Shifting Sands for the Kurds

Flag of Kurdistan (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Once upon a time the Kurds were frequently shown a red-line by Turkey that they could never cross – independence. Even as late as 2010, the warning was in effect.  To fight the PKK, the Turkish army covers Kurdish regions in the east of Turkey and has intermittently thought nothing of crossing into Iraq, in force, to attack PKK home bases.  But the Kurdish government in Erbil is different. It is rich, peaceful and it is engaged in a cold-war with Baghdad. 

Kurdish Iraq has been part of the country in name only for at least a decade.  Having first been protected by the no-fly zone in effect against Saddam Hussein, it became de-facto independent after his army was pulverized in the first Iraq war and then systematically dismantled by the invasion in 2003.  Both wars were beneficial for the Kurds. (Please note – I am not defending the illegal, ill-conceived 2003 invasion and its badly handled aftermath). Erbil is now probably the richest city in Iraq as a result of oil, maintains a decent military, enjoys relative peace and can thumb its nose at the government in Baghdad.   It is also stable – something Ankara appreciates on its borders.

The former peace-in-the-neighborhood policy is changing to stark realism as Ankara understands that as a major regional power – perhaps the regional power – choices need to be made. Gradually, Kurds in Turkey are gaining their civil rights – a long road lies ahead in that respect – but Turkey knows that being friends with every neighbor is not a policy choice.  As a result, given the tension that exists between Shia controlled Iraq and Sunni Turkey, the Kurds may find that a deal with Ankara and future independence is not just a dream.

Iraq, Syria and Iran are upset with Turkey and Turkey has severed relations with the Assad regime while offering aid to Syrian refugees and has issued blunt warnings of military action to Damascus – not something Iran appreciates or wants to see.  The Kurds, however, have been welcomed. Not so long ago Masoud Barzani, the Kurdish Regional Government PM, paid a visit to Ankara where he was treated as a head-of-state.  Barzani’s government is increasingly tied to Turkey by both trade and the need for security against what the Kurds believe is a hostile government in Baghdad and a not so friendly Iran. This has resulted into a Kurdish policy of not irritating Ankara by showing any sort of support for the outlawed PKK.

In the past few days, the al-Maliki government in Baghdad has even more reason to be annoyed with Turkey. Ankara has said that the fugitive Vice President of Iraq, Tariq al-Hashemi (a Sunni) wanted for allegedly orchestrating death squads and attacking Shiites, is their guest and that the recently issued “red notice” by Interpol is not an arrest warrant and can be safely (if embarrassingly) ignored.  They are not going to do anything except treat him as a guest.  All these past and current events present the Kurds in Erbil with an opportunity for further de-facto independence, if not de-jure.

Some years ago, the suggestion was floated that Iraq should simply be divided in three, Shia south, Sunni west and Kurdish north.  The idea was derided as dangerous.  But it is playing out. If Erbil and Ankara reach a degree a comfort with each other, it would be beneficial to both. 

Making Up Facts

Why is it that Republicans in the US find it necessary to make up facts?  OK.  That was rhetorical. We all know why.

But, from Condi Rice the statement (on MSNBC) that Canada took part in or even supported the invasion of Iraq is just another example, this time from the worst Secretary of State ever, of the type of flexible truth and memories of Republicans.

I suppose that for a person thrown into a world without the Soviet Union - when one's entire life of study was devoted to a defunct empire - this type of remark is acceptable and would not be subject to an embarrassing challenge by the media.

Kurdish Independence

Image via Wikipedia

What would happen if Iraq lost the Kurdish north? The region is already largely autonomous and is a major center of oil reserves. The conventional wisdom is that independence for “Kurdistan” would prompt a military response, sooner or later, from its neighbors – Iran and Turkey. But would it really?


Iran has its hands full with a poor economy, a hostile neighbor – Saudi Arabia – and an unstable Iraq which is proving harder for Iran to manipulate than it expected. It also has larger issues of concern such as a military attack by you-know-who. So, although there is a longstanding conflict that flares now and again between Kurdish nationalists in the northwest of the country and Tehran, it is exceedingly unlikely that Iran would invade northern Iraq if it became independent.

The question is really, what would Ankara do? I suspect that Ankara might welcome an independent Kurdish Republic for several reasons. First, the Kurds in northern Iraq are not actively hostile to Turkey. The PKK is not welcome as a strong presence and indeed is quite worrisome since any cross border attack against Turkish troops has the tendency to provoke a rapid, overwhelming response from Turkey.

An independent Kurdistan might actually gut the PKK movement – much like the establishment of a Palestinian state would seriously undermine Hamas and Hezbollah. Turkey would benefit in its poorest region, the southeast, and tensions would be reduced. Then, there is the oil. Turkey relies heavily on Russian energy supplies for its growing economy. An alternative source would be a welcome event for Turkish foreign policy advisors and would also allow Turkey to increase its influence south and east at the expense of Iran.

Unlikely as it may seem, an independent Kurdish state would not result in an upheaval. However, it is equally unlikely that Baghdad would appreciate the independence of a key part of the country. To avoid the possibility of such a move, I would expect the Iraqi leadership to continue the façade of an integrated nation while at the same time giving the Kurds as much autonomy, short of secession, as they want.

Iraq needs the oil as well.

Iran Again

The chattering classes in Washington and Europe have been quiet of late regarding Iran, particularly in light of the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq - save for the 50,000 or so that remain.  But in light of the new sanctions imposed, what is being planned in response to the continued intransigence of the Iranian government? Frankly, anyone outside the White House, Pentagon and CIA who says they know, doesn't. 

The US foreign policy of force first, talking later, has produced a profound imbalance in the Middle East. Bush dismantled Iraq - the only power capable of presenting a problem to Tehran. The hand wringing over potential Iranian nuclear capability and the threat to Israel remains in full view and is dutifully reported by a compliant media, particularly in the US.  That is not the problem.

The media conveniently forgets that Iran has a significant, well trained military force capable of stirring the pot in the region. The country that is most concerned is not Israel. It is Saudi Arabia. And it is about oil.  Iran's trump card is not nuclear, it is messing about in the Persian Gulf.  So, aside from the fact that even a nuclear armed Iran would not pose a threat to the US, disrupting oil supplies would. 

Let's assume that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon next Saturday.  If an attack were launched to destroy all its nuclear facilities, and succeeded (far from a certainty) - so what?  The loss would be annoying for Iran, but still would leave it capable of disrupting oil flows, destabilizing Iraq completely and interfering with activities of NATO in Afghanistan.  This is not a nice scenario and which is why I dismiss all the talk about bombing Iran and taking out its nuclear facilities. 

Sanctions are ineffective and bombing would collapse the economies of the world as oil vanished  from the Persian Gulf.  Time to find a different way to get the attention of Tehran in a way that makes it reconsider its policies.

Nabucco moves forward?

This is interesting news and a surprise (at least to me). The pipeline would not be finished until 2014 at the earliest, but the biggest question was who would be willing to fill it. None of the Central Asian countries would likely consider agreeing to do so at this time for several reasons, it seems. The first is that they would be unwilling to irritate Russia as the pipeline is specifically designed to avoid Russia and lessen European dependence on Russian gas transit and supplies. The second reason is that it is a long way to go - crossing Iran and the mountains to Turkey - while the Caspian is a huge barrier to piping gas from Central Asia.

From a geopolitical standpoint, this announcement must be a blow to Baku which has watched Turkish negotiations with Armenia with some degree of concern. Nabucco crossing the Caspian would have needed to cross Azerbaijan, giving it some degree of leverage with Turkey and Turkey has been very cautious in dealing with Russia which is calling the shots in the South Caucuses. Iraq eliminates that problem for Turkey and gives it more room to maneuver with Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia.