Why Baghdad's Move on Kirkuk Is Not About the Independence Referendum

https://en.dailymail24.com/2017/11/22/why-baghdads-move-on-kirkuk-is-not-about-the-independence-referendum/

By now, it should be abundantly obvious that  Baghdad's move to take over Kirkuk has been pre-planned and would have advanced with or without the independence referendum. Iraqi forces and Peshmerga were allied against ISIS in the liberation of the territories, yet Iraq's ultimate priority has always been in retaining the control over the oil fields and revenue from the Kurdish-held territories.  And with Barzani's resignation as KRG President, we now know that whatever criticisms could be made about the latter's hold on power well beyond the constitutional provisions, his concerns about Kurdish security and move for independence were a great deal more than just power play. Further proof of Baghdad's disingenuous bluster about territorial integrity and "unity" (carved out by the British under the Sykes-Picot agreement, that would intentionally keep different nations with disparate identities cobbled together, foster divisions, and allow the British Empire to maintain control) are Abadi's actions with respect to the Kurdish citizens the moment the Baghdad-Iran alliance assumed control of much of the disputed territories and the oil fields, which were, in fact the central concern.

The legitimacy of Baghdad's concern for its national sovereignty is undermined by the unnecessary assault on the Kurdish autonomy, which can only make the Kurds yearn for independence more, not less. Though Middle East is all about overpowering and crushing your enemy to make him respect you, the excessively vindictive actions by Baghdad, and its welcoming of a foreign regime (IRGC) into this punitive takeover is likely to have the opposite effect. Baghdad's reimposition of power began with a crackown on Kurdish media - the banning of Kurdistan24 and Rudaw, two of the major local outlets, which have been providing detailed information about both the military action of the past few weeks and internal Kurdish matters of interest to their families in Syria, Turkey, and Europe, and enhancing the understanding of world leaders who would otherwise be uninformed about the alphabet soup of Kurdish parties and factions in the region.

This move signals illegitimacy of having a separate Kurdish identity, a bitter point for a nation of approximately 30 million people with distinct languages, culture, and indigenous roots in the region, but to this day without an independent state.  Second, it is an insurance policy that the international community will have no access to real-time information on the ground, and certainly not the English-language Kurdish take on it. There is a small coterie of Western journalists presence, but as the Israeli journalist Seth Frantzman has pointed out, they tend to rely on other Western journalists for information, and thus likely miss a great deal of internal dynamics and the full spectrum of regional narratives.  Lack of alternative information will go a long way towards creating an appearance of only one perspective: Baghdad's position, made public through official channels and formal meetings.  Whatever public support the Kurds are currently getting is largely fueled by the unrestricted access to their voices. The legitimacy of Baghdad's own actions are severely undermined by its move to squash down criticism from the significant portion of its population, and its ally in the war against ISIS.

Second, Baghdad has moved to pay salaries directly to the Kurdish civil servants, bypassing the KRG. This undermines the authority of the Kurdish leadership, and makes the Kurdish infrastructure heavily depended on, and thus potentially loyal to, Baghdad. For sure, even if the bulk of the Kurdish civilian forces grow resentful of this deprivation of a sense of autonomy, others will cling to security for their immediate situation, and Baghdad thus far successfully divides-and-conquers the already splintered Kurdish groups.  For the same reason, Abadi's forces are seeking to cut off Peshmerga access to the pipeline that delivers oil to Turkey, and to provide all oil to Turkey, bypassing the KRG. It's just another way of undermining Kurdistan, weakening its economy, undermining its business relationship with Turkey, and ensuring that Iraq is viewed as the central authority, whereas Kurdistan is merely a province with no independent power to make deals or provide anything of value to the region.

Third, Baghdad is seeking to undermine the use of Kurdish languages in the region, in order to weaken the sense of a national identity and common destiny among the Kurds in Iraq, as well as a sense of unity with the Kurds in other countries. The first sign of this cultural crackdown is the attack against a Kurdish official, who used his own language rather than Arabic, in a formal media setting. While Baghdad has not yet made this move an official policy, this disturbing incident is a sign of what it could do, and what it will likely do, following the example of Turkey, if Kurds continue to resist. Suppression of national culture is the best way to weaken a potentially rebellious or troublesome population. The Soviet Union has done that systematically to the Jews; Iran has persisted in its tactics against a whole host of national minorities; and Turkey before and during Erdogan has imposed fascist policies to ensure cultural conformity.

Fourth, Baghdad is looking to divide the minorities living in Kurdish area, and has already done so, in that various groups have associated themselves with Peshmerga, PMU (connected to Iran), or with Iraqi forces, that have been trained and armed by Americans.  At the same time, Iraqi forces claimed to have no control over the Iran-backed militias, that are retaking the territories, and have opened up civilians and minorities to potential exploitation and destruction by the militias.  Having gone as far as Al Qosh, these groups have threatened a Jewish historical site, and the Christian sites in the area.  And Christian groups have reached out to the international community to complain of threats directed at them by Hashd. Yet the forces have not stopped at the borders of areas that are of strategic and geopolitical importance to the Iraqi government. They have pushed out outwards, and have been repelled by Peshmerga in multiple places, and have made way in others. Although strictly speaking there has been a ceasefire, between Iraqis and Peshmerga, that has not affected non=Peshmerga Kurdish forces protecting civilians and minorities, and who are still under threat of Iran-backed militias and IRGC. At the same time, these moves are a clear indication that Baghdad is not seeking a truce. It is seeking domination and full control of the Kurdish population, a repressive and punitive one at that.

Thus far, the response from the international community, particularly from the United States, has consisted of calls for peace and agreement, support for Iraq's unity, and proposals of mediation to the tune of "why can't we just all get along". None of that was aimed at curbing Iraq's abusive behavior or at seriously reassuring our Kurdish allies as to the commitment of the US to their security, cultural preservation, and autonomy, even under our official position of preserving Iraq as a cohesive state - quite ironic, given that there is nothing indigenous about the Sykes-Picot treaty imposed on Iraq by the British. Furthermore, there is radio silence from the US administration as to the article 140 of the Iraqi constitution, assembled with the help of US State Department and top American lawyers, which provides for Kurdish independence. Certainly, such a provision would at the very least provide a level of recognition and provision for Kurdish rights.

And ironically, it is this potential suppression of Kurdish autonomy that provides the greatest justification to independence under international law. (The Katanga case). At the end of the day, however, any nation that feels oppressed or that is otherwise dedicated to independence and pursuit of its own destiny must come to terms of having to organize its forces into strong cohesive units, making at least temporary alliances with its factions abroad, procuring whatever is needed for strong offensive and defensive fronts, through subterfuge, if necessary, and being prepared for a military triumph and complete capitulation of its opponents. In other words, if Kurds want their own state, they are going to have to fight for it, and international support will emerge only once it becomes clear that they can actually win, and have the wherewithal to support their own state without anyone's help. It's not pretty, but this is how it worked out for Israel, which likewise was surrounded by overwhelming enemy forces, had very limited access to inferior weapons, and no international recognition - yet there she is, nearly 70 years later, small but independent.  I hope that the US administration will see that the Baghdad government is losing its own legitimacy with each oppressive step that it takes, that its direction comes from the Iranian ayatollahs and will do the only right and practical thing under the circumstances - change its policy to fully backing the Kurds and keeping the worst of Baghdad's actions at bay. But I wouldn't hold my breath or rely on that.  I would also not remain passive, waiting for miracles to happen or for these problems to resolve themselves. Time may very well be ripe for a Kurdish state - but are the Kurds themselves ready?

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.

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.

One of the These Things is Not like the Others

Serious question:

Why were the breakups of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia legit, but when Catalonia wants to secede, suddenly everyone cares about Spain's territorial integrity?

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.

The Unthinkable

International opposition to the Kurdish independence referendum might just do what decades of deliberately divisive engagement has failed - finally unite the different Kurdish factions around a common purpose.

And that's how states are born.

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:

"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.

  

Putting America, Not Iran, Russia, or Turkey, First

13 Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, “Do not think to yourself that in the king's palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. 14 For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”

Whenever I see this quote from the story of Purim recited out loud on the holiday, I am reminded that we each have an opportunity to step up to the plate and do something meaningful that may prevent great suffering and change the world for the better. But if we don't take that opportunity to embrace our full potential to do some good, someone else might.  And truth be told, in real life, the opportunity that we deny ourselves other people grasp all the time... with mixed results. Sometimes we really CAN do the job better than anyone else, and sometime we might be the only one standing between whatever it is that we can do, however imperfect, and a much greater disaster.

US has sometimes regretted its seemingly undesirable role as the world's policeman. Indeed, it's not our job to interfere in every skirmish, and frankly, detrimental to our interests and to the interests of the parties involved. However, we cannot abdicate our responsibility to our own citizens and to the allies on whom we might have to rely again in the future.  When we are directly asked for our help, and we are in a position to help, and the alternatives to helping are much worse than getting involved, then the logical thing to do is to help. With Saudi Arabia now pursuing Russian weapons, Turkey realigning with Iran, and the Baghdad government contesting the ownership and control of the Kurdish oil fields, particularly in areas, also contested by Turkey, we are allowing other powers with far more belligerent intentions to maintain and increase control over issues and region that have a significant impact over our own interests.

Are these the countries we really want to be the big decisionmakers over the fate of our allies? Are these states we trust to continue their geopolitical ambitions to remold the region according to their own preferences, which will likely destroy any opportunity for peace, stability, and our free ability to trade without our partners? The history of our country starts with the difficult but necessary decision of having to fight Barbary wars in order to clear our passage to vital trade routes and insure the freedom of the seas.  The realignment of powers in the Middle East is about far more than the fate of any individual nation, though if Iran and Turkey assume complete control, the woeful fate of Iranian minorities will not escape Iraqi Kurds, Christians, and anyone who is not a mainstream Shi'a or Sunni in Syria, and that's just for a start. Nor is it good for our own business to stay out of an opportunity to back a much more reliable partner, who has already shown willingness to allow our companies to invest in their oil.  We have both security and trade interests in keeping Iran's, Turkey's, and Russia's role in the divisions of the Middle Eat to the minimum. Russia claims to have a traditional role in Syria, but it belongs there no more than we do, and with significantly less moral restraints. It is a threat to us and our allies, and we allow it to expand its spheres of influence far beyond where the Obama adminstration's feckless and confused policies have cornered us.

Right now we have an opportunity to play a decisive role in protecting those who have called out to us, as well as standing up for our own interests, and determining whether neo-colonialist tyranny or relative stability and possibility of modernization prevail in the Middle East. THe role we decide to play may ultimately determine not just the direction of the region, but the relationship of the region to the rest of the world for generation to come. We are not the only ones understanding the importance of stepping up to the plate and assuming responsibility at a crucial moment. Israel is training Kurdish pilots.

 Kurdistan WILL eventually prevail as an independent state, with or without our help. But why not share in the sweetness of righteous victory after so many decades of short-sighted policies that have doomed us to an inevitable chain of dire consequences despite our best intentions? Instead of being played off against Russia and China by minor powers while pursuing quixotic and seemingly interminable power plays, why not assert ourselves in a move that is, for once, clear, well thought out, beneficial to the "good guys", including our own interests, and moral? A move that for once, doesn't force us into choosing the lesser of evils, but actually has us firmly choosing the one constructive, forward-looking course of action where we will can assert a great deal of control rather than have to react haphazardly to the unexpected moves from our adversary? Why not help forge our own plans in conjunction with real partners, instead of merely following or falling in line or trying to disrupt the plans of everyone else?

We should learn lessons from our past and stop wasting our times about knee-jerk moves responsive to someone else's dreams and strategies. Time to build our own self-interested foreign policy based in sound considerations, strong and growing relationships, rational assessment of our capabilities and regional trends, and focused on investing in our future rather than trying to make accounting with the past and forever trailing behind. Time for once, to put America first, not Iran, Russia, Turkey, or some tinpot dictator who seeks to constrain the freedom of our actions and to cut down our own ability to grow, trade freely, and travel securily.

The Story of Kurdistan: When the Moral and the Necessary Converge

Kurds don't have a big lobby in the United States. And the total Kurdish population here is about 50,000 people. Europe boasts of much higher numbers. KRG and several parties from Iran, Syria, and Turkey largely make their own case, helped along by a few vocal sympathizers, and an open mind from much of Congress. If you are looking to make big bucks off pushing a cause, you should probably go elsewhere.

However, if you are looking to help achieve something that's both right and necessary, the case for an independent Kurdish state is one you should adopt. I've written in the past that for US, supporting a Kurdish state would mean having another stable, pro-Western, democratic, and increasingly liberalizing ally in the Middle East, which could be an effective buffer against Iran, Turkey, and various terrorist organizations, while taking the Middle East in a new direction through education, technological development, and more pluralistic and inclusive aspirations. It is also one of the world's oldest indigenous nations without a state. And just like any other nation, Kurds have a right to self-determination, a right which they peacefully but vocally asserted in the recent independence referendum.

I could go on and on and post plenty of articles supporting my case, but instead I'll just post two items that are striking me personally, and which have been noted elsewhere by many more eloquent writers and analysts than me.

I can identify with the Kurdish aspirations on a deeply personal level.

First, in some of the countries where they have resided, Kurds haven't been allowed to study their own language or engage with their own identity in any way. Turkey has been particularly brutal and oppressive, and only has its own fascist conformism to blame for the rise of the PKK and violent clashes with Kurdish separatists over the span of several decades. Kurdish culture has been brutally suppressed. Kurds who have dared to stand up for their national identity have been imprisoned and on many occasions brutally tortured. They are a significant percentage of Turkey, and yet, are increasingly dehumanized, where physical attacks on civilians are excused, and first signs of genocide are slowly becoming acceptable to Erdogan's most ardent grassroots followers. Where have we heard this story before? It's the story that the Jewish nation has itself relieved many times over, in my family's case in the former Soviet Union, where Jews were not allowed to study Hebrew, and for many decades, to study or practice Judaism and cultural traditions. It is only with the break up of the Soviet Union, that Jewish community started reestablishing its own identity with a lot of help from abroad, and I was blessed to be able to attend the first Jewish day school in Ukraine since the 1930s.

When I first heard these stories, I trembled inside, because it was like listening to my own history. It was the feeling of the keen awareness of own identity, but also the remembrance of having to hide, of having to always be careful not to draw attention to one's Jewishness, not to sing beautiful Jewish songs in public, of the fact that my family has had to change their Jewish names to Russian ones to avoid harassment. The same was true for many of the Kurds who deliberately named their children with Turkish names to ensure a greater likelihood that they could attend better schools. Just like in the Soviet Union, where Jews faced the infamous "fifth paragraph" in their passport - indication of their ethnic background that could forever doom their career aspirations - Kurds faced official discrimination in Turkey. And in Iran, a short-lived Kurdish state was brutally suppressed, and Kurds have been hanged at disproportionate rates to their own population. With the coming of the Islamic Republic, persecution of minorities intensified.

 At times, Kurds and others would be allowed to study their languages in the universities to keep down the pressure and to avoid disruptive attacks by the rebels. But overall, anti-minority sentiment and open discrimination have been rampant, visible, and well documented, with Iranian forces frequently raping women,  disrupting daily life, trying to ruin the population with drugs, and then executing Kurds in absurd numbers for the very crimes the regime spread throughout their areas. The Jewish history in the countries where they were suppressed is almost never bloody on their end, with the exception being the Russian revolution that was supposed to make life better, but of course, brought about anti-Semitic communism. I haven't lived through any of these events, but was keenly aware of the Jews' "special status" in the Soviet Union through all the family conversations and all the reading I have done from a very young age. I absorbed it culturally and naturally, and so have the young Kurds growing up in the sad reality of not having their own place under the sun. "Kurds have no friends but the mountains" goes a common saying, referring to the fact that the nation has faced numerous betrayals from their allies, including, shamefully from the West, over the past century.

And there is another historical parallel - the circumstances surrounding the creation of the State of Israel. Once again, by the time I was born and achieved sentience, Israel had already existed for many decades, and yet, to me, since I first knew of its existence, it was an awe-inspiring miracle. Israel came about not because Jews were so united (they fought over everything and nearly killed each other in the process), or because the world recognized that it was time (don't make me laugh - that was absolutely not the case, and even the US was very split and reluctant on this issue). or because their neighbors gave in to reason and accepted the Jewish presence in the region - Zionists were harassed for decades leading up to the creation of the State of Israel, and the war broke out immediately upon the signing of independence. Israel was born when Jews stopped listening to what everyone else was saying and decided that it was time to reclaim their own land and chart out our own destiny - whether anyone liked it or not. They fought off multiple Arab forces that sought to destroy the nascent state with poor weapons procured through the black market from Czechoslovakia. Many of those who were fighting were liberated Holocaust survivors, who were still traumatized from the war horrors. There was no mercy, no vocal advocates for their case. The United States, only a few years prior, turned away a ship full of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi horror from its shores. The friends of the Jews and the new found state were few and far between, and it took the finality of its existence and willingness to physically fight for its future and refuse to take no for an answer to finally win a grudging respect from the international community - a respect that could be yanked away at any moment.

When I am observing the birth pangs of the Kurdish state, something inside me flutters with excitement, because it's as if I get to relive the birth of the State of Israel, not with the memories that come from storytellers and history books, but with my own eyes. It is one of the most exciting developments one could witness - the fulfillment of a national destiny, the rising of millions of people ready to build and create and grow and dream and act on those dreams.  Some part of my soul must have been there in the ranks of those who were fighting for Israel, because to this day the excitement of reliving mentally the events that led up to the creation of the State of Israel fill me with breathless wonder. And I experience intensely the same stirring of deep-seated emotion when I think of the Kurds finally gathering the strength, the will, and the courage to build their own home from the ashes of past suffering and persecution by their neighbors.  I see the people dancing and singing, wealthy and poor, speaking different languages,  coming from different traditions, mercurial, used to having to smuggle people and things over imaginary borders, intellectual and poorly educated, of different religions and of no religions at all, arguing over every little item, but all sharing in one dream, in one goal. These people may be broken up, may be scattered, may be disunited by tribal interests, different experiences, politics, infiltrated by enemies - but at the end of the day, they are one nation, with one heart and one soul. I could not live with myself if I remained on the sidelines, when a nation of friends and brothers is rising up to embrace their own path and make their way forward towards creating a country, building a home.

I cannot leave my friends, those who have fought side by side with American forces against ISIS, those who have the same enemies - cruel, heartless, illegitimate regimes that know only how to divide and persecute and suppress, which are destructive, greedy, and expansionist - surrounded by  hostile forces with nothing but cold, calculating condemnation of their national aspiration, of their long suffered dream by the international community which wanted and got their help when it was needed the most. For the first time, Iraq openly invited Iran to enter its territory for the sole sake of conducting exercises by the Iraqi Kurdish borders, threatening to invade. It is punishing the Kurds for holding a peaceful referendum in favor of independence by cruelly shutting down airports and forbidding anyone from getting in and out of the region. Iraq, our ally, supported by the United States, is threatening to deny these people access to their own oil, effectively depriving them of a valuable resource and livelihood. It is seeking to isolate Kurds, and to make them into international pariahs - all for daring to dream, and to act on those dreams.

And it is backed by Erdogan and Assad, who perhaps, may never dare to do much but to bark, but who have effectively vetoed Kurdish aspirations, and who are supporting the isolation of the would-be new country. The Kurds had placed their hopes in the United States, and in the new leadership of President Trump, only to be spurned, shoved aside, out of the consideration for the feelings of their enemies, and alleged, non-existent stability in the region which to whatever extent still exists they helped wrench away from the hands of ISIS and other regional thugs. President Trump, by denying the legitimacy of the referendum, is not only throwing our allies to the wolves, not only empowering the enemies of the US and placing foundation for decades of havoc and expansionism by Iran, Turkey and other bad actors, but he is stripping away from the US its role as a moral leader and the kind of country that everyone wants to live in or even be. He is, ultimately, betraying the American essence, that recognizes national sovereignty of others, and bases itself on a foundation of mutual respect and non-interference, except in defense of our own interests. Our interests are not served by arming thugs and appeasing bullies. Our interests are best served in supporting and strengthening loyal allies, who, in turn, will promote and defend the principles and values we share.

I am asking both President Trump and Congress to do what is both necessary and moral, and to announce our unequivocal support for Kurdish independence, and willingness to stand by our allies at a difficult time when they are threatened by hostile forces. I am asking them not to make a monumental mistake in denying our help to those who are looking up at us at this moment. I am asking the United States to return to its core and its roots and to lead by example, at a time when true leadership in the world is in short supply. I am asking our government to show vision, courage, strength, and dedication to truth - a tall order, I know, given the political climate of today's day and age - but an order worthy of America's greatness. Being great means showing leadership, choosing one's battles carefully, and defending what is necessary for one's own security but also, what is moral and right.

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.

The Rain in Spain is a Conflict With Catalonia No One Can Explain

The Spain/Catalonia referendum controversy is becoming a bit of an uncomfortable issue, isn't it?
The way I look at it, on many levels, it's a bit different from the situation with Kurdistan, because:

- allegedly, over 60% of Catalonians actually don't want independence; it's their government that pushed for referendum.
- Catalonia is the wealthiest part of Spain, and some argue that the referendum is just posturing to get more autonomy and additional tax benefits from Spain.
- the degree of autonomy Catalonia currently has is much less than what Kurdistan enjoys, and it's unclear how it will sustain itself as an independent force.
- Catalonia does not seem politically prepared for such a step and does not have independent semi-formal diplomatic relations with other countries, the way KRG does.
- Catalonia would have to restart the entire process of application to the EU as a member state from scratch, just as EU warned Scotland it would in the event of its secession.
- I get the sense that outside EU, most people have no idea who Catalonians are or why they even want independence.

That said, Catalonians do have a legitimate long history of conflict with other parts of the country and wanting to break free. And unlike Basques, their independence movement has been peaceful, without the disturbing history of terrorism. Spain seems intent on denying Catalonians any opportunity to leave (probably out of financial considerations, and also fearing that it would encourage other parts of the country to fall away), and has cracked down on the referendum long before it actually happened by siccing police on the buildings where the ballots are being printed and arresting government officials. Spain also declined to increase the degree of autonomy that the Catalonian government has demanded.

In response, Catalonians have been marching in unbelievably numerous mass gatherings (all peaceful), some of which have met with a push back from the police.
Frankly, it's not looking like it's going anywhere good, and Spain is mishandling the situation just about as badly as one can mishandle something that may not have been all that serious when at the outset, but is NOW indeed growing into a national movement, likely all because of Spain's over-the-top response, which appears to be disproportionate and undemocratic. This little known conflict that no one even cared about even a week ago is now generating international attention, sympathy from the national determination types, and is making the Spanish government look outdated, colonialist, tyrannical, and terrible, whatever the merits of their arguments against the Catalonian secession may be.

We are living in interesting times. I don't know that Spain actually WANTS or is ready for a civil war, which would require massive resources, bloodletting, bearing with international condemnation, and worse yet, possibly losing. But I also don't see how it can afford to lose face at this point by simply giving in to Catolonian secession. The wiser step for everyone would have been a negotiation over terms for increased autonomy for X number of years, at which point, it could have been reviewed and MAYBE at that point the referendum could have been reconsidered. Instead, Spain is falling victim to its own greed.

Not being particularly close to either party, I am rather dispassionate about the ultimate outcome, outside, of course, wishing for a peaceful conclusion to the crisis. Just as interestingly, I find that this recent propensity for breaking away of colonial barriers, is causing nation states to fall apart into increasingly small and potential weak entities, while simultaneously, many of the European countries facing these identity questions, are struggling to absorb millions of mostly Muslim refugees from countries with very different histories and cultures, while also contending with their own failing demographics, and angry populist movements of every imaginable political background. In other words, this crisis is just yet another episode in the increasingly volatile situation in Europe, and a great illustration of what happens when you fail to deal with identity issues in a healthy, thoughtful way early and often.

The Cuban Travesty

What we know about the mysterious sonic  attacks against US diplomats n Cuba...

... Not much,actually.

What we know about the actions of the US government:

- Despite the multiplicity of victims,  most of the US diplomats and staff are still there.
- The State Department is planning to evacuate a "large portion" of the embassy, without clarifying when exactly that's going to happen,  nor giving reasons why it won't evacuate the entire body of our personnel, all potentially open to future attacks by the unidentified entity.
- After announcing that the State Department is considering shutting down the embassy, under pressure from five US Senators, the State Department agreed to a hastily arranged meeting with Cuban representatives, who are urging the US to be involved in the investigation and not to shut down the embassy.
- No further information about the source of the attacks was put forth at the meeting, but interesting, the US is now sure it wasn't Cuba, but no one will state what other actor it is or could be.
- Interestingly, no one raised any questions as to whether Cuba could potentially know who that other party is.
- Cuba is known to engage in friendly relations with a number of anti-Western entities, including North Korea, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and others.

Let me get something straight here.

Cuba needs us a lot more than we need Cuba.

Yet, despite getting 0 useful information pertaining to the health of our diplomatic personnel, the State Department agrees to a meeting in the US on short notice. And immediately puts aside the question of shutting down the Embassy. And is suddenly sure that it's not Cuba, but appears uncertain of the identify of the mysterious attacker.

Color me skeptical for a moment.

What has changed from before the meeting to after?

Perhaps, the Cubans offered to cut a deal in exchange for not disrupting the relationship. What's a few dozen diplomats when major investments are at stake? The US (and various cronies) get good cuts. The affected diplomats are evacuated, at least for a while, shutting down the criticism about the urgency of the matter, while embassy remains open in a major diplomatic victory for everyone's benefited from the normalized relations (Obama's cronies, most of the career State Department employees, and those Obama appointees who are still in plays), the administration gets the credit for skillfully managing the situation, and everyone walks away happy. The culprit may never be found, but we have bigger fish to fry.

Except the inconvenient truth here is that the affected personnel is STILL in Cuba for reasons that defy logic or explanation - and that haven't, in fact, been directly addressed or explained by Tillerson or anyone else.

Cuba has recently been devastated by Hurricanes, and searching for mysterious sound devices with a flashlight is likely the least of their worries, even if they are honest about the effort.

However, most likely they are not and never have been. Here's why:

The affected territory - in and around diplomatic residences and the embassy, is limited in nature. IF this is a serious investigation involving Cuba, the US, Canada, and possibly other Western actors, if there was a stationary source of sound, it would have been found by now, or else completely destroyed by the storm. If it's a mobile device, the culprits would never leave it out there to be found. So even if Cuba is responsible for the attacks, it certainly won't ever make itself accountable, but it will play along with the United States and wag the tail nicely in order to continue reaping the benefits of normalization. More likely, if there's another entity involved, and Cuba is well aware of who it is, it gets to milk two cows - pretend to cooperate with the US in exchange for goodwill, while also getting paid off by the responsible party.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Most importantly, it can happen again and again, so long as our people are still there.

I am now convinced that simply evacuating the affected individuals, who are not even receiving the best treatment that they can in Cuba, is not enough, though it should have been the first priority.

The embassy has to be shut down for the safety of our foreign officers and other employees. We should not allow Cubans, and their malevolent buddies to play us for fools while they are enriching themselves with our investments, and legitimizing themselves  in the international community through diplomatic contacts and priority visits with our officials. If they want to build a relationship with the US, Cuban government must choose sides now, and give up whoever it is that is behind these unconscionable attacks on our personnel.

And our first duty is to our own citizens. We must regard all such incidents as attacks on our national sovereignty, acts of aggression, and do everything humanly possible to first, remove our people from the zone of danger and ensure the best possible treatment for them all, second sending a clear signal that we take such acts of aggression seriously, and third, leave any of our would-be partners with a clear choice of action: either they ensure that we get whatever we need to defang our adversaries, or they themselves will be regarded as facilitators and accessories of the aggressors and treated accordingly.

Giving Credit Where It's Due

Kudos to Senator Chuck Schumer for doing the right thing and publicly supporting Kurds' right to self-determination and a future state in Northern Kurdistan. Would have been a REAL profile in courage if he did so BEFORE the referendum, but better late than never. I hope others will follow his lead.