We see things a little differently. I posted a bit on Kurdistan - "travel notes" https://www.virtualmirage.org/75297-2/ today. Better with the link in this case. I've been to Kurdistan, spoken with the Barzanis within the year, and worked there, so there is credibility to the extent that my observations are valid. I didn't travel to Iran to meet with the Iranian Kurds. As you point out, all of the Kurdish regions in Syria, Turkey, Barzani and Talibani in Iraq, and the Kurds in Iran have different political bents and different tribal affiliations. Some are hardcore opium growers and marketers, some have more oil, and in all cases, they are "Assyrians" culturally, which separates them from Arabs and Persians. Israel gets along with the Kurds more than just in an enemy of my enemy framework.
I'm certain that the Trump Administration promised the Kurds their "freedom" in exchange for "boots on the ground." Having run with them recently, that is the promise that would turn the trick. The US forces recently withdrawn from Syria were redeployed to Erbil to backfill for the Peshmerga who had deployed. The huge base in Erbil rarely makes the news, but it is significant, and the just-opened US Consulate in Erbil is the largest in the world.
Can the Kurds trust the US? I've also been to Iraq this past year and met with PM al Sudani in person. The Iraqis (Now a full Shiite-run government with Kurdish and Christian representation in Parliament) are going to be 'screwed' in the process. How will SOMO (oil marketing in Iraq) react to the changing landscape? It remains to be seen. However, they will find it easier to get oil to market and to invest in projects.
In Iraq, the November elections went more favorably for Shiites. Now with PM al-Maliki (back) in office, the question of how he will govern is somewhat up in the air. So far, he has taken a pro-US middle course, but the US has not appreciated that in any meaningful way. And an open US regognition of a Kurdish state as free and independent will drop a turd in the punch
I often wonder why the Kurds ever trust the USA, or any other wesern power. They have been promised a Kurdistan since WW1. And,every promise has been broken.
Then again, this is also why I wonder why ANY minor power group trusts any of the major powers.
Why does anyone trust the political word of the US? Bad case of self colored rose collored glasses. I cant thing of any country that hasnt been thrown under the bus of shifts in us policy. Even if one party will keep its word, its only one election away from the other party being in charge and it being (well we didnt vote for that)
Possibly because every U.S. president promised to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and welsched. Until Mr. Trump.
Sometimes a long shot is better than no shot.
President Trump is dancing with the oligarchs ruling different fiefdoms in conquered AINO and free America. These are both regional--as Mx Harris discovered to her electoral despite in Pennsylvania--and trans-national, like Elon & the techbros.
Team Trump is performing beyond my expectations, and the ugly performative concessions Mr. Trump is giving, are less bad than I feared.
Our nation's fate has run on a knife's edge since November 2025. Best not to go wobbly.
Thanks for writing this. You are one of those people, like my spouse, who can explain history so even I can understand it. It’s mostly about putting in enough context so my brain can construct the big picture without being overwhelmed.
That's the problem with our government. They make promises they don't intend to keep.
They could have forced the Iraqi government in 1950's to give a piece of the state to the Kurds, or they could have done the same in Afghanistan, or any other time we've used them to clear out our messes.
I wonder if the Israeli's would accept Kurds in place of Palestinians.
Yeah, it's a British saying, but it's also true of Congress.
It's not like a monarch is really any different. You have only to look at history to see that one monarch may hold to a treaty, but that's at most until he is succeeded.
Parliaments are different only in that they can change more often.
Ah, the International Stupid Game*- supporting extremist groups in your enemy's territory hoping to weaken them from within. It always backfires, but like cocaine or socialism, there's always some bright spark who insist that It Will Work This Time.
Now, this is very different from supporting your actual allies.
*The Domestic Stupid Game is supporting extremist groups in your own territory to give yourself an excuse to crack down on dissidents. Ask the Tsar and the Okhrana how that went.
FWIW, covert actions should be focused on specific (maybe even measurable) policy goals, with a clear end date. Once complete, the policy (foreign, national security) apparatus needs to take over.
Here I thought the acronym is "Crazy in the Army." But I'm out of date.
Your analysis is surprisingly optimistic. I figure we shouldn't trust any of them if they're Muslim, and maybe trust 10% if they say they're Christian. Because after all, the two punchlines of the Scorpion and the Frog / Turtle is either "It's my nature" or "It's the Middle East."
US foreign policy has always been schizophrenic, I suspect it has something to do with the elections and the simple fact that the US has crap for memory historically these last 80 years. Too many Americans know Too little about our history, let alone world history. Further, most Americans think the world wants what we want. It's pretty stupid really, makes sense why our international policy is bonkers
And, for 30+ years now, so much of our foreign policy HAS been treated as missionary work. Arguably for the last 100. "Make the world safe for democracy!" What's the phrase for selling someone stuff so they will want to be like you? Woke feminism classes taught to Afghan women. Being the global policeman.
"But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
Let me clarify. I know Kissinger and you are using phrase in the reverse sense, the same as "We elect politicians, not saints." We're not out there wearing white gloves, we're doing real work to achieve an end. But it gets hard to allow that when your ideology treats it as a missionary job.
I put them in the same category as the ones who went over to Spain to fight for the Republicans in the 1930s or for Ukraine in the 2020s. They might mean well, and I respect their willingness to put their lives on the line, but we are under no obligation to avenge them if they die.
Kurds, not surprisingly, are interested in Kurdistan not American geopolitics. So if they intervene it will be for that purpose and eventually they will start looking across the borders to Iraq, Syria and most importantly, Turkey. So Kurdish intervention means Turkish intervention on the other side. Not necessarily pro-Iran but definitely anti-Kurd. Kurds are probably the only large ethnic group that has never had a state of their own. Marco Polo wrote about them as did Xenophon so they have been sitting right there for a long time.
So, just to summarise, the USA should not trust he Kurds because they are divided and you've scr*wed them over so often in the past they really shouldn't trust you at all, not even when you say that water is wet.
I fully agree.
It makes one speculate that there might be a better way to do things.
"On top of which, any government that rises from the ashes of the Islamic Regime is probably — sooner or later — going to want their chunk of Persia back."
Yep. Same issue comes into play if Azerbaijan comes into this thing. If they snag the northwest corner of Iran that's mostly Azeri, Tehran will want that back. And if we decide to back the Baluchi separatists in the southeast and get them their own state, Tehran will want that back too, and the locals will not thank us for tearing chunks off their country.
And if the Kurds get an independent state carved out of Iran, how long does anyone here think it'll be before the ones in northern Iraq and eastern Turkey and Syria decide to join them?
And I say this, by the way, as someone who would be okay with an independent Kurdistan.
Which, Ian, brings me to a question. Your (very informative) history lesson seems to be about us betraying them, not the other way around. So, why don't you trust them? Seems like they shouldn't trust us.
Because there really isn't an entity called "the Kurds"? Any more than there's really an entity called "Europe". There's a bunch of factions, and only enough unity that on a good day some of them can say "Yes we're all Kurds and we won't fight each other" without falling over laughing.
They look like one entity because there's a convenient label.
We see things a little differently. I posted a bit on Kurdistan - "travel notes" https://www.virtualmirage.org/75297-2/ today. Better with the link in this case. I've been to Kurdistan, spoken with the Barzanis within the year, and worked there, so there is credibility to the extent that my observations are valid. I didn't travel to Iran to meet with the Iranian Kurds. As you point out, all of the Kurdish regions in Syria, Turkey, Barzani and Talibani in Iraq, and the Kurds in Iran have different political bents and different tribal affiliations. Some are hardcore opium growers and marketers, some have more oil, and in all cases, they are "Assyrians" culturally, which separates them from Arabs and Persians. Israel gets along with the Kurds more than just in an enemy of my enemy framework.
I'm certain that the Trump Administration promised the Kurds their "freedom" in exchange for "boots on the ground." Having run with them recently, that is the promise that would turn the trick. The US forces recently withdrawn from Syria were redeployed to Erbil to backfill for the Peshmerga who had deployed. The huge base in Erbil rarely makes the news, but it is significant, and the just-opened US Consulate in Erbil is the largest in the world.
Can the Kurds trust the US? I've also been to Iraq this past year and met with PM al Sudani in person. The Iraqis (Now a full Shiite-run government with Kurdish and Christian representation in Parliament) are going to be 'screwed' in the process. How will SOMO (oil marketing in Iraq) react to the changing landscape? It remains to be seen. However, they will find it easier to get oil to market and to invest in projects.
In Iraq, the November elections went more favorably for Shiites. Now with PM al-Maliki (back) in office, the question of how he will govern is somewhat up in the air. So far, he has taken a pro-US middle course, but the US has not appreciated that in any meaningful way. And an open US regognition of a Kurdish state as free and independent will drop a turd in the punch
I often wonder why the Kurds ever trust the USA, or any other wesern power. They have been promised a Kurdistan since WW1. And,every promise has been broken.
Then again, this is also why I wonder why ANY minor power group trusts any of the major powers.
Why does anyone trust the political word of the US? Bad case of self colored rose collored glasses. I cant thing of any country that hasnt been thrown under the bus of shifts in us policy. Even if one party will keep its word, its only one election away from the other party being in charge and it being (well we didnt vote for that)
Possibly because every U.S. president promised to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and welsched. Until Mr. Trump.
Sometimes a long shot is better than no shot.
President Trump is dancing with the oligarchs ruling different fiefdoms in conquered AINO and free America. These are both regional--as Mx Harris discovered to her electoral despite in Pennsylvania--and trans-national, like Elon & the techbros.
Team Trump is performing beyond my expectations, and the ugly performative concessions Mr. Trump is giving, are less bad than I feared.
Our nation's fate has run on a knife's edge since November 2025. Best not to go wobbly.
True .
Hope it works out
Thanks for writing this. You are one of those people, like my spouse, who can explain history so even I can understand it. It’s mostly about putting in enough context so my brain can construct the big picture without being overwhelmed.
That's the problem with our government. They make promises they don't intend to keep.
They could have forced the Iraqi government in 1950's to give a piece of the state to the Kurds, or they could have done the same in Afghanistan, or any other time we've used them to clear out our messes.
I wonder if the Israeli's would accept Kurds in place of Palestinians.
No Parliament can bind a future Parliament.
Yeah, it's a British saying, but it's also true of Congress.
It's not like a monarch is really any different. You have only to look at history to see that one monarch may hold to a treaty, but that's at most until he is succeeded.
Parliaments are different only in that they can change more often.
See also Kaiser Wilhelm II for an example of how a monarch can wildly shift treaties and policies on an almost daily basis.
That’s one way to settle the Palestinian issue.
Ah, the International Stupid Game*- supporting extremist groups in your enemy's territory hoping to weaken them from within. It always backfires, but like cocaine or socialism, there's always some bright spark who insist that It Will Work This Time.
Now, this is very different from supporting your actual allies.
*The Domestic Stupid Game is supporting extremist groups in your own territory to give yourself an excuse to crack down on dissidents. Ask the Tsar and the Okhrana how that went.
Stirring up the Kurds to make trouble for the Iranians is a mistake.
See also: "Hey, I know! Let's arm Afghan fundamentalists to make trouble for Brezhnev! There's no way that can *ever* go wrong!"
FWIW, covert actions should be focused on specific (maybe even measurable) policy goals, with a clear end date. Once complete, the policy (foreign, national security) apparatus needs to take over.
Here I thought the acronym is "Crazy in the Army." But I'm out of date.
Your analysis is surprisingly optimistic. I figure we shouldn't trust any of them if they're Muslim, and maybe trust 10% if they say they're Christian. Because after all, the two punchlines of the Scorpion and the Frog / Turtle is either "It's my nature" or "It's the Middle East."
US foreign policy has always been schizophrenic, I suspect it has something to do with the elections and the simple fact that the US has crap for memory historically these last 80 years. Too many Americans know Too little about our history, let alone world history. Further, most Americans think the world wants what we want. It's pretty stupid really, makes sense why our international policy is bonkers
We're not really that good at sneaky duplicity. But we want to be both openly moral and sneaky, and it doesn't work for us.
And, for 30+ years now, so much of our foreign policy HAS been treated as missionary work. Arguably for the last 100. "Make the world safe for democracy!" What's the phrase for selling someone stuff so they will want to be like you? Woke feminism classes taught to Afghan women. Being the global policeman.
"But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
Let me clarify. I know Kissinger and you are using phrase in the reverse sense, the same as "We elect politicians, not saints." We're not out there wearing white gloves, we're doing real work to achieve an end. But it gets hard to allow that when your ideology treats it as a missionary job.
So what is the honest opinion of you or anyone else on this page about the Americans going over to help the Kurds as fighters?
I put them in the same category as the ones who went over to Spain to fight for the Republicans in the 1930s or for Ukraine in the 2020s. They might mean well, and I respect their willingness to put their lives on the line, but we are under no obligation to avenge them if they die.
Makes sense. I kind of view them as idealistic. Fighting against a tyrant sounds good on paper but do your research before going over there.
Kurds, not surprisingly, are interested in Kurdistan not American geopolitics. So if they intervene it will be for that purpose and eventually they will start looking across the borders to Iraq, Syria and most importantly, Turkey. So Kurdish intervention means Turkish intervention on the other side. Not necessarily pro-Iran but definitely anti-Kurd. Kurds are probably the only large ethnic group that has never had a state of their own. Marco Polo wrote about them as did Xenophon so they have been sitting right there for a long time.
So, just to summarise, the USA should not trust he Kurds because they are divided and you've scr*wed them over so often in the past they really shouldn't trust you at all, not even when you say that water is wet.
I fully agree.
It makes one speculate that there might be a better way to do things.
"On top of which, any government that rises from the ashes of the Islamic Regime is probably — sooner or later — going to want their chunk of Persia back."
Yep. Same issue comes into play if Azerbaijan comes into this thing. If they snag the northwest corner of Iran that's mostly Azeri, Tehran will want that back. And if we decide to back the Baluchi separatists in the southeast and get them their own state, Tehran will want that back too, and the locals will not thank us for tearing chunks off their country.
And if the Kurds get an independent state carved out of Iran, how long does anyone here think it'll be before the ones in northern Iraq and eastern Turkey and Syria decide to join them?
And I say this, by the way, as someone who would be okay with an independent Kurdistan.
Which, Ian, brings me to a question. Your (very informative) history lesson seems to be about us betraying them, not the other way around. So, why don't you trust them? Seems like they shouldn't trust us.
"why don't you trust them?"
Because there really isn't an entity called "the Kurds"? Any more than there's really an entity called "Europe". There's a bunch of factions, and only enough unity that on a good day some of them can say "Yes we're all Kurds and we won't fight each other" without falling over laughing.
They look like one entity because there's a convenient label.
Can you pronounce that one for me? Zoroastrian? lol.
Also, your description of Kurds sounds very similar to your description of Somalia. I suspect with much the same results.
As per usual, reading this and the column by Larry gives a total new dimension on what's happening. so thank you all.