being from Toronto, I haven't had much time to carefully consider developments in this region, developments like the US/Iran rapprochement and the waning of overt support from the US for the takferi-style jihadi groups in Syria.

(Rob Ford, our dearly beloved Mayor, overwhelms all other considerations in this part of the world.)

I found this report interesting and noticed that Kurds in the northeast of Turkey, on RT's map, are shown as occupying a section very near, if not on, the Black Sea coastline. That is highly significant.

It is hard to see, at this moment, how such a jumbled equation, in which the terms have been changed in peculiar ways, will factor down. One always hopes for signs of rationality emanating from the State Department and one is not often disappointed. The difficulty comes in discarding their amusing and misleading public pronouncements about what their intentions are.

I still think they are after a chunk of western Iran. Anyway, here's the report.

This report gives an idea of status of the Kurdish autonomous region of northern Iraq, even involving UN aid flights into eastern Syria. They appear to be operating near the level of the two national entities Syria and Iraq.



Iraq is the first country of the region to appear to have been "balkanized" as a result of Kurdish, that is American/Kurdish efforts. What about Turkey?

One has wondered about the extent to which Turkey has been manipulated by NATO ever since the beginning of the attempts to foment "regime change" in Syria. Turkey has at times been seen to be acting in a way that was very provocative toward Syria and even toward Russia, while having no obvious reason for belligerence, except perhaps the hope that by being a useful NATO surrogate, entry into the EU might come closer to being a reality.

A look at a map of the Kurdish populated region of Turkey is quite startling. Turkey, after all is the country in which most Kurds in the region live.

en.wikipedia.org...:Kurdish_population_by_region_(KONDA_2010).svg



Going from darkest red to pink the percentage of Kurds in the Turkish populations of the colored regions of eastern Turkey are 79.1%, 64.1% and 32%.

en.wikipedia.org...

Most Kurds live in Turkey, where their numbers are estimated at 14,000,000 people by the CIA world factbook (18% of population).[

Kurds and others are deprived of rights and freedoms in Turkey and Turkey has been called an apartheid state by some commentators.

Is it really smart to discriminate against a population that is heavily concentrated at one end of the country, adjacent to a territory populated by ethnic compatriots who are on a road to national independence? Apartheidt and separate secessionist are very allied concepts. Why prod a secessionist with apartheid policies?

Things are not well in Turkey and have not been for a considerable length of time, no?

Will Turkey be the next country in the region to be "balkanized" on the road to an independent Kurdish state?

A lot has been happening in the region that bears on the thesis of this thread.

The movement of the ISIS formations from Syria into Iraq can be seen as a machination of the State Department. It is believed by some commentators that Prime Minister al Maliki, a one time creature of the State Department, is now out of favor with the US because of his amical relationship with Iran. There is a belief that the Americans would like to replace Maliki with Alawi or some other personality who would be more compliant with the State Department's plans for the region.

Those plans, as enunciated by this unofficial State Department dis-disinformationalist, call for the splitting of Iraq into at least two parts, the most important of which, for our purposes, would be the nascent state of "Kurdistan".

The Saudis have been cooperating with the Americans in all of this by funding ISIS, important components of which were trained by American instructors at a base in Jordan, as was reported two years ago in the mainstream press. Now however the Saudis seem to be getting a case of the jitters at the prospect of ISIS possibly taking over Iraq and have moved 30,000 troops up to the border with that country. (They don't want to be eaten by their own attack dog.)



The air forces of Iran and Syria have been reported to have flown sorties against ISIS positions and the Russians have shipped some Su-25 fighter jets to help out the Iraqis.

Maliki did appeal to the Americans for airstrikes against ISIS, but this help was not forthcoming.



Despite the waffling answers in the video, many observers believe that things are going according to State Department plan in this region, with the possible exception of the aid being given by Russia and Iran to America's ally Iraq, from whom America is witholding aid. (America doesn't want to destroy its proxy, ISIS, before it has stopped being useful to the State Department's agenda.)

In the meantime, the new state of Kurdistan is in the process of being born, out of conflict with ISIS and as a direct result of ISIS's success in Syria and Iraq.

news.nationalpost.com...

BAGHDAD — With large parts of Iraq in militant hands, a top Kurdish leader called on regional lawmakers Thursday to lay the groundwork for a referendum on independence, a vote that would likely spell the end of a unified Iraq.

The recent blitz by Sunni militants across much of northern and western Iraq has given the country’s 5 million Kurds — who have long agitated for independence — their best chance ever to seize disputed territory and move closer to a decades-old dream of their own state.

The next statement in this article is, in my opinion, a bald faced obfuscation of the truth of the matter.

But the Kurds still face considerable opposition from many in the international community, including the United States, which has no desire to see a fragmented Iraq.

A fragmented Iraq is exactly what the State Department wants, in my opinion, and has been going to great lengths to achieve. One only need read on in the article.

A Western-established no-fly zone in 1991 helped the Kurds set up their enclave, which has emerged over the years as a beacon of stability and prosperity, while much of the rest of the country has been mired in violence and political turmoil.

I think there definitely will be a Kurdistan. I think it won't be too long before there is trouble on the border this new state will share with Iran. I think ISIS may very well begin to menace Saudi Arabia and as is obvious, the Saudis think so too.

If you believe the State Department line, that the US doesn't want to see a divided Iraq or an independent Kurdistan, then look for American military ATCs to be directing traffic as waves of Syrian, Iranian, Russian and American fighter jets pound ISIS into oblivion.

Personally, I think America will be twiddling its thumbs until the State Department decides on its next chess move.

American allies armed and trained ISIS in the lead up to the destabilization of Syria. (The organization did not exist at the time but the same personnel reformed under that banner after Bashar Assad destroyed the Free Syrian Army and drove its leaders out of the country.)

In withholding aid to the al-Maliki government in Iraq, America has permitted ISIS to proceed with an invasion of that country. In administering the poison, America must now take care to make sure that it only kills the desired parts of the body and does not run amok, killing everything.

Accordingly: (Note the lie in bolded print.)

news.nationalpost.com...

Airstrikes on towns in northern Iraq seized by Islamist militants began late Thursday in what Kurdish and Iraqi officials called the first stage of a U.S.-led intervention to blunt the jihadists’ advance and provide emergency aid to tens of thousands of refugees.

The Pentagon firmly denied U.S. forces had started a bombing campaign. But Pentagon officials said it was possible allies of the United States, either the Iraqi or Turkish militaries, had conducted the bombing.

Kurdish and Iraqi officials attributed the bombing to U.S. forces. An announcement on Kurdish television of what was described as an American intervention prompted street celebrations and horn-honking by residents of towns under siege by the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS).

Kurdish officials said the bombings initially had targeted ISIS fighters who had seized two towns, Gwer and Mahmour.

A top Iraqi official in Baghdad close to Nouri Al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, said the Americans had consulted the Iraqi government Thursday night about starting the campaign, the government had agreed and the bombing began.

The bolded text in the following shows the rationale of American action and its intended purpose overall.

The administration had been delaying taking any military action against ISIS until there is a new Iraqi government. Both White House and Pentagon officials have said privately the United States would not intervene militarily until Mr. Maliki stepped down.

But administration officials said Thursday the crisis on Mount Sinjar may be forcing their hand. About 40 children have already died, according to UNICEF, while as many as 40,000 people have been sheltering in the bare mountains.

Sure enough, the next day the truth, as originally related by the Iraqi and Kurdish press spokespersons came out.

ca.finance.yahoo.com...

U.S. military aircraft conducted a strike in Iraq against artillery held by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS or ISIL), Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby wrote on Twitter on Friday morning.

"U.S. military aircraft conduct strike on ISIL artillery. Artillery was used against Kurdish forces defending Erbil, near U.S. personnel," Kirby wrote.

President Barack Obama said in a statement from the White House on Thursday night that he had authorized the use of airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq to protect threatened American personnel and help Iraqi forces in the country's Kurdish region. He emphasized that any airstrikes would be part of a targeted, limited campaign.

Will the Americans engineer the split of Iraq into three separate states, or will they allow ISIS to force regime change in Iraq before they crush it with air power?

According to this RT report, the United States is increasing arms aid to the Iraqi Kurds to enable them to keep ISIS from conquering the oil rich Kurdish region of Northern Iraq.



Things are shaping up nicely for American interests in the region with the possible exception that ISIS is in the awkward situation, awkward for the United States that is, of being an ally in Syria, fighting the Assad regime, while being an enemy in Iraq, exceeding their desired scope of activities beyond forcing the removal of al Maliki from the Iraqi government.

What America intends to do with ISIS in the long run is a fascinating question.

Will there be a Sunni Caliphate in the heart of Iraq? The Kurds are diverse in their religious practices but most are Sunni. This means that ISIS might regard them as serious candidates for political "sword conversion". The Turks are largely Sunni, but firmly secularist. Most Iraqis, Syrians and Iranians are Shiite.

Do the Americans seriously believe that ISIS should be a permanent political force in the region? It is hard to imagine anyone being in favor of that, not even the Americans, or the Saudis.

ISIS has to be a tool and only a tool. If Maliki were to resign tomorrow and if the Americans liked his successor, would ISIS be crushed immediately by the US?

I think so. It is hard to imagine a role for them in the endgame against Iran. I think they will be gone, or at least driven back to Syria as soon as Maliki is gone.

Even Hitler reached a point where he had no more use for the Brownshirts.

Now Maliki is gone and with western ally, Barzani, in place in the Kurdish area of Iraq and Al-Abadi as Prime Minister in Baghdad, the new situation in Baghdad has been greeted in "Kurdistan" with optimism. It is seen as being more accepting of Kurdistan's aspirations. I believe this has been the American aim for a long time. We are very close to the formal creation of a Kurdish state in an area once, and still, technically, a part of Iraq, but perhaps soon to be fully independent.

America is also moving to fumigate the area of ISIS fighters, who were allowed to put pressure on the Maliki government. That government caved rather than endure more American mischief.

When "Kurdistan" is created, it will be interesting to see whether it becomes a center of gravity for ethnic Kurds in Syria, Turkey and Iran and what comes out of that, large scale emigration in that direction or pressure for territorial increases . . . at the expense of Iran particularly.



Edit: An interesting factual tidbit that lends credence to the theme of this thread is that the current President of Iraqi Kurdistan, Masoud Barzani, was actually born in Mahabad in what is now western IRAN. He's an ethnic Kurd from over the border, where a lot of ethnic Kurds live.

www.washingtonpost.com... table-low_iran-attacks340am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ba8e67d3f179

Gunmen stormed two major sites in Iran’s capital Wednesday, killing at least 12 people in gunfire and suicide blasts in parliament and at the revered tomb of the nation’s Islamic revolution leader. The Islamic State claimed responsibility for the Tehran attacks, which would mark the group’s first major strikes in Iran.

If one ever wanted proof that ISIS and its antecedents are a geo-strategic force being steered from outside, this is it. There is no ideological reason within the religious context for this attack by the so-called "jihadis". Sunnis amount to almost nothing in Iran, in numbers. There is no Sunni/Shia contention in Iran.

The motivation for this attack came from outside Iran, in Riyadh/Washington and might signal the beginning of the attempt, predicted in this thread, to destabilize Iran and separate it from its western provinces, which are heavily populated by Kurds and Azeris, and of course, oil wells.

The Washington Post article puts this attack into the context of Arab "fury" over the interventions of Iran in the Arab region, but the pattern established in Libya and Syria also suggests the activity of ISIS in their capacity as an American mercenary force acting as the thin edge of a wedge used in an area that the United States wants to destabilize.

In the words of Elmer Fudd, "Vewy intowesting, hawhawhawhaw."

I may have understated the Sunni presence in Iran, since the Kurds, who make up around 10% of the Iranian population are mostly Sunni, like the ISIS jihadis. (A useful comparison would be that Afro-Americans make up around 10% of the US population and they would undoubtedly be a more formidable political force than they already are if they were all concentrated, as Kurds are in Iran, in a corner of the country, say the region around Galveston.)


upload.wikimedia.org...



Iranian and Turkish foreign ministers have met, concerning the attack in Iran and the general situation with regard to Qatar and ISIS.

www.hurriyetdailynews.com... ID=352

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said on June 7 that Ankara and Tehran need to have a close exchange of ideas on the latest worrying developments in the region.

“There are concerning developments in the region for us. We need to have a close exchange of ideas with Turkey regarding these incidents,” Zarif told reporters in the capital Ankara before meeting with his Turkish counterpart Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Zarif offered condolences for those who lost their lives in twin attacks in Tehran on June 7, which was claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). “This attack will further strengthen our people’s stance against terrorism,” he said, adding that Iranians and the country’s security forces will stay strong in the face of such attacks.

Zarif’s visit came on the same day twin attacks targeted the Iranian parliament and the shrine of Ayatollah Khomeini in Tehran. Regional issues, including the Syrian war, are on the agenda, a Turkish Foreign Ministry official said, adding that the initiation for the visit had come from the Iranian side.

Personally, I am wondering about the ethnicity of the ISIS attackers who struck in Teheran. Could they have been Kurds? Could they have been Iranian Kurds?



Here is a repost of one of my posts from another thread,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

which has some bearing on the current thread.

Interesting little article on the hurriyetdailynews.com website:

US will not abandon Kurds, says former senior official

www.hurriyetdailynews.com...

According to Long, (former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Mary Beth Long) the U.S. may treat the Kurds in Iraq and Syria “somewhat differently.”

“I guess what I am trying to say is that those Kurds [in Iraq] may be treated by the U.S. somewhat differently than the Syrian Kurds who [President Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan is more concerned about,” she said.

“I can’t see the U.S. abandoning the Kurds, I can’t see the U.S. abandoning the Kurds fighting ISIL in Syria and Iraq. I can’t see the U.S. losing the potential buffer that Kurds represent or could represent between a possibly hostile Russian-Iranian-Syrian post-conflict entities. We can call it Syria or something else … on the border with Turkey. I think this is also something for Erdoğan to also consider. Does he want a buffer there? What would that buffer look like?” she added.

According to Long, the U.S. is “looking keenly at what could very well be a hostile Iraqi-Shia-Iranian proxy state” on the Turkish border.

“I think what you will expect will be a very nuanced approach where the U.S. tries to keep its relations with both [sides], trying to persuade Erdoğan that taking both of those entities fighting abilities off the battlefield during the anti-ISIL fight is a mistake. Trying to persuade Erdoğan that everyone should look toward the most distant future as to what buffer may be needed there and how that buffer should or could look like,” she said.

It would appear that Kurdistan is going to become a reality, if we can believe former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Mary Beth Long, and she has the credentials to be something of an authority on the subject.

The only question in her mind, if I interpret her correctly, is whether the Kurdistan which appears is a proxy of Iran and Iraq or of the Americans and hopefully, Turkey, or to state it another way, who will enable, facilitate, back the new national entity first, Turkey and the Americans or Iran and Iraq.

There is an implied enhancement of Kurdish rivalries involved in this as well, is there not?

That's my reading of her statement.



The Iranian press is connecting the Teheran attack to Donald Trump.

www.iran-daily.com...

The IRGC said the fact that the terrorist attacks were carried out by Daesh just days after US President Donald Trump's meeting with "the rulers of a regional reactionary regime," which has been supporting Takfiri terrorists, indicate that “they have a hand in the bestial attacks.”

ABC News had this to say:

abcnews.go.com...

Iran's Powerful Revolutionary Guard is indirectly blaming Saudi Arabia for the twin terrorist attacks in Tehran.

The statement Wednesday evening stops short of alleging direct Saudi involvement but calls it "meaningful" that the attacks took place about one week after U.S. President Donald Trump traveled to Saudi Arabia and strongly asserted American support for Riyadh.

The statement says that Saudi Arabia "constantly supports takfiri terrorists" including the Islamic State group and the IS claim of responsibility "reveals their (Saudi Arabia's) hand in this barbaric action."

I would really like to know the ethnicity of those involved in the attacks.

Et voila!

www.nytimes.com...

TEHRAN — The Iranian authorities arrested 41 people Friday in connection with the twin terrorist attacks in Tehran this week, the semiofficial Fars News Agency reported, as evidence mounted that Iranian Kurds affiliated with the Islamic State had carried out the assault.

Iranian Kurds affiliated with Daesh. There you have it. The final phase of the American destabilization effort that has swept across the oil rich Middle East has begun with its first ground attack on Iran.

I'm sure there will be more to come.

This is a link to an article about clashes between Iranian authorities and Kurdish and ISIS militants that occurred back in October of 2016. The situation appears to have been downplayed at the time, partly because of a lack of any attacks in Teheran, but that has changed obviously.

www.ft.com...

A split among the Kurds is referenced in the following article in which a Kurdish organization affiliated with the PKK, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, condemned the Teheran attack.

www.kurdishquestion.com...

The following article gives an interesting view of the current/ambivalent situation in Syria with respect to recent US actions and the possible reasons for them. The writer wonders if the US intention is to leave a "failed state" in Syria. I wonder . . . too.

www.independent.co.uk...

So who is fighting Isis? And who is not fighting Isis? Russia claims it has killed the terrible and self-appointed “caliph of the Islamic State”, al-Baghdadi. Russia says it is firing Cruise missiles at Isis. The Syrian army, supported by the Russians, is fighting Isis. I have witnessed this with my own eyes.

But what is America doing attacking first Assad’s air base near Homs, then the regime’s allies near Al-Tanf and now one of Assad’s fighter jets? It seems that Washington is now keener to strike at Assad – and his Iranian supporters inside Syria – than it is to destroy Isis. That would be following Saudi Arabia’s policy, and maybe that’s what the Trump regime wants to do. Certainly, the Israelis have bombed both the Syrian regime forces and Hezbollah and the Iranians – but never Isis.

I haven't been in this thread for a while but there has been another interesting development related to "Kurdistan". It points to a further distancing of the Turks from US aspirations in the region. Turkey and Iran have undertaken a joint military operation against the Kurds in Iraq near the border with eastern Turkey.

www.hurriyetdailynews.com...

Turkey has launched a joint operation with Iran against the illegal PKK on Turkey’s eastern border, Turkish interior minister said on March 18.

“We started joint operation with Iran against PKK on eastern border at 08.00 a.m. local time [0500GMT],” Süleyman Soylu said in Mediterranean province of Antalya.

“We will announce the outcome of the operation later. We will eliminate [PKK],” Soylu said.

Turkey has recently talked about a possible joint operation with neighbor Iran to counter outlawed PKK militants but this is the first time Turkish authorities have confirmed a raid.

Soylu did not specify precisely which PKK bases the planned operation targeted but President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has in the past said it would be against militant hideouts in Iraq.

Turkey has, by far, the most convoluted politics in the region, which is something of a testimony to its importance and to the agility of President Erdogan.

The Kurds main and huge problem is that they have the support of ZERO Nations around them. It's in Iran's, Iraq's, Syria's and Turkey's Interests to Prevent a Kurdish State from forming.

They have been solid allies and deserve a State, but the odds of that happening are next to nothing. I hope we support them as best we can. I wouldn't want to get on the bad side of the Kurds and they have proved deserving of our support.

Even the UN seems to give the Kurds the middle finger. That's a shame.

a reply to: pavil

Yes. It's unfortunate. They seem to have some autonomy in northeastern Iraq, but they and the US would like to parlay that into something more.

The joint Turkey/Iran military venture against them is very bad news for them and the US but fine for everyone else.

The biggest tragedy for me is that Turkey treats its Kurds like second class citizens. They should do what Canada did with Quebec and that is make them as comfortable to be Canadians as possible. Turkish Kurds should be thinking that they couldn't get a better deal on their own than they can with Turkey. That kind of thing would transform the region. It would signal the arrival of a new mind set in Turkey. It would make Turkey much more acceptable to the EU. It would settle the Kurdish issue and put Iran at ease and calm things in Iraq.

Unfortunately it requires a statesman on the level of Mustapha Kemal, Ataturk, to be achieved. Is there anyone on that level in Turkey at present?

a reply to: ipsedixit

One thing Iran,Turkey,Iraq and Syria are agreed upon is to not let the Kurds have their own country.They will do anything to avoid this and they are ready to sacrifice a lot of time,money and human resources to do so...Americans,Russians and the others think they can have a permanent devoted ally bordering Iran so they can have a closer watch and control over their activities,but it is very unlikely that they succeed and or do their plots in the near future if at all...I think all parties involved in the region have lost their credit to influence people enough to agree upon a scenario dictated to them .People have to decide for themselves which path to take, when they are ready and know exactly what they want.