Why character matters even in politics:
* Even if people are corrupted by power, why start with someone who is already fully corrupted? Can it really get better from there? No, it will only get worse.
* It's much easier to "use" someone with low character and poor reputation as a tool for various hostile agendas - through smear campaigns, through dwelling on personal flaws etc. WHy give free ammunition to your opposition?
* For those still making excuses for Putin or Erdogan, if you keep justifying alliances of convenience with no evidence that those alliances actually help in any way, with murderous thugs who seek to destabilize and corrupt everything around them, you yourself will end up becoming part of the problem. If you still think Putin or Erdogan are allies in ANY sense of the world, you are standing with bloodthirsty murderers who are enemies to freedom and who are seeking to destroy the United States.
Showing posts with label Turkey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Turkey. Show all posts
Saturday, November 11, 2017
Monday, October 30, 2017
Who Is Lying About Kirkuk And Why It Matters
cross-posted in Times of Israel:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/who-is-lying-about-kirkuk-and-why-it-matters/
Among the growing Baghdad-Barzani rift, various claims have been made about who knew what and when, and who said what and why.
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/who-is-lying-about-kirkuk-and-why-it-matters/
Among the growing Baghdad-Barzani rift, various claims have been made about who knew what and when, and who said what and why.
The three competing perspectives are as follows:
* US betrayed Kurds by failing to stop the invasion by Iraqi forces, Iran-backed Shi'a militias, and the IRGC. Kurds have been strong allies to the US during the fight against ISIS, and have peacefully voted to secede from a state, which is increasingly manipulated by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and thus is not a good fit for the significant Kurdish population. The oil fields can and should be peacefully negotiated by the two governments, but the Iraqi forces have no business invading Kurdish-held territories, which the latter have liberated from the ISIS presence. Moreover, Iraqi Constitution, Article 140, provides for Kurdish independence, and given that the Constitution was comprised with the assistance from US lawyers and the State Department, US is well aware of that provision and should be respectful of it.
* Kurdish leadership new full well from CIA, State Department, and Pentagon statements before the referendum that US was strongly opposed to secession and would not be supportive if Baghdad decided to take back its territory in the aftermath. Barzani blatantly lied to its population, leading them to believe that the US was deceptive about its support for Kurds. There was no reason to believe that the independence referendum had international support. Barzani overstepped his authority in the attempt to distract from his own illegitimate hold on power despite the constitution.
* The well trained Iraqi forces, armed by the United States, had significantly more field experience in long-term operations than Peshmerga. Furthermore, Baghdad was planning to invade Kirkuk regardless of whether or not Kurds held the referendum, so it was only a matter of time before the region was overrun with Iraqi forces coupled with Iran-backed Shi'a militias. Barzani did not necessarily count on the Talabani faction to sell out to the IRGC, but had decided to call the referendum, knowing that they would be taken over regardless, to draw attention to the upcoming takeover, and also to start taking active steps towards the future, knowing that putting that off would likely make it less, not MORE likely to gain international support and recognition with time. Furthermore, regardless of US statements, it was in the US interests to support Kurds and to avoid clashes between allies, so regardless of US statements about the referendum, it was reasonable to expect that they would mediate in a manner that would avoid violent takeover and could help negotiate oil. It's not in the US interests to have IRGC presence regardless of how the US administration feels about Baghdad's claims to Kirkuk, or or other issues complicating Kurdish path to independence.
These three narratives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And the Kurdish people should have had realistic expectations of the US role in their own story, and had demanded better preparation and organization of troops, clear communications, and an actual plan from the Barzani government, not to mention dealing with the election issue instead of going for populist slogans. However, none of these considerations takes away from the legitimacy of the following concerns:
Whatever the concerns of the US in balancing various interests in the region and preventing further destabilization, failure to take a leadership role in preventing conflict, actually led to the very destabilization it was trying to prevent. Pentagon's denials about the role of IRGC in this avoidable situation are not helping the US credibility, and further, play into the hands of the very actors no one wants to see play a decisive role in the future of Iraq and Kurds. These lies and denials make US look treacherous, deceptive, anti-Kurdish and do nothing to dissuade the Kurds from moving forward with whatever faulty narrative Barzani may be peddling. In fact, it is pushing them into the embrace of the Russians, while IRGC and Baghdad government feel emboldened to disregard Kurdish claims, and act in a matter that is punitive and vindictive, rather than defensive of Baghdad's legitimate claims and interests. As a direct consequence of US failure to intervene, several disturbing developments occurred:
IRGC, dressed as Shi'a militias, and in conjunction with actual Iran-backed militias, have continued plundering and raiding their way through the territory, up to Al-Qosh, increasingly placing minority civilian populations and Jewish and Christian historical sites in danger. Minorities, such as Christians and Yazidis, have been forced to choose among three factions - Kurdish Peshmerga, the PMU units, now linked to Iran, and Iraqi forces, in order to protect their civilians and interests. That does nothing to simplify the situation, as the continuous clashes may force these groups to pick up weapons against each other. Christian militias that run their own defense in Nineveh are paid by PMU, which is troubling to US interests in preventing Iranian financial transactions that benefit the IRGC, recently designated as a terrorist organization. Qasem Soleimani, despite being recognized as a terrorist by the State Department in a recent statement, continues to play an active organizing role in the planning and implementation of the regional takeover.
Second, Turkey and Iraq are moving to cut off Kurdish access to Syrian and Turkish overpasses, which will ease the likelihood of future Turkish entry into the area. Turkey views Kirkuk as its own sphere of interests, and considers the prevention of contiguous Kurdish territories between Iraq, a likely Syrian Kurdish federation,and Kurdish territories in Turkey as central to its interests. There is also a growing possibility that Turkey may target the oil pipelines remaining under Kurdish control, which will deprive the Kurds of their essential livelihood and further empower and embolden Erdogan's expansionist neo-Ottoman ambitions in the region. Turkey is becoming an increasing threat to US interests in the region and elsewhere, and this additional step will make that much harder for the US to defend its foothold, access to energy, defense of minorities, or relationships with more stable and less aggressive allies.
For now, however, Iraq is more likely to gain control of that pipeline and has already taken steps to bypass the Kurdish region in providing oil to Turkey. Iraq and Turkey are on the same page with regards to Baghdad's regaining control and dominating Kurdistan, and Turkey has already made a similar security agreement with Iran. This triumvirate will ultimately prove hostile to US interests in the region, and should be broken up by the US, regardless of Barzani's flaws. US needs to prioritize what is at stake. Iran-oriented Iraq is no great ally and will likely prove a hindrance in the US's future battles against Iranian aggression. And Turkey is proving increasingly less of a friend and more of a menace as it opposes US presence in the region, detains US citizens, interferes with US strategy in Syria, and threatens US allies. The more time the US wastes maintaining supposed neutrality that only strengthens our enemies, the more likely we are to find ourselves friendless when our neutrality inevitably backfires.
* US betrayed Kurds by failing to stop the invasion by Iraqi forces, Iran-backed Shi'a militias, and the IRGC. Kurds have been strong allies to the US during the fight against ISIS, and have peacefully voted to secede from a state, which is increasingly manipulated by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and thus is not a good fit for the significant Kurdish population. The oil fields can and should be peacefully negotiated by the two governments, but the Iraqi forces have no business invading Kurdish-held territories, which the latter have liberated from the ISIS presence. Moreover, Iraqi Constitution, Article 140, provides for Kurdish independence, and given that the Constitution was comprised with the assistance from US lawyers and the State Department, US is well aware of that provision and should be respectful of it.
* Kurdish leadership new full well from CIA, State Department, and Pentagon statements before the referendum that US was strongly opposed to secession and would not be supportive if Baghdad decided to take back its territory in the aftermath. Barzani blatantly lied to its population, leading them to believe that the US was deceptive about its support for Kurds. There was no reason to believe that the independence referendum had international support. Barzani overstepped his authority in the attempt to distract from his own illegitimate hold on power despite the constitution.
* The well trained Iraqi forces, armed by the United States, had significantly more field experience in long-term operations than Peshmerga. Furthermore, Baghdad was planning to invade Kirkuk regardless of whether or not Kurds held the referendum, so it was only a matter of time before the region was overrun with Iraqi forces coupled with Iran-backed Shi'a militias. Barzani did not necessarily count on the Talabani faction to sell out to the IRGC, but had decided to call the referendum, knowing that they would be taken over regardless, to draw attention to the upcoming takeover, and also to start taking active steps towards the future, knowing that putting that off would likely make it less, not MORE likely to gain international support and recognition with time. Furthermore, regardless of US statements, it was in the US interests to support Kurds and to avoid clashes between allies, so regardless of US statements about the referendum, it was reasonable to expect that they would mediate in a manner that would avoid violent takeover and could help negotiate oil. It's not in the US interests to have IRGC presence regardless of how the US administration feels about Baghdad's claims to Kirkuk, or or other issues complicating Kurdish path to independence.
These three narratives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And the Kurdish people should have had realistic expectations of the US role in their own story, and had demanded better preparation and organization of troops, clear communications, and an actual plan from the Barzani government, not to mention dealing with the election issue instead of going for populist slogans. However, none of these considerations takes away from the legitimacy of the following concerns:
Whatever the concerns of the US in balancing various interests in the region and preventing further destabilization, failure to take a leadership role in preventing conflict, actually led to the very destabilization it was trying to prevent. Pentagon's denials about the role of IRGC in this avoidable situation are not helping the US credibility, and further, play into the hands of the very actors no one wants to see play a decisive role in the future of Iraq and Kurds. These lies and denials make US look treacherous, deceptive, anti-Kurdish and do nothing to dissuade the Kurds from moving forward with whatever faulty narrative Barzani may be peddling. In fact, it is pushing them into the embrace of the Russians, while IRGC and Baghdad government feel emboldened to disregard Kurdish claims, and act in a matter that is punitive and vindictive, rather than defensive of Baghdad's legitimate claims and interests. As a direct consequence of US failure to intervene, several disturbing developments occurred:
IRGC, dressed as Shi'a militias, and in conjunction with actual Iran-backed militias, have continued plundering and raiding their way through the territory, up to Al-Qosh, increasingly placing minority civilian populations and Jewish and Christian historical sites in danger. Minorities, such as Christians and Yazidis, have been forced to choose among three factions - Kurdish Peshmerga, the PMU units, now linked to Iran, and Iraqi forces, in order to protect their civilians and interests. That does nothing to simplify the situation, as the continuous clashes may force these groups to pick up weapons against each other. Christian militias that run their own defense in Nineveh are paid by PMU, which is troubling to US interests in preventing Iranian financial transactions that benefit the IRGC, recently designated as a terrorist organization. Qasem Soleimani, despite being recognized as a terrorist by the State Department in a recent statement, continues to play an active organizing role in the planning and implementation of the regional takeover.
Second, Turkey and Iraq are moving to cut off Kurdish access to Syrian and Turkish overpasses, which will ease the likelihood of future Turkish entry into the area. Turkey views Kirkuk as its own sphere of interests, and considers the prevention of contiguous Kurdish territories between Iraq, a likely Syrian Kurdish federation,and Kurdish territories in Turkey as central to its interests. There is also a growing possibility that Turkey may target the oil pipelines remaining under Kurdish control, which will deprive the Kurds of their essential livelihood and further empower and embolden Erdogan's expansionist neo-Ottoman ambitions in the region. Turkey is becoming an increasing threat to US interests in the region and elsewhere, and this additional step will make that much harder for the US to defend its foothold, access to energy, defense of minorities, or relationships with more stable and less aggressive allies.
For now, however, Iraq is more likely to gain control of that pipeline and has already taken steps to bypass the Kurdish region in providing oil to Turkey. Iraq and Turkey are on the same page with regards to Baghdad's regaining control and dominating Kurdistan, and Turkey has already made a similar security agreement with Iran. This triumvirate will ultimately prove hostile to US interests in the region, and should be broken up by the US, regardless of Barzani's flaws. US needs to prioritize what is at stake. Iran-oriented Iraq is no great ally and will likely prove a hindrance in the US's future battles against Iranian aggression. And Turkey is proving increasingly less of a friend and more of a menace as it opposes US presence in the region, detains US citizens, interferes with US strategy in Syria, and threatens US allies. The more time the US wastes maintaining supposed neutrality that only strengthens our enemies, the more likely we are to find ourselves friendless when our neutrality inevitably backfires.
Sunday, October 29, 2017
Why America First Policy Requires US to Push Back Against Russia
My article published on Daily Mail 24:
https://en.dailymail24.com/
The US may very well be perfectly fine with living and letting live. It may very well be entirely happy to let someone take play world policeman for a change and focus on providing for its own citizens and protecting its borders. It might be for the best if other countries sorted out their issues among themselves. But it's all a pipe dream.
Russia is not going to let the United States to live and let live. It's not about Putin's stay in power or pursuit of dominance in the Middle East, or the restoration of the Russian Empire.
It's about the simple fact that we are under our attack within our own borders, and Russia will not stop until it brings the US to ruin.
How would that scenario look? Alarmingly, the picture emerging is not too far from where we are now: a nation, lost in confusion, unable to tell propaganda and fake news from reality, its political leadership torn apart by endless scandals and investigations, with its citizens trusting foreign leaders more than they trust their own.
Russia has proven to be a danger, playing both parties against each other, sowing chaos, confusion, and aggressively attacking US interests internally and externally. Its Kaspersky software has been used as an espionage tool across various government agencies, endangering our information. Hacking into voting machines and attacks on various political entities was a crude attempt to compromise the integrity of our democratic election problems, and to cause months of finger-pointing and social divisioins.
Over the years preceding this election, Russia continued aggressive active measures, which ranged from bribery of nuclear trucking companies, to espionage through highly placed officials in an attempt to get to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to aggressive hacking and propaganda measures which intensified through election. Under the Obama administration, Russia sent its "diplomats" on fishing expeditions around our sensitive infrastructure, even in such unusual vacation destinations as Kansas.
Additionally, Russia has presented a direct threat to our interests and security abroad. Russian intelligence aggressively targeted US diplomats in Moscow and Eastern Europe, which included such unprofessional and belligerent actions, as physical attacks, including one that left a diplomat badly beaten outside the Embassy, and having to be evacuated, poisonings, severe destruction of property, and harassment that went far beyond the expected annoyances from the old Soviet KGB playbook expected in that part of the world.
Strategically, Russia continues to present a threat wherever it goes, directly interfering with US interests in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. In Syria, Russia constructed a base, while supporting Iranian militias, adversarial to US interests, attacking US-backed groups, and presenting a threat to the Straight of Hormuz, a strategically important trade rout for US and her allies. At numerous points throughout its presence in Syria, US and Russia neared a point of direct conflict, while Russia continued provocative actions, involving airplanes and submarines. In Afghanistan, Russia supplies Taliban with fuel and even weapons, despite the fact that NATO, including the US, is actively fighting against Taliban. Thanks to Russia's assistance, the Taliban has made significant territorial gains, even as the US surged its own forces inside the country.
Additionally, Russia continues to supply Iran with weapons, now also selling S-400s to Turkey, a country that also presents a significant challenge to US interests in Syria. And Russian government oil company is moving in on the oil fields taken over by the Iraqi forces, IRGC, and Iran-backed militias from the Kurds in Kirkuk, which endangers vested US business interests. Russia's attacks on Ukraine, including cybersecurity attacks, are widely viewed as potential dry runs for similar attacks on US infrastructure, including the electric grid.
And that's not including the aggressive lobbying against the Magnitsky Act, the cruel adoption ban that forbids dangerously ill Russian children from being taken in by American families, the non-stop brainwashing of the Russian citizenry against Americans, the troll farms, which makes old school Soviet propaganda seem like child's play, and the authoritarian actions against foreign NGOs, as well as government-linked hostile takeovers of US hedge funds and other financial institutions in Russia, well documented by Bill Browder and others.
All of that paints a rather dreary picture of the US-Russia relationship, with only one side systematically pursuing hostility and instilling hatred against not only the government of the other, but against all of it institutions, the fabric of society, and way of life. Russia is not acting like a potential partner, even on a strictly limited and professional level. It's looking to undermine every goal and pursuit of the United States, and to cause an internal collapse. The appeal of hardcore Communism is no longer quite as potent, though to be sure, the Soviet Union's fellow travelers took strong root in the academia, governments, the media, and think tank world. But non-ideological confusion of values and internal social and political divisions are just as destructive, and have met with a deplorable level of success. Intersectionality, radical movements, and fake pseudoright=wing and pseudo-left wing organized groups and violent events all have the classic Soviety-style footprint on them, and a number of articles have come out to show how Russia had duped unwitting Black Lives Matter activists into organizing events that ended up benefiting Russia.
For that reason, placing America First, and American interests first, requires a strong, unequivocal, coordinated, and systematic response to Russia by President Trump, who needs to start enforcing Congressional sanctions he signed into law this summer immediately, members of both parties in Congress, who need to put aside political differences and focus on the common goal of defending US national security and political integrity, our media, who needs to focus on exposing Russian connections wherever they are, and not just to the benefit of one party over another, our institutions, including think tanks, who need to be more alert to the foreign money, lobbyists, and other pro-Russia influences, and finally, US citizens, who need to start learning to spot propaganda that benefits the foreign state, and stop giving in to the divisiveness being sown by bots, trolls, and Russian agents of influence at every opportunity.
We need to keep America great, not make Russia great again.
https://en.dailymail24.com/
The US may very well be perfectly fine with living and letting live. It may very well be entirely happy to let someone take play world policeman for a change and focus on providing for its own citizens and protecting its borders. It might be for the best if other countries sorted out their issues among themselves. But it's all a pipe dream.
Russia is not going to let the United States to live and let live. It's not about Putin's stay in power or pursuit of dominance in the Middle East, or the restoration of the Russian Empire.
It's about the simple fact that we are under our attack within our own borders, and Russia will not stop until it brings the US to ruin.
How would that scenario look? Alarmingly, the picture emerging is not too far from where we are now: a nation, lost in confusion, unable to tell propaganda and fake news from reality, its political leadership torn apart by endless scandals and investigations, with its citizens trusting foreign leaders more than they trust their own.
Russia has proven to be a danger, playing both parties against each other, sowing chaos, confusion, and aggressively attacking US interests internally and externally. Its Kaspersky software has been used as an espionage tool across various government agencies, endangering our information. Hacking into voting machines and attacks on various political entities was a crude attempt to compromise the integrity of our democratic election problems, and to cause months of finger-pointing and social divisioins.
Over the years preceding this election, Russia continued aggressive active measures, which ranged from bribery of nuclear trucking companies, to espionage through highly placed officials in an attempt to get to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to aggressive hacking and propaganda measures which intensified through election. Under the Obama administration, Russia sent its "diplomats" on fishing expeditions around our sensitive infrastructure, even in such unusual vacation destinations as Kansas.
Additionally, Russia has presented a direct threat to our interests and security abroad. Russian intelligence aggressively targeted US diplomats in Moscow and Eastern Europe, which included such unprofessional and belligerent actions, as physical attacks, including one that left a diplomat badly beaten outside the Embassy, and having to be evacuated, poisonings, severe destruction of property, and harassment that went far beyond the expected annoyances from the old Soviet KGB playbook expected in that part of the world.
Strategically, Russia continues to present a threat wherever it goes, directly interfering with US interests in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. In Syria, Russia constructed a base, while supporting Iranian militias, adversarial to US interests, attacking US-backed groups, and presenting a threat to the Straight of Hormuz, a strategically important trade rout for US and her allies. At numerous points throughout its presence in Syria, US and Russia neared a point of direct conflict, while Russia continued provocative actions, involving airplanes and submarines. In Afghanistan, Russia supplies Taliban with fuel and even weapons, despite the fact that NATO, including the US, is actively fighting against Taliban. Thanks to Russia's assistance, the Taliban has made significant territorial gains, even as the US surged its own forces inside the country.
Additionally, Russia continues to supply Iran with weapons, now also selling S-400s to Turkey, a country that also presents a significant challenge to US interests in Syria. And Russian government oil company is moving in on the oil fields taken over by the Iraqi forces, IRGC, and Iran-backed militias from the Kurds in Kirkuk, which endangers vested US business interests. Russia's attacks on Ukraine, including cybersecurity attacks, are widely viewed as potential dry runs for similar attacks on US infrastructure, including the electric grid.
And that's not including the aggressive lobbying against the Magnitsky Act, the cruel adoption ban that forbids dangerously ill Russian children from being taken in by American families, the non-stop brainwashing of the Russian citizenry against Americans, the troll farms, which makes old school Soviet propaganda seem like child's play, and the authoritarian actions against foreign NGOs, as well as government-linked hostile takeovers of US hedge funds and other financial institutions in Russia, well documented by Bill Browder and others.
All of that paints a rather dreary picture of the US-Russia relationship, with only one side systematically pursuing hostility and instilling hatred against not only the government of the other, but against all of it institutions, the fabric of society, and way of life. Russia is not acting like a potential partner, even on a strictly limited and professional level. It's looking to undermine every goal and pursuit of the United States, and to cause an internal collapse. The appeal of hardcore Communism is no longer quite as potent, though to be sure, the Soviet Union's fellow travelers took strong root in the academia, governments, the media, and think tank world. But non-ideological confusion of values and internal social and political divisions are just as destructive, and have met with a deplorable level of success. Intersectionality, radical movements, and fake pseudoright=wing and pseudo-left wing organized groups and violent events all have the classic Soviety-style footprint on them, and a number of articles have come out to show how Russia had duped unwitting Black Lives Matter activists into organizing events that ended up benefiting Russia.
For that reason, placing America First, and American interests first, requires a strong, unequivocal, coordinated, and systematic response to Russia by President Trump, who needs to start enforcing Congressional sanctions he signed into law this summer immediately, members of both parties in Congress, who need to put aside political differences and focus on the common goal of defending US national security and political integrity, our media, who needs to focus on exposing Russian connections wherever they are, and not just to the benefit of one party over another, our institutions, including think tanks, who need to be more alert to the foreign money, lobbyists, and other pro-Russia influences, and finally, US citizens, who need to start learning to spot propaganda that benefits the foreign state, and stop giving in to the divisiveness being sown by bots, trolls, and Russian agents of influence at every opportunity.
We need to keep America great, not make Russia great again.
Monday, October 23, 2017
US is grasping defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq
Two disturbing developments:
Hashd, an Iran-backed militia, basically told US forces in Iraq to get lost.
So if the US has been supporting Abadi vis-a-vis Kurds in hopes that Abadi is going to be better than someone more pro-Iranian leader, they are in for a disappointment. Iraq now has much more powerful buddies - Iran and Russia, which is seeking to widen its business operations in Iraq, and particularly, Iraqi Kurdistan, and increasingly doesn't need the US.
US is losing out not only with Kurds but with Iraq as well entirely due to its show of weakness. That's an important cultural point that the administration simply doesn't get, because it thinks only in terms of short-term military tactics, without understanding the tribal nature of the societies it's dealing with. Furthermore, US is endangering the local minorities. Iraqi military has made it clear that it doesn't have control over Iranian militias and what they choose to do to Yazidis, Christians, and others.
Second, Iraq is seeking to not only control 100% of oil fields in Iraqi Kurdistan, but to block important passages to Syria and Turkey.
That will prevent freedom of movements for Kurds who have passed back and forth unrestricted since the beginning of life in that area.
It's actually very, very dangerous and will enable Turkey to potentially enter the area in the future. It will also prevent Peshmerga from assisting with fight against ISIS or other terrorists in Syria.
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
What US Neutrality on Iraq's Invasion of Kirkuk Means for Our Interests in the Region
Cross-Posted:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-us-neutrality-on-iraqs-invasion-of-kirkuk-means-for-our-interests-in-the-region/
President Trump responded to the entrance of the Iraqi forces and Iran-based militias into Kirkuk this morning by stating that US is not taking sides between Kurds and the Iraqi government and is engaged in encouraging all sides to avoid clashes and continue dialogue.
However, in the context of the current tensions, US neutrality and commitment to non-intervention is taken as betrayal by the Kurds and as tacit approval by Iraq, Iran, and even Turkey. Qassem Soleimani's role in the fall of Kirkuk was the first test of the White House's new policy on Iran, which includes designating IRGC as a terrorist organization and opposing Iranian expansionism in the Middle east. Nevertheless, thus far, the administration has failed to show commitment to upholding US law and going after the terrorist leader, despite an opportunity to do so in the course of this operation.
From the perspective of tribal Middle Eastern societies, no matter what President Trump's actual intentions are, he has chosen sides by failing to stop the Iraqi forces from entering Kirkuk, raising the Iraqi flag, lowering the Kurdish flag, seizing the oil field in the area, and in every respect asserting dominion and control over the area. That is a sign of not only a political betrayal, but of a strategic choice that will have long-term repercussion for the region. Despite the lofty rhetoric about stopping Iran, the United States cannot overlook the alliance about the Abadi forces, trained and supplied by the United States, and Iran-backed Shi'a militias, that in the past, have pressured the Kurds, threatened religious minorities in the area, including Yazidis and Christians, and despite some limited cooperation with the United States on the issues of fighting ISIS (mainly out of self-interest), have otherwise acted as agents of the ayatollah-led Iranian regime. Both indecisiveness and conscious choice to allow Baghdad and Iranian agents to do as they wish with the Kurdish areas, send the same signals to all involve, and make the United States both unwelcome with the allies, and irrelevant with the adversaries in the region.
Strategic withdrawal from an active role in the region may have its place, but only if it's done on our terms, to our advantage, and in a way that signals a well-thought out foreign policy and defense of interests, rather than weakness, inability to make decisive move, or a choice of undemocratic regimes and bad allies over dependable allies whose help will be needed many times over in the future. Indeed, however, many are not convinced that the position of the administration on this issue is sincere. For instance, Turkey's position on the matter of Kurdish independence may have been the lodestar in this decisionmaking process. Turkey has recently come to an agreement with Iran on a variety of matters, which included increased military cooperation and the issue of Kurdistan's independence referendum. After the fall of Kirkuk, Ankara issued its approval of the invasion.
The administration has been careful in maintaining good relations with Turkey. It had previously pressured Barzani to postpone the referendum, after both Abadi and Erdogan expressed strong opposition. President Trump, despite major policy differences, recently called Erdogan a friend, and Turkey and the US recently concluded a deal over Boeing airplanes. Turkish lobby has been strong in the US. Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security adviser, had worked for Turkish interests. In fact, shortly before being removed from his position, Flynn had reportedly blocked a military move in Syria that Turkey had opposed. Moreover, as we now know, Turkey had paid off a number of major think tanks that had advised President Trump shortly prior to Erdogan's visit to the White House in May of this year. President Trump is likely getting very bad advise from the Secretary of State, who views the independence referendum as illegitimate, and from an assortment of sources, who are taken in by the extensive Turkish lobby in the United States.
None of it changes matters. The current calculus throws the Kurds into the arms of Russia, which has already ascended to power along with Iran in Syria, pushing the United States out of a position of significant influence altogether due to our short-sighted focus on only dealing with ISIS. Furthermore, Russia has stayed away from publicly condemning the referendum, and in fact, acted as the biggest financial backer of KRG. Although the Kurdish leadership is generally distrustful of Russia, Russia has proven itself to be a stalwart ally to Assad, and has deftly advocated for the Kurds in Turkey when it suited her interests. Putin's backing of the Kurds in Iraq is not sentimental; rather, he is shrewdly taking advantage of the US inaction to establish Kurdistan as Russia's sphere of influence and rise to power in the Middle East, all without having to expend significant power or resources.
As our influence diminishes and our presence becomes marginal, the US is likely to miss significant opportunities for business and educational investment in Kurdistan; infrastructure projects with potential for job growth for American workers; creation of a stable buffer state in the Middle East that would likely protect our security interests vis-a-vis Iran and Turkey, and spread elements of democracy and liberalization naturally through the people indigineous to the region rather than through conquest, occupation, or or other policies likely to be viewed as colonialist. What we are losing, however, Russia, Turkey, and Iran are gaining. Sooner or later, the imperial ambitions of these three aggressive states will come to a head in the oil-rich region; however, either one of the three belligerent actors prevails, which will not benefit the region, or the three countries come to a power-sharing agreement, in which case minorities, Israel, and the US will all lose out, or the situation deteriorates to the point of chaos, with civil war, strife, and new waves of refugees repeating the tragic events in Syria. In all cases excepting the instance where US rises to the occasion, shows moral and strategic leadership, and backs Kurdish aspiration to independence, we are looking at some very dismal scenarios that will place America dead last not only in the Middle East, but in the international arena as well.
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-us-neutrality-on-iraqs-invasion-of-kirkuk-means-for-our-interests-in-the-region/
President Trump responded to the entrance of the Iraqi forces and Iran-based militias into Kirkuk this morning by stating that US is not taking sides between Kurds and the Iraqi government and is engaged in encouraging all sides to avoid clashes and continue dialogue.
However, in the context of the current tensions, US neutrality and commitment to non-intervention is taken as betrayal by the Kurds and as tacit approval by Iraq, Iran, and even Turkey. Qassem Soleimani's role in the fall of Kirkuk was the first test of the White House's new policy on Iran, which includes designating IRGC as a terrorist organization and opposing Iranian expansionism in the Middle east. Nevertheless, thus far, the administration has failed to show commitment to upholding US law and going after the terrorist leader, despite an opportunity to do so in the course of this operation.
From the perspective of tribal Middle Eastern societies, no matter what President Trump's actual intentions are, he has chosen sides by failing to stop the Iraqi forces from entering Kirkuk, raising the Iraqi flag, lowering the Kurdish flag, seizing the oil field in the area, and in every respect asserting dominion and control over the area. That is a sign of not only a political betrayal, but of a strategic choice that will have long-term repercussion for the region. Despite the lofty rhetoric about stopping Iran, the United States cannot overlook the alliance about the Abadi forces, trained and supplied by the United States, and Iran-backed Shi'a militias, that in the past, have pressured the Kurds, threatened religious minorities in the area, including Yazidis and Christians, and despite some limited cooperation with the United States on the issues of fighting ISIS (mainly out of self-interest), have otherwise acted as agents of the ayatollah-led Iranian regime. Both indecisiveness and conscious choice to allow Baghdad and Iranian agents to do as they wish with the Kurdish areas, send the same signals to all involve, and make the United States both unwelcome with the allies, and irrelevant with the adversaries in the region.
Strategic withdrawal from an active role in the region may have its place, but only if it's done on our terms, to our advantage, and in a way that signals a well-thought out foreign policy and defense of interests, rather than weakness, inability to make decisive move, or a choice of undemocratic regimes and bad allies over dependable allies whose help will be needed many times over in the future. Indeed, however, many are not convinced that the position of the administration on this issue is sincere. For instance, Turkey's position on the matter of Kurdish independence may have been the lodestar in this decisionmaking process. Turkey has recently come to an agreement with Iran on a variety of matters, which included increased military cooperation and the issue of Kurdistan's independence referendum. After the fall of Kirkuk, Ankara issued its approval of the invasion.
The administration has been careful in maintaining good relations with Turkey. It had previously pressured Barzani to postpone the referendum, after both Abadi and Erdogan expressed strong opposition. President Trump, despite major policy differences, recently called Erdogan a friend, and Turkey and the US recently concluded a deal over Boeing airplanes. Turkish lobby has been strong in the US. Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security adviser, had worked for Turkish interests. In fact, shortly before being removed from his position, Flynn had reportedly blocked a military move in Syria that Turkey had opposed. Moreover, as we now know, Turkey had paid off a number of major think tanks that had advised President Trump shortly prior to Erdogan's visit to the White House in May of this year. President Trump is likely getting very bad advise from the Secretary of State, who views the independence referendum as illegitimate, and from an assortment of sources, who are taken in by the extensive Turkish lobby in the United States.
None of it changes matters. The current calculus throws the Kurds into the arms of Russia, which has already ascended to power along with Iran in Syria, pushing the United States out of a position of significant influence altogether due to our short-sighted focus on only dealing with ISIS. Furthermore, Russia has stayed away from publicly condemning the referendum, and in fact, acted as the biggest financial backer of KRG. Although the Kurdish leadership is generally distrustful of Russia, Russia has proven itself to be a stalwart ally to Assad, and has deftly advocated for the Kurds in Turkey when it suited her interests. Putin's backing of the Kurds in Iraq is not sentimental; rather, he is shrewdly taking advantage of the US inaction to establish Kurdistan as Russia's sphere of influence and rise to power in the Middle East, all without having to expend significant power or resources.
As our influence diminishes and our presence becomes marginal, the US is likely to miss significant opportunities for business and educational investment in Kurdistan; infrastructure projects with potential for job growth for American workers; creation of a stable buffer state in the Middle East that would likely protect our security interests vis-a-vis Iran and Turkey, and spread elements of democracy and liberalization naturally through the people indigineous to the region rather than through conquest, occupation, or or other policies likely to be viewed as colonialist. What we are losing, however, Russia, Turkey, and Iran are gaining. Sooner or later, the imperial ambitions of these three aggressive states will come to a head in the oil-rich region; however, either one of the three belligerent actors prevails, which will not benefit the region, or the three countries come to a power-sharing agreement, in which case minorities, Israel, and the US will all lose out, or the situation deteriorates to the point of chaos, with civil war, strife, and new waves of refugees repeating the tragic events in Syria. In all cases excepting the instance where US rises to the occasion, shows moral and strategic leadership, and backs Kurdish aspiration to independence, we are looking at some very dismal scenarios that will place America dead last not only in the Middle East, but in the international arena as well.
The Anti-Climactic Defeat of ISIS
The defeat of ISIS in Raqqa, Mosul, and other places, has been oddly anti-climactic for several reasons:
1. We in the West are not the ones who received the majority of suffering in the hands of these vicious brutes.
2. Media coverage had largely focused on the graphic coverage of the atrocities, much less on the battles that forced ISIS to cede territory inch by inch.
3. Domestic afffairs and trepidation over the Iran deal next steps takes up the majority of time and space in the US in particular.
4. The Defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq frees its prisoners, but does not affect matters in Libya and other parts of the world where iSIS still has a foothold or is actually growing; Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are making a comeback; evil state actors are taking advantage of the chaos to assert themselves in the region. Russia's and Iran's growing control of Syria is at least as troubling as ISIS presence there. Destroying ISIS was a matter of political will. Getting rid of state actors, which are building naval basis and gaining control and even fealty of entire populations would be much harder.
Furthermore, ISIS was much better at bad-boy PR. Practically everyone in the West perceived that group as an extreme threat and a top priority to destroy; large swaths of Westerners do not care about Syria at all, as long as Syria doesn't come to the US in the form of ISIS or refugees; and most people don't seem to care all that much that Russia is in control in Syria, even when people perceive it as antithetical to our own goals in the region. Furthermore, Turkey's encroachment into that space bothers very few people, because that whole region seems far away, and largely irrelevant except to the extent that it gives us more opportunity to waste money on inept operations.
5. I doubt much will change when Iran builds a base in Syria and completes the land corridor to Lebanon. Unless people perceive an immediate threat to their personal interests or unless the visuals are gruesome and shocking, most people will care a lot more about what's going on at home than in a country that is barely even a country anymore.
I find all of this disheartening because so many people sacrificed so much standing up to ISIS, while barely receiving any aid from the United States. Now that they've cleared up the mess that US has allowed to take root through incompetent policies and dithering by the Obama administration, they once again will be abandoned, because the US has been focused so single-mindedly on the defeat of ISIS, even though it was clear from the start that the state actors operating in the region are more powerful, more dangerous, better trained & equipped, and will be around for far longer. I think our problems are actually just getting started.
1. We in the West are not the ones who received the majority of suffering in the hands of these vicious brutes.
2. Media coverage had largely focused on the graphic coverage of the atrocities, much less on the battles that forced ISIS to cede territory inch by inch.
3. Domestic afffairs and trepidation over the Iran deal next steps takes up the majority of time and space in the US in particular.
4. The Defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq frees its prisoners, but does not affect matters in Libya and other parts of the world where iSIS still has a foothold or is actually growing; Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are making a comeback; evil state actors are taking advantage of the chaos to assert themselves in the region. Russia's and Iran's growing control of Syria is at least as troubling as ISIS presence there. Destroying ISIS was a matter of political will. Getting rid of state actors, which are building naval basis and gaining control and even fealty of entire populations would be much harder.
Furthermore, ISIS was much better at bad-boy PR. Practically everyone in the West perceived that group as an extreme threat and a top priority to destroy; large swaths of Westerners do not care about Syria at all, as long as Syria doesn't come to the US in the form of ISIS or refugees; and most people don't seem to care all that much that Russia is in control in Syria, even when people perceive it as antithetical to our own goals in the region. Furthermore, Turkey's encroachment into that space bothers very few people, because that whole region seems far away, and largely irrelevant except to the extent that it gives us more opportunity to waste money on inept operations.
5. I doubt much will change when Iran builds a base in Syria and completes the land corridor to Lebanon. Unless people perceive an immediate threat to their personal interests or unless the visuals are gruesome and shocking, most people will care a lot more about what's going on at home than in a country that is barely even a country anymore.
I find all of this disheartening because so many people sacrificed so much standing up to ISIS, while barely receiving any aid from the United States. Now that they've cleared up the mess that US has allowed to take root through incompetent policies and dithering by the Obama administration, they once again will be abandoned, because the US has been focused so single-mindedly on the defeat of ISIS, even though it was clear from the start that the state actors operating in the region are more powerful, more dangerous, better trained & equipped, and will be around for far longer. I think our problems are actually just getting started.
Thursday, October 12, 2017
Is Turkey preparing for mass atrocities against Kurds and other minorities?
Systemic dehumanization of Kurds (not just PKK) has been going for the past two years, since the conflict Erdogan unleashed against PKK in order to justify his manipulation of the elections, as AKP floundered in a failing economy. Of course, the conflict ended up largely targeting civilians, and included burned buildings, tortures, murders of women and children, and a widespread crackdown on civil rights in the entire region, which precipitated the rise of authoritarianism across the country.
Now, books about Kurds are being banned on national security grounds.
Historically, using pejorative language against a minority ethnic or religious group, and consequently claiming that the entire group is a national security danger, a fifth column, or an enemy within has been used to justify attempted mass elimination of that group.
The group may be a historic rival of another group, or it may just be a convenient scapegoat, but whatever the political grievances used as a justification eventually end up being largely used against civilians and innocent bystanders.
We have seen the Nazis compare Jews to rats until that concept became firmly lodged in the minds of much of the country as the Nuremberg Laws were being imposed, and as the FInal Solution was adopted.
We have seen this in Rwanda, where a politician would call Tutsis "cockroaches", leading to the perception of that group as inferior, inherently worthless, destructive, and disgusting. Regular people were so brainwashed into believing that other human beings had nothing human about them that they were living to stand by or even partake in mass murder.
Kurds are increasingly being portrayed as all members of PKK and all a national security danger to Turkey. There is an implication that they are disloyal, that they spy for foreign governments. Professors at universities have been fired for being Kurdish, sometimes under the excuse that they were a foreign element, and sometimes for no reason other than the fact that they were a minority.
Kurdish newspapers have been shut down; Kurdish politicians thrown in prison; Kurdish social media accounts and websites have been blocked.
The entire group is being indiscriminantly treated as members of an uprising.
Turks are being conditioned, programmed to believe that you cannot trust members of that community, that anything written about Kurds is by definition against unified Turkish identity; that identifying oneself as a minority is a threat to Turkish culture and to the government, that speaking any language other than Turkish means that you may be planning a government coup or that you are a separatist that wants to split the country apart and start a civil war. This incendiary rhetoric coupled with action distracts the population from Erdogan's crackdowns on other fronts; scapegoats the Kurds, and creates an internal enemy linked to external enemies - the Kurds in Syria, who wants to form an autonomy, with territory that would be contiguous with the Kurdish areas of Turkey, and with KRG, that just voted to form an independent state and is claiming Kirkuk - an area that Turkey insists it has historic claims on - as its own.
Now, Erdogan's expansionist, neo-Ottoman ambitions have a solid justification: security of Turkey, which is under threat from a militant nation that is surrounding it from all sides and is trying to take away Turkish land. And it has coopted a signficant portion of its population, into a fifth column, and the PKK is not just a terrorist organization, it's paid by enemies. And anyone who supports Kurdish aspirations for independence is opposed to Turkish national sovereignty.
See how it all works?
Unless the United States and its Western powers, utilizing all the significant leverage that they have, make it clear to Erdogan that this dehumanizing campaign ends full stop or else, we are very likely to see further significant infringements on human rights of the Kurds in Turkey and outside of it, and possibly, if the events continue to unravel in the same direction, bloody massacres and other atrocities that will not spare women or children, to follow.
Erdogan is on a path of no return, and the more he is appeased under the pretense of NATO alliance and dealmaking, the more he is likely to utilize this freedom against his own population, starting with the people that make a very compelling target for a bloodthirsty dictator, obsessed with staying in power, and the brainwashed masses who are being increasingly whipped up by an Islamist, nationalist frenzy - a terrible combination, to be sure.
I hope the international community, and particularly the US government, firmly intervenes before it's too late.
Now, books about Kurds are being banned on national security grounds.
Historically, using pejorative language against a minority ethnic or religious group, and consequently claiming that the entire group is a national security danger, a fifth column, or an enemy within has been used to justify attempted mass elimination of that group.
The group may be a historic rival of another group, or it may just be a convenient scapegoat, but whatever the political grievances used as a justification eventually end up being largely used against civilians and innocent bystanders.
We have seen the Nazis compare Jews to rats until that concept became firmly lodged in the minds of much of the country as the Nuremberg Laws were being imposed, and as the FInal Solution was adopted.
We have seen this in Rwanda, where a politician would call Tutsis "cockroaches", leading to the perception of that group as inferior, inherently worthless, destructive, and disgusting. Regular people were so brainwashed into believing that other human beings had nothing human about them that they were living to stand by or even partake in mass murder.
Kurds are increasingly being portrayed as all members of PKK and all a national security danger to Turkey. There is an implication that they are disloyal, that they spy for foreign governments. Professors at universities have been fired for being Kurdish, sometimes under the excuse that they were a foreign element, and sometimes for no reason other than the fact that they were a minority.
Kurdish newspapers have been shut down; Kurdish politicians thrown in prison; Kurdish social media accounts and websites have been blocked.
The entire group is being indiscriminantly treated as members of an uprising.
Turks are being conditioned, programmed to believe that you cannot trust members of that community, that anything written about Kurds is by definition against unified Turkish identity; that identifying oneself as a minority is a threat to Turkish culture and to the government, that speaking any language other than Turkish means that you may be planning a government coup or that you are a separatist that wants to split the country apart and start a civil war. This incendiary rhetoric coupled with action distracts the population from Erdogan's crackdowns on other fronts; scapegoats the Kurds, and creates an internal enemy linked to external enemies - the Kurds in Syria, who wants to form an autonomy, with territory that would be contiguous with the Kurdish areas of Turkey, and with KRG, that just voted to form an independent state and is claiming Kirkuk - an area that Turkey insists it has historic claims on - as its own.
Now, Erdogan's expansionist, neo-Ottoman ambitions have a solid justification: security of Turkey, which is under threat from a militant nation that is surrounding it from all sides and is trying to take away Turkish land. And it has coopted a signficant portion of its population, into a fifth column, and the PKK is not just a terrorist organization, it's paid by enemies. And anyone who supports Kurdish aspirations for independence is opposed to Turkish national sovereignty.
See how it all works?
Unless the United States and its Western powers, utilizing all the significant leverage that they have, make it clear to Erdogan that this dehumanizing campaign ends full stop or else, we are very likely to see further significant infringements on human rights of the Kurds in Turkey and outside of it, and possibly, if the events continue to unravel in the same direction, bloody massacres and other atrocities that will not spare women or children, to follow.
Erdogan is on a path of no return, and the more he is appeased under the pretense of NATO alliance and dealmaking, the more he is likely to utilize this freedom against his own population, starting with the people that make a very compelling target for a bloodthirsty dictator, obsessed with staying in power, and the brainwashed masses who are being increasingly whipped up by an Islamist, nationalist frenzy - a terrible combination, to be sure.
I hope the international community, and particularly the US government, firmly intervenes before it's too late.
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
How Rogue Regimes Use Double Standards to Impose Their Will At Home and Abroad
What is striking about Turkey's demand for ransom to free an American pastor which eventually sparked the current reciprocal visa freeze between Turkey and the United States is Turkey's unironic expectation that that US (and international community) should grant equal degree of legitimacy to the US process and Turkey's clearly arbitrary way of going after anyone who is convenient at the time. Turkey unjustly imprisoned an American evangelical Andrew Brunson under trumped up charges in horrendous conditions that have cost him his health. In exchange, it demands US return clergy associated with Fetullah Gullen, Erdogan's political nemesis. Aside from expecting US to violate international agreements related to the return of political asylees who would likely face unjust imprisonment, torture, or execution in their home countries, Erdogan thinks nothing of arresting a US citizen, fabricating charges against him, and mistreating him as a way to force a political solution to its witch hunt against other political factions.
A dictatorship's grotesquely distorted idea of national sovereignty thus extends far beyond its own borders. It is willing to violate all international norms of civil behavior to make a political point, imposing its will abroad, even if it means risking a serious deterioration in relationship with an important ally. To an authoritarian dictator, who thinks nothing of torturing and murdering his opposition, be they military, political rivals, or Kurdish citizens asserting their rights to distinct cultural heritage, human life has no value except as a bargaining chip in negotiations. The only lives that matter are those of the authoritarian leader and his equally corrupt cronies, who may be in favor today, and exiled or assassinated tomorrow if they grow too powerful or somehow cross Erdogan.
Erdogan's Turkey is not unique in this manner. Iran, North Korea, and other countries engage in this perverse strategy on a regular basis. Cuba has done the same with Alan Gross. These countries expect to be treated as equals among nations despite having no respect for any other state or anyone else's interests but their own. Despite the claim that these societies are obsessed with security and are thus safer and less prone to crime and espionage than more open societies, these states are inherently lawless and illegitimate, with one person or a small coterie of kleptocrats controlling all the means of governance at the time, and the rest of the society largely defanged, divided, brainwashed, and hopeless. Iran has an Orwellian strategy of making public enemies out of human rights defenders.
As per Kaveh Taheri, an investigative reporter focused on human rights, Iran frequently uses national security and blasphemy laws as an absurd way of shutting down dissent or simply arbitrarily grabbing anyone who needs to be detained, be that a regular person, caught drinking alcohol, a minority member demanding cultural rights, a political dissident or human rights activist, a member of a faction that has fallen into disfavor, a dual national, or a Westerner that appears to be good bait, or an errant artist, whose work is deemed threatening to the regime despite a lack of obviously disruptive agenda. Any freedom of thought that is not granted by the regime explicitly and strategically to select individuals resides in the shadows.
Kaveh states:
A dictatorship's grotesquely distorted idea of national sovereignty thus extends far beyond its own borders. It is willing to violate all international norms of civil behavior to make a political point, imposing its will abroad, even if it means risking a serious deterioration in relationship with an important ally. To an authoritarian dictator, who thinks nothing of torturing and murdering his opposition, be they military, political rivals, or Kurdish citizens asserting their rights to distinct cultural heritage, human life has no value except as a bargaining chip in negotiations. The only lives that matter are those of the authoritarian leader and his equally corrupt cronies, who may be in favor today, and exiled or assassinated tomorrow if they grow too powerful or somehow cross Erdogan.
Erdogan's Turkey is not unique in this manner. Iran, North Korea, and other countries engage in this perverse strategy on a regular basis. Cuba has done the same with Alan Gross. These countries expect to be treated as equals among nations despite having no respect for any other state or anyone else's interests but their own. Despite the claim that these societies are obsessed with security and are thus safer and less prone to crime and espionage than more open societies, these states are inherently lawless and illegitimate, with one person or a small coterie of kleptocrats controlling all the means of governance at the time, and the rest of the society largely defanged, divided, brainwashed, and hopeless. Iran has an Orwellian strategy of making public enemies out of human rights defenders.
As per Kaveh Taheri, an investigative reporter focused on human rights, Iran frequently uses national security and blasphemy laws as an absurd way of shutting down dissent or simply arbitrarily grabbing anyone who needs to be detained, be that a regular person, caught drinking alcohol, a minority member demanding cultural rights, a political dissident or human rights activist, a member of a faction that has fallen into disfavor, a dual national, or a Westerner that appears to be good bait, or an errant artist, whose work is deemed threatening to the regime despite a lack of obviously disruptive agenda. Any freedom of thought that is not granted by the regime explicitly and strategically to select individuals resides in the shadows.
Kaveh states:
"Acting against national security" is one of the punishable crimes under Iran's Islamic Penal Code. The article 279 describes that the crimes including armed robbery, armed fighting, disturbing public orders through armed acting could be recognized as Moharebeh (Enmity against God) as well as judge can issues death penalty or long-term imprisonment, and life-time imprisonment for the criminals.
Further, the articles 286-288 describe that those people act against national security through disturbing economy, spreading false news against the regime of Iran, spreading false news to disturb public order, ignite and destruction public or state properties, outbreaking of toxic and dangerous microbial substances, establishing of corruption centers for gambling or sex, high drug trafficking, arms trafficking, and those armed opposition groups who fight the regime of Iran could be recognized as Ifsad-e fil arz (corruption on the earth) [the member of the groups is identified as Mofsed-E-Filarz], whereupon, judge issues heavy sentences as long-term imprisonment, life-time imprisonment or death penalty.
Iran Islamic Penal Code is a complicated context that the IRI's Law Enforcement officials (judges, Prosecutors, attorney general, …) can have their own interpretation of the law which may lead them to issue death penalty or prison term for the detainees.
But, especially about your question, the officials (Judicial Department officials, Intelligence Service officials, and IRGC's Intelligence Service officials) use the ambiguity in the law to put pressure upon dissidents. The IRI officials convict the Iranian dissidents to death or heavy sentences for the ambiguous charges as "acting against national security", "propaganda against the regime of Iran", "spreading false news against IRI", "disturbing public order", "Moharebeh through membership of the opposition groups", "Ifsad-e fil arz through membership of the opposition groups", "insulting the Supreme Leader of IRI of the other state officials", … .
In instance, the imprisoned student activist Arash Sadeghi was sentenced to 19 years in prison. His wife Golrokh Ebrahimi Iraee was sentenced to 6 years in prison. The human rights activist Atena Daemi was initially sentenced to 14 years in prison, which was commuted to 7 years imprisonment. And, many civil and human rights activists who have been jailed for their peaceful activism.
In this manner, the Islamic Republic actually acts in a completely arbitrary and lawless manner, cynically manipulating both Islamic concepts and security jargon to go after its enemies, real and imaginary, sometimes simply for the sake of dividing or scaring any potential opposition that may emerge. In fact, randomness in enforcement, and periodic clamp downs, are part of a deliberate strategy to illustrate the absolute power of the state. By that token, the Islamic Republic is also ultimately a godless society, because arbitrary arrests and punishments serve to show that ultimately, the power lies not with Allah, but with the ayatollahs, who alone determine which sinners can be overlooked, and which will be penalized.
They alone, human beings, not a deity, decide who is a danger, and who, though engaged in very similar action, is a good citizen and a good Muslim. A society in which vast corruption permeates the higher circles, but only the danger to the regime that is a violation serious enough to warrant the kind of torturous ordeal that easily strikes a regular average Iranian who ate in public during Ramadan, who went out to demonstrate against oppression, or who was merely a dual citizen on a visit with his family - is not a society that promotes awe of some omnipotent being. It's a society that emphasizes state control, human power, above all else.
The dual standards that permeate these authoritarian states extend beyond their borders. Obsessed with spies and foreign agents, these states, nevertheless, maintain extensive intelligence networks all over the world, which consider espionage, active measures, psy-ops, and even assassinations par for the course and think nothing of other countries' national sovereignty, international norms, or even potential repercussions of going too far too often. And it works. More open societies think it beyond their virtue to engage in disruptive activities concerning even their adversaries, much less of cynical abductions, overwhelming propaganda, or other actions that are supposed to intimidate and oppress the enemy. And open societies are generally open to infiltration, to the point of self-preservation becoming a secondary concern to the preservation of accepted civil norms.
For that reasons, we will find Erdogan's jaundiced view of the West's unwillingness to simply give up Gullenists in exchange for one of their own shocking, but to Erdogan, the only shocking part is how staunchly the West adheres to the norms of diplomatic proportionality and how it continues to treat violators of its own standards and laws with civil reciprocity, rather than crushing, overwhelming force.
What would that entail? Having a threat of reprisals against particular individuals in those regimes for the mere fact of violating national sovereignty, and certainly for the mere act of detaining, much less torturing, US citizens and permanent residents, under these bogus charges. Passing legislation, similar to Magnitsky Act, that would empower the US government to freeze the assets of corrupt and evil regime officials, and to deny them and their families entry to the US, would make compliance more likely, give us leverage during the negotiation, since the mere threat of such measures would make these officials less likely to engage in extortion, and prevent the US from having to restrict its own nationals' freedom to travel by having to institute travel bans for their own security. Indeed, holding specific individuals accountable for the harm done to the US nationals, even before any such harm is done to anyone, would go along way in preempting them from ever engaging in such behavior in the first place, and would contribute decisively towards making the world both a more free and more secure place for everyone.
What would that entail? Having a threat of reprisals against particular individuals in those regimes for the mere fact of violating national sovereignty, and certainly for the mere act of detaining, much less torturing, US citizens and permanent residents, under these bogus charges. Passing legislation, similar to Magnitsky Act, that would empower the US government to freeze the assets of corrupt and evil regime officials, and to deny them and their families entry to the US, would make compliance more likely, give us leverage during the negotiation, since the mere threat of such measures would make these officials less likely to engage in extortion, and prevent the US from having to restrict its own nationals' freedom to travel by having to institute travel bans for their own security. Indeed, holding specific individuals accountable for the harm done to the US nationals, even before any such harm is done to anyone, would go along way in preempting them from ever engaging in such behavior in the first place, and would contribute decisively towards making the world both a more free and more secure place for everyone.
Why We Need To Push Back on Abductions by States
One reason to enact legislation penalizing countries for arbitrary detentions and arrests of US nationals: it would give us additional leverage and put the US in a position of strength during negotiations.
Sunday, October 8, 2017
It's All About the Pipelines - and it's in the Pipeline
While the international community is focused on Russia's aggressive military actions in George, Ukraine, Moldova, Syria, and elsewhere, much of Russia's geopolitical reconquista has been focused on bypassing sanctions and competitions via forging bonds with new allies and old competitors through joint economic projects, which would play up its own strength - the abundance of natural resources. Russia's strategy of using oil and gas to pressure Europe into submission had initially backfired as the European Union eventually developed new rules to secure its gas supply and prevent isolation by focusing too much on single source, such as the fickle and manipulative Putin regime.
Russia is looking to profit from a major pipeline into Turkey, that brings Turkey and Russia closer together and bypassing its competitors.
In a similar move earlier this year, Putin took steps to bypass Ukraine.
Russia uses natural resources to pressure its rivals and to wield power over those who are perceived to threaten its dominance.
The pipeline to Turkey would also be a way of getting around US and European sanctions:
The effect of this project would also to bring KRG back to doing business with Erdogan. This is undesirable, because so long as Erdogan enjoys any sort of legitimacy from his intended victims, much less the international community, he will continue on his downward path.
Meanwhile, the construction of the planned Russian-Turkish pipeline is going full steam ahead.
Last December, at around the time the Russian ambassador was assassinated under suspicious circumstances in Turkey, there were rumors of secret negotiations between Russia and Turkey over the pipeline and defense deals that would repair relations between the countries, even as the assassination story was allegedly concocted to cover up the growing closeness despite the macho rhetoric of both leaders only shortly before. As we now see, those negotiations came to pass and are bearing fruit, with the blessing of the US government, which, at the time, informed by then-NSA Michael Flynn (who was found to have business-related conflicts of interests with both Russia and Turkey), chose not to intervene.
The result? Loss of leverage over Turkey as it seeks to shift its revenue stream to a business relationship with Russia, and increased disregard for other countries' sovereignty, NATO's concern over terrorist organization, and interest in maintaining a relationship with the United States. As Turkey grows closer with Russia and becomes independent of the West, it's becoming increasingly more brazen and difficult to control, and moreover our relative ability to benefit from that relationship is becoming limited by the minute.
At this point, in order to regain control of the situation, the US must embark on very decisive combination of tough economic and diplomatic policies against both Russia and Turkey, while stimulating and improving relationships with those countries in the region that can balance out this unhealthy predicament. These actions would have to include blacklisting individuals connected to gross human rights violations, and in Turkey's case, anyone connected to improper detention and imprisonment of an American evangelical pastor, freezing the off-shore accounts by corrupt Russian and Turkish officials and stopping the flow of dirty money into the United Stats, cutting off unregistered lobbying and propaganda efforts by the agents of both countries, and preventing the intelligence services of both regimes from aggressive active measures, including infiltration and intimidation of diaspora communities and dissidents, in the United States.
Keep in mind that Turkey is not exactly waiting for the US to iron out every aspect of its foreign policy. Turkey is plunging into Syria, willing to coordinate its actions with Syria, and sidelining its initial misgivings about keeping Assad in power, so long as it is free to take action to keep Kurds from acquiring contiguous territory that would border the Kurdish majority territories of Turkey. Turkey is also looking at Syria as a potential area for further development, and wants to exert both political and economic influence there to the degree possible.
Keep in mind that Turkey is not exactly waiting for the US to iron out every aspect of its foreign policy. Turkey is plunging into Syria, willing to coordinate its actions with Syria, and sidelining its initial misgivings about keeping Assad in power, so long as it is free to take action to keep Kurds from acquiring contiguous territory that would border the Kurdish majority territories of Turkey. Turkey is also looking at Syria as a potential area for further development, and wants to exert both political and economic influence there to the degree possible.
Forming a stronger and more invested relationship with KRG, and despite all difficulties, placing more weight on the Georgia-Azerbaijan angle as well as carefully reorienting the Greece-Cyprus-Israel triangle may help shift the events in that region towards our interests. It looks like the four countries most concerned about Russia's expansionism - Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and Moldova - are already on the way to create a free trade zone. US should encourage this alliance and look at it as an important opportunity. Keep in mind that Azerbaijan is dictatorial, incompetent, and pro-Turkey, but it's also in desperate economic need, anti-Russian, and anti-Iranian, and just corrupt enough that it can be temporarily shifted towards a more productive political line.
At the end of the day, the United States has to remember that developing positive business relationship with old friends and new allies is just as important as taking punitive measures against adversaries and political frienemies who need to be shown their place. Identifying and actively pursuing attractive economic opportunities is the key to a successful and positive geopolitical strategy, as well as innovative possibilities for American workers of all backgrounds. This is one example of how today's globalized world can actually help and provide important pathways to job creation rather than the destructive and pessimistic view of international job outsourcing we've been presented by populist economic nationalists throughout the Obama administration leading up to where we are today.
Are US and Turkey on the Path to Cold War?
While Trump and Corker are excoriating each other on Twitter, while progressives and conservatives are arguing about the value of Pence's walkout on the kneeling football players during a game, while the world is pretending be shocked, SHOCKED about the allegations of Harvey Weinstein's sexual harrasment against a number of women...
US and Turkey just froze non-immigrant visas to each other in reciprocal moves, shortly after Erdogan demanded the return of Gulen movement members from the US in exchange for Western prisoners in Turkey. As I said earlier, policy is what happens when no one is looking. And what we have here is a rapid cooling in our relationship with Turkey, which somehow remains a member of NATO and technically, our ally.
Nevertheless, Turkey will not stop its extortion from the West until it feels severe pain from its actions, which should include blacklisting of anyone connected to the unlawful imprisonment of the American evangelical pastor, sanctions related to its funding of terrorist organizations and vast human rights violations, the freeze of Erdogan's off-shore accounst, and the flow of corrupt money into the US, the outing and PNGing of the many unregistered lobbyists, the uncovering of the Turkish intelligence involved in active measures on US soil, and much more.
US and Turkey just froze non-immigrant visas to each other in reciprocal moves, shortly after Erdogan demanded the return of Gulen movement members from the US in exchange for Western prisoners in Turkey. As I said earlier, policy is what happens when no one is looking. And what we have here is a rapid cooling in our relationship with Turkey, which somehow remains a member of NATO and technically, our ally.
Nevertheless, Turkey will not stop its extortion from the West until it feels severe pain from its actions, which should include blacklisting of anyone connected to the unlawful imprisonment of the American evangelical pastor, sanctions related to its funding of terrorist organizations and vast human rights violations, the freeze of Erdogan's off-shore accounst, and the flow of corrupt money into the US, the outing and PNGing of the many unregistered lobbyists, the uncovering of the Turkish intelligence involved in active measures on US soil, and much more.
Saturday, October 7, 2017
How US Can Do the Right Thing By the Kurds, While Avoiding Crisis
The US at this juncture has significant leverage over Baghdad.
President Trump can exercise that leverage effectively by having the airport ban lifted, not with loud proclamations that can only create indignation with the Iraqi government, but with nuanced behind the scenes diplomacy.
The ban is not going to change anyone's mind about independence, only gets people more intent to move forward as soon as possible unilaterally and with no negotiations.
At the same time, it's causing damage to Kurdish economy, creates undue suffering for civilians, and causing problems for US investors working on oil projects in the region.
The US has invested untold amount of money into Iraqi government - just so they could repay us by creating a de facto blockade against our allies, and preventing us from getting in and out?
It serves no legitimate purpose and actually causes the US to look weak - weaker than the Iraqi government, and unable to defend our own interests.
Weighing in on this issue will allow the US to retain credibility with the Kurds while also pushing both sides towards a negotiated solution to the current face-off.
Second, the US should play a role in negotiations over Kirkuk and oil, which are central to any successful bilateral discussion.
Kurds, Iraq, and even Turkey are all making a play for that crucial territory. While many can argue about what legitimacy any one of these sides has towards a territory that has at one point been woefully allocated to the fictional country of Iraq by the British, from US perspective, there is a simple, straightforward answer to the dilemma. It's not in the US interests to have the Iran-backed Baghdad have complete access to the oil, and there are few things more alarming than seeing the increasingly unfriendly Turkey with an independent revenue inside what is essentially Kurdish territory. While Turkey is making plans to invade the Kurdish region of Iraq, even if that means having to overcome peshmerga guarding all current routes, and dealing with PKK, which finally found a bit of a safe harbor with the KRG, the US is interested in avoiding additional protracted regional conflicts, and keeping oil out of the hands of the increasingly dictatorial Erdogan.
US has credibility, because ultimately it doesn't need Kirkuk oil. US is growing independent of foreign oil through increased development of its own resources and research into alternative sources of energy. Some businesses still benefit from investment into oil extraction in that area, but ultimately, US has other sources of revenue, and for that reason would make for a fair and acceptable arbiter. US, for instance, can reasonably ask Kurds to compensate Iraq for the perceived loss of oil-related revenue, or to negotiate a rental or sharing agreement of some sort, as a precondition for a peaceful parting of ways. US involvement is infinitely preferable to Russia's, which may be looking to gain leverage over Iran and Turkey, via its backing of KRG, but is also a largely self-interested actor, whose involvement in Syria has been anything but stabilizing and peaceful, and the expansion of whose role throughout the region is not something the US or anyone else ultimately would want to see.
The alternative to US involvement is either a very high likelihood of an international conflict between several allies and an adversary thrown in, or a significant empowerment of Russia in the role of an international broker. These are the scenarios best avoided.
Finally, US can ensure a peaceful transition by continuing being perceived as a strong, well-meaning ally, whose perspective deserves consideration - both by the Kurds and by Iraq. To do so with the Kurds, US should immediately renew the payment of stipends to peshmerga, initiated last year by the Obama administration. The Trump administration ceased payment as soon as the year-long agreement expired, and so far, has not renegotiated the continuation of the agreement, due to perceived uncertainty over the referendum.
Now, however, is not the time for Swiss neutrality, but rather for an active role in supporting one ally and reassuring the other one, while showing strength and resolution in the face of enemies and frienemies, who are all too ready to exploit the vacuum. We are much more likely to resolve tensions and avoid conflict by keeping to our alliances and showing our worth as a dependable and respectable friend, than by fleeing at the first sign of trouble, and leaving those who have served our purposes by bravely fighting ISIS out to dry.
Staying out of the issue and refusing to back Kurds in times of need will not win us friends or allies in the Middle East, a region that values strength, loyalty, and strategic consistence over quibbling, appeasement, and insecurity. And US has much to be secure about. It has strength, moral clarity, and a set of values that have made it a desirable harbor for aspiring immigrants and refugees from around the world. It can play an important in diplomatic role in preventing conflicts before they begin, not just having to resolve them once the die is cast. I suggest we do so, before the chaos and disputes plaguing the region engulf even the places that are currently enjoying relative stability and can serve as exemplars for peace and prosperity if we play our cards right.
President Trump can exercise that leverage effectively by having the airport ban lifted, not with loud proclamations that can only create indignation with the Iraqi government, but with nuanced behind the scenes diplomacy.
The ban is not going to change anyone's mind about independence, only gets people more intent to move forward as soon as possible unilaterally and with no negotiations.
At the same time, it's causing damage to Kurdish economy, creates undue suffering for civilians, and causing problems for US investors working on oil projects in the region.
The US has invested untold amount of money into Iraqi government - just so they could repay us by creating a de facto blockade against our allies, and preventing us from getting in and out?
It serves no legitimate purpose and actually causes the US to look weak - weaker than the Iraqi government, and unable to defend our own interests.
Weighing in on this issue will allow the US to retain credibility with the Kurds while also pushing both sides towards a negotiated solution to the current face-off.
Second, the US should play a role in negotiations over Kirkuk and oil, which are central to any successful bilateral discussion.
Kurds, Iraq, and even Turkey are all making a play for that crucial territory. While many can argue about what legitimacy any one of these sides has towards a territory that has at one point been woefully allocated to the fictional country of Iraq by the British, from US perspective, there is a simple, straightforward answer to the dilemma. It's not in the US interests to have the Iran-backed Baghdad have complete access to the oil, and there are few things more alarming than seeing the increasingly unfriendly Turkey with an independent revenue inside what is essentially Kurdish territory. While Turkey is making plans to invade the Kurdish region of Iraq, even if that means having to overcome peshmerga guarding all current routes, and dealing with PKK, which finally found a bit of a safe harbor with the KRG, the US is interested in avoiding additional protracted regional conflicts, and keeping oil out of the hands of the increasingly dictatorial Erdogan.
US has credibility, because ultimately it doesn't need Kirkuk oil. US is growing independent of foreign oil through increased development of its own resources and research into alternative sources of energy. Some businesses still benefit from investment into oil extraction in that area, but ultimately, US has other sources of revenue, and for that reason would make for a fair and acceptable arbiter. US, for instance, can reasonably ask Kurds to compensate Iraq for the perceived loss of oil-related revenue, or to negotiate a rental or sharing agreement of some sort, as a precondition for a peaceful parting of ways. US involvement is infinitely preferable to Russia's, which may be looking to gain leverage over Iran and Turkey, via its backing of KRG, but is also a largely self-interested actor, whose involvement in Syria has been anything but stabilizing and peaceful, and the expansion of whose role throughout the region is not something the US or anyone else ultimately would want to see.
The alternative to US involvement is either a very high likelihood of an international conflict between several allies and an adversary thrown in, or a significant empowerment of Russia in the role of an international broker. These are the scenarios best avoided.
Finally, US can ensure a peaceful transition by continuing being perceived as a strong, well-meaning ally, whose perspective deserves consideration - both by the Kurds and by Iraq. To do so with the Kurds, US should immediately renew the payment of stipends to peshmerga, initiated last year by the Obama administration. The Trump administration ceased payment as soon as the year-long agreement expired, and so far, has not renegotiated the continuation of the agreement, due to perceived uncertainty over the referendum.
Now, however, is not the time for Swiss neutrality, but rather for an active role in supporting one ally and reassuring the other one, while showing strength and resolution in the face of enemies and frienemies, who are all too ready to exploit the vacuum. We are much more likely to resolve tensions and avoid conflict by keeping to our alliances and showing our worth as a dependable and respectable friend, than by fleeing at the first sign of trouble, and leaving those who have served our purposes by bravely fighting ISIS out to dry.
Staying out of the issue and refusing to back Kurds in times of need will not win us friends or allies in the Middle East, a region that values strength, loyalty, and strategic consistence over quibbling, appeasement, and insecurity. And US has much to be secure about. It has strength, moral clarity, and a set of values that have made it a desirable harbor for aspiring immigrants and refugees from around the world. It can play an important in diplomatic role in preventing conflicts before they begin, not just having to resolve them once the die is cast. I suggest we do so, before the chaos and disputes plaguing the region engulf even the places that are currently enjoying relative stability and can serve as exemplars for peace and prosperity if we play our cards right.
Saturday, September 30, 2017
Turkey's Extortionism Pays Off
Turkey is holding an evangelical US pastor hostage.
Erdogan is trying to extort the US into giving up his political enemy, Fetullah Gullen, in exchange for the American.
Yet President Trump continues to do business as usual with this terrorist regime, that is holding a US citizen on trumped-up charges, and recently cut an airplane deal with the Erdogan regime.
That's called negotiating from a position of weakness. Where's that in the "Art of the Deal", Mr. President?
How can you consider a country that is detaining your citizens for no reason an ally or a business partner? Are there no other non-terrorist states that would be willing to buy our planes? Are we so desperate for Erdogan's "friendship"?
In addition to attacking peaceful protesters on US soil, detaining US citizens on trumped-up charges should be considered an act of aggression, punishable by sanctions against everyone involved.
State Department follows Iran and Turkey right into the Swamp
Our pathetic State Department, as voiced not by some Arabist career diplomat, nor by an insidious Obama holdover, but by Trump's very own Rex Tillerson, just proclaimed that it does not recognize the results of Kurdish independence referendum.
Yet, this administration, continuous onwards in its quest to fund corrupt Palestinian leadership and work towards establishing a Palestinian state.
Mind you, in an interesting and completely unexpected coincidence, Hamas, part of the future unity government, is openly funded by Iran, same country bluntly opposed to the establishment of a Kurdish state. In the same coincidence, Hamas is also supported by Turkey, another country that expressed its opposition to the Kurdish state in the strongest possible terms short of an invasion.
Instead of providing moral strength and leadership and using its status as a world power to shush the naysayers once and for all, the United States is once again, jumping off the moral bridge following the bad example of instigating bullies no one ever actually wants to be friends with, right into the morass of nincompoopery and relativism.
Well done, Secretary Tillerson, we are not only NOT draining the swamp, we are actually making it a lot worse.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Kurdistan's Geopolitical Implications
Over 90% of Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan voted "yes" in the independence referendum.
Now what?
Well, there are actually several things going on with the Kurds.
First, the Iraqi Kurds decided to form an independent state.
Syrian Kurds are building an autonomy, and Damascus appears open to that possibility.
Iranian Kurds are increasingly antagonizing the state.
Turkish Kurds are increasingly under pressure by Erdogan, with heads of pro-Kurdish party HDP in prison, many Kurdish politicians under detention or threat of arrests, and frequent raids and attacks against young Kurds suspected of being connected to the PKK or simply accused of it without any evidence whatsoever.
The consequences of the independence referendum have been manifold. The United States notoriously and repeatedly had asked the Kurds to postpone it in order to avoid tensions; Israel openly supported the vote; Canada and France stated that they would be ok with the results either way; and Russia was a big financial backer.
Most of the Western world, however, spoke out against the independence referendum. As Seth Frantzman points out., perhaps supporting Middle Eastern monarchies, once created by colonialists, but refusing self-determination to an indigenous nation with its own culture and democratic structure, is a way for perpetuating colonialist legacy for many European states. Meanwhile, the neighbors of the aspiring states took the vote even worse. Iraq refused to recognize the vote, and is threatening to expropriate Kurdish oil fields by force and to shut down flights to and from Erbil. Turkey is threatening to sanction the region into starvation. Iran is looking to military intervention as an option. And Iraq sent a military delegation to Iran to coordinate a potential military response.
Much like in 1948, when another indigenous nation became independent and formed a state, only to be immediately attacked by its neighbors, all hell appears to be about to break loose.
Iran, Iraq, and Turkey see Kurds as a threat, and for a good reason. Not only does Kurdistan have a potential to become a bulwark against the regional aggression of both Iran and Turkey, but it may inspire the Kurdish populations of both countries to rebellion, and may set a bad example for other minorities in Iran. Moreover, a democratic and relatively liberal Kurdistan in an unstable, illiberal, and deeply undemocratic Middle East is a dangerous entity, similar to Israel. The usual suspects, in fact, have been accusing Kurds of conspiring with Israel. And both Iran and Turkey threatened not only Kurds, but Israelis over the support for the referendum and the idea of a Kurdish state.
As for Arab States, they have long had issues with Kurds, emanating from competition over oil, territory, tribal differences (particularly in Syria), cultural issues, and even religious tensions. Shi'a Iraqis took issue with Sunni Kurds, and Kurdish practice of Sunni Islam appears to be more liberal in comparison to their Sunni Arab neighbors. Complicating the situation is the fact that many of the Syrian and Turkish Kurds are secular/socialist, some Iraqi Kurds have reconverted to Zoroastrianism, some are Christian, and then there are Yazidis, who are of Kurdish descent but consider themselves the carriers of the true Kurdish religion and see Islam among Kurds as a remnant of Arab Muslim colonialism in the region. Most Kurds of Jewish descent have moved to Israel, but some have been living secretly in the Kurdish area, and Jewish Kurds in Israel are overall open and supportive.
Strategically, up until recently, Kurds in Syria presented a problem for Arab States, both because they were in conflict with many of the Sunni tribes, and because they were seen as a bulwark against the spread of Wahhabism through various insurgent and terrorist groups, which were backed by Saudi Arabia and embraced by Turkey. Kurdish ambitions for autonomy in Syria became a serious thorn in Turkey's side, since Turkey perceived a potential for contiguous Kurdish territory as a potential to destabilize Eastern Kurdistan in Turkey, which could lead to a separate independence movement and requisition of Turkish territory. For that reason, Turkey was willing to embrace and support ISIS, so long as ISIS focused its efforts on destroying the Kurds and prevented them from consolidating territory. Of course, eventually, ISIS got out of hand and became uncontrollable even inside Turkey. But even still, Turkey was willing to sacrifice its own forces to invade Syria, anger Western allies, and weaken itself internally, just to attack Kurds rather focus all of its efforts on ISIS. We see this attitude continue to this day.
Arab Gulf States, however, may sooner or later be forced to shift their positions, as long as Sunni Syrians and Kurds come to some sort of agreement. Iran's rapid expansionism and the increasing and seemingly inevitable possibility of land corridor from Syria to Lebanon presents a much greater and immediate problem that Kurdish limited ambitions for autonomous federalism in Syria. Kurds do not threaten the existence of the monarchies, whereas Iran backed Shi'a minorities inside the predominantly Sunni Gulf States do. Kurds are not looking to destabilize other states, whereas Iran has exactly that goal in mind. Kurds are still stateless and therefore by definition weaker than Iran, now pumped with unfrozen money delivered in cash by the Obama administration, and through all the investment deals by large Western countries. Kurds have significant internal differences, and through disunity failed to achieve the same level of cohesion and prosperity as they could have otherwise (and still may as a state), and certainly somewhat more fragile than the Islamic Republic even at its most divided. So Kurds are not an immediate threat, and furthermore, increasingly, just like Israel, Kurds are a potential ally, though admitting that may take the Gulf monarchies even longer than finally putting their decades-old enmity with the State of Israel on ice. Kurds are opposed to Iran and likewise proved to be a cogent and effective force against ISIS. Moreover, while the Arab states, with shocking levels of social inequality, are increasingly falling behind economically, Kurds are investing not just in oil but in education, and are likely to lead in the regional development with help from Israel, and eventually, other Western investors. They are a viable regional trading partner... or competitor, depending on how these monarchies choose to play it. So far, they have been quiet comparatively to Iran, Iraq, and Turkey.
However, right now they have an opportunity to make an important choice about their own future. Do they embrace progress, putting aside age-old tribal feuds, and invest into building up a relationship with a strong ally, who can help, at least temporarily, to fight back the increasingly aggressive and ever-nearing mutual enemy? Will they embrace modernity and progress, recognize Kurdistan's potential, and work together on joint ventures, on growing past oil, on modernizing and taking the region in a different direction? Or will they fall prey to internal divisions, corruption, clerical intransigence, and petty rivalries, and fall behind the vanguard that is Kurdistan, perhaps forever? That remains to be seen, however, the positive influence of more liberal Arab states such as Morocco and Tunisia, and the seeming commitment to modernization that such younger regional leaders as KSA's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are promising in word as well as some action, are some of the signs that point to the fact that these Gulf States are at least considering a wiser, and more thoughtful approach to geopolitical strategy than the pessimists would have us believe. I hope they choose to embrace promise and vision instead of the past delusions and ghosts of outdated colonialism. These partnerships and their potential are worth the trouble.
As for Kurds? They are committed to fighting for their future, and just as Israel once with a little help from a few good friends, managed to break through all the obstacles and to come out stronger, smarter, and better in every way, so will this nation that has been waiting its turn for far too long. And everyone else, sooner or later, will have no choice but to get used to it. The only question is, will they reap the rewards of early loyalty and friendship, or will they close the ranks of the belated sour grapes consumers, grumbling over remaining scraps.
Now what?
Well, there are actually several things going on with the Kurds.
First, the Iraqi Kurds decided to form an independent state.
Syrian Kurds are building an autonomy, and Damascus appears open to that possibility.
Iranian Kurds are increasingly antagonizing the state.
Turkish Kurds are increasingly under pressure by Erdogan, with heads of pro-Kurdish party HDP in prison, many Kurdish politicians under detention or threat of arrests, and frequent raids and attacks against young Kurds suspected of being connected to the PKK or simply accused of it without any evidence whatsoever.
The consequences of the independence referendum have been manifold. The United States notoriously and repeatedly had asked the Kurds to postpone it in order to avoid tensions; Israel openly supported the vote; Canada and France stated that they would be ok with the results either way; and Russia was a big financial backer.
Most of the Western world, however, spoke out against the independence referendum. As Seth Frantzman points out., perhaps supporting Middle Eastern monarchies, once created by colonialists, but refusing self-determination to an indigenous nation with its own culture and democratic structure, is a way for perpetuating colonialist legacy for many European states. Meanwhile, the neighbors of the aspiring states took the vote even worse. Iraq refused to recognize the vote, and is threatening to expropriate Kurdish oil fields by force and to shut down flights to and from Erbil. Turkey is threatening to sanction the region into starvation. Iran is looking to military intervention as an option. And Iraq sent a military delegation to Iran to coordinate a potential military response.
Much like in 1948, when another indigenous nation became independent and formed a state, only to be immediately attacked by its neighbors, all hell appears to be about to break loose.
Iran, Iraq, and Turkey see Kurds as a threat, and for a good reason. Not only does Kurdistan have a potential to become a bulwark against the regional aggression of both Iran and Turkey, but it may inspire the Kurdish populations of both countries to rebellion, and may set a bad example for other minorities in Iran. Moreover, a democratic and relatively liberal Kurdistan in an unstable, illiberal, and deeply undemocratic Middle East is a dangerous entity, similar to Israel. The usual suspects, in fact, have been accusing Kurds of conspiring with Israel. And both Iran and Turkey threatened not only Kurds, but Israelis over the support for the referendum and the idea of a Kurdish state.
As for Arab States, they have long had issues with Kurds, emanating from competition over oil, territory, tribal differences (particularly in Syria), cultural issues, and even religious tensions. Shi'a Iraqis took issue with Sunni Kurds, and Kurdish practice of Sunni Islam appears to be more liberal in comparison to their Sunni Arab neighbors. Complicating the situation is the fact that many of the Syrian and Turkish Kurds are secular/socialist, some Iraqi Kurds have reconverted to Zoroastrianism, some are Christian, and then there are Yazidis, who are of Kurdish descent but consider themselves the carriers of the true Kurdish religion and see Islam among Kurds as a remnant of Arab Muslim colonialism in the region. Most Kurds of Jewish descent have moved to Israel, but some have been living secretly in the Kurdish area, and Jewish Kurds in Israel are overall open and supportive.
Strategically, up until recently, Kurds in Syria presented a problem for Arab States, both because they were in conflict with many of the Sunni tribes, and because they were seen as a bulwark against the spread of Wahhabism through various insurgent and terrorist groups, which were backed by Saudi Arabia and embraced by Turkey. Kurdish ambitions for autonomy in Syria became a serious thorn in Turkey's side, since Turkey perceived a potential for contiguous Kurdish territory as a potential to destabilize Eastern Kurdistan in Turkey, which could lead to a separate independence movement and requisition of Turkish territory. For that reason, Turkey was willing to embrace and support ISIS, so long as ISIS focused its efforts on destroying the Kurds and prevented them from consolidating territory. Of course, eventually, ISIS got out of hand and became uncontrollable even inside Turkey. But even still, Turkey was willing to sacrifice its own forces to invade Syria, anger Western allies, and weaken itself internally, just to attack Kurds rather focus all of its efforts on ISIS. We see this attitude continue to this day.
Arab Gulf States, however, may sooner or later be forced to shift their positions, as long as Sunni Syrians and Kurds come to some sort of agreement. Iran's rapid expansionism and the increasing and seemingly inevitable possibility of land corridor from Syria to Lebanon presents a much greater and immediate problem that Kurdish limited ambitions for autonomous federalism in Syria. Kurds do not threaten the existence of the monarchies, whereas Iran backed Shi'a minorities inside the predominantly Sunni Gulf States do. Kurds are not looking to destabilize other states, whereas Iran has exactly that goal in mind. Kurds are still stateless and therefore by definition weaker than Iran, now pumped with unfrozen money delivered in cash by the Obama administration, and through all the investment deals by large Western countries. Kurds have significant internal differences, and through disunity failed to achieve the same level of cohesion and prosperity as they could have otherwise (and still may as a state), and certainly somewhat more fragile than the Islamic Republic even at its most divided. So Kurds are not an immediate threat, and furthermore, increasingly, just like Israel, Kurds are a potential ally, though admitting that may take the Gulf monarchies even longer than finally putting their decades-old enmity with the State of Israel on ice. Kurds are opposed to Iran and likewise proved to be a cogent and effective force against ISIS. Moreover, while the Arab states, with shocking levels of social inequality, are increasingly falling behind economically, Kurds are investing not just in oil but in education, and are likely to lead in the regional development with help from Israel, and eventually, other Western investors. They are a viable regional trading partner... or competitor, depending on how these monarchies choose to play it. So far, they have been quiet comparatively to Iran, Iraq, and Turkey.
However, right now they have an opportunity to make an important choice about their own future. Do they embrace progress, putting aside age-old tribal feuds, and invest into building up a relationship with a strong ally, who can help, at least temporarily, to fight back the increasingly aggressive and ever-nearing mutual enemy? Will they embrace modernity and progress, recognize Kurdistan's potential, and work together on joint ventures, on growing past oil, on modernizing and taking the region in a different direction? Or will they fall prey to internal divisions, corruption, clerical intransigence, and petty rivalries, and fall behind the vanguard that is Kurdistan, perhaps forever? That remains to be seen, however, the positive influence of more liberal Arab states such as Morocco and Tunisia, and the seeming commitment to modernization that such younger regional leaders as KSA's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are promising in word as well as some action, are some of the signs that point to the fact that these Gulf States are at least considering a wiser, and more thoughtful approach to geopolitical strategy than the pessimists would have us believe. I hope they choose to embrace promise and vision instead of the past delusions and ghosts of outdated colonialism. These partnerships and their potential are worth the trouble.
As for Kurds? They are committed to fighting for their future, and just as Israel once with a little help from a few good friends, managed to break through all the obstacles and to come out stronger, smarter, and better in every way, so will this nation that has been waiting its turn for far too long. And everyone else, sooner or later, will have no choice but to get used to it. The only question is, will they reap the rewards of early loyalty and friendship, or will they close the ranks of the belated sour grapes consumers, grumbling over remaining scraps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)