Iran is, with Turkey, the nation that would be most harmed by the creation of an independent Kurdish state in Iraq. With an independent Kurdistan, and a well-armed Peshmerga, just over the border, the seven to eight million Kurds living in western Iran might well be inspired to rise up against their Persian masters in order to join that Kurdish state.
Indeed, in the month following the referendum by Iraqi Kurds, there has been a lot of excitement reported among Iranian Kurds. Preventing that enthusiasm from translating into armed insurrection should keep the Islamic Republic permanently busy on its western frontier, at a time when Iran’s conventional military forces are perilously stretched: Iranian troops and trainers are helping Assad in Syria against his many Sunni enemies, and he will need their help for a long time, with no conceivable end in sight to the hostilities.
Iran sends troops and military aid to Hezbollah in Lebanon, too, an intervention shoring up that group both in Lebanon and in Syria, and it too takes its toll on Iranian fighters, with several thousand having been killed to date; it also constitutes a drain on Iranian stocks of weaponry. Iranian missiles given to Hezbollah and sent Israel-wards are promptly shot down by the Israelis. How much Iranian weaponry has been used up by Iranians in Syria, or by Hezbollah in Lebanon, or in Syria, or has been sent to the Houthis in Yemen, to help them withstand Saudi bombardment, is not known, but there is certainly a heavy cost in both men and materiel. Early in 2017 the Iranian government announced that 2,100 Iranians had died in Syria; how many were wounded is not known. Nor has Tehran released figures about Iranian casualties in Lebanon.
Iran is also heavily involved militarily in Iraq. 100,000 members of Iran-backed Shia militias are now fighting in Iraq, with Iranian trainers and weaponry. Some of Iran’s most important officers, including Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian general who commands the Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force, have been sent to Iraq. No figures there, either, about Iranian casualties, but as long as the Sunnis in Iraq refuse to accept rule by the Shi’a (who are 65% of the population, while Sunni Arabs are 19%), they will be high. The Meir Amit Center in Israel has recently claimed that thousands of Iranians, and ten Iranian generals, have been killed in Syria and Iraq. Finally, in Yemen the Saudis have been carrying on an extensive bombing campaign against the Shi’a Houthis that has hit civilians indiscriminately, while the Iranians have provided the Houthis with arms, trainers, and possibly some troops, a commitment that appears to be not diminishing but escalating.
All of these conflicts use up Iranian men, materiel, money, and morale. And none of them, whether in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, or Iraq, shows any signs of coming to an end. Iran, having committed so much and so publicly to these conflicts, cannot extricate itself unless it can claim at least the semblance of victory, and no such claim is, for the moment, believable. Assad’s regime is not secure; in Lebanon Hezbollah, rightly seen as Iran’s agent, though not entirely under Iranian control, has permanently enraged the Sunnis (and pushed them into an anti-Shi’a alliance with the Christians), first, by its presumed involvement in the killing of the Sunni leader Rafiq Hariri; second, in the repeated shows of force by its goose-stepping soldiers in central Beirut, designed to intimidate the Sunnis and the Christians; third, and most important, by its steadfast support for Assad. But the Sunnis and Christians are still in the Lebanese government, and so far still not intimidated. In Iraq, similarly, the Sunnis show no signs of acquiescing in the loss of power they experienced when Saddam Hussein’s regime was toppled, despite the presence of Iranian officers and men helping the Shi’a militia. In Yemen, the stalemate continues, and the Saudi bombing campaign means that the Iranians have to keep sending aid to the Shi’a Houthis, in the form of advisors, trainers, and ever-greater amounts of weaponry, though they have not as yet sent Iranian troops to fight alongside the Houthis.
Outside Iran, the country’s military are stuck, then, not to one but to four separate Tar Babies: in Syria, propping up Assad; in Lebanon, supporting Hezbollah even though that group has picked unnecessary fights with the local Sunnis; in Iraq, supporting the Shi’a in Baghdad against a Sunni minority that nonetheless will not capitulate; in Yemen, supporting the Houthis. It’s a tremendous drain on men, money, materiel, and morale, with no end in sight.
An independent Kurdistan carved out of northern Iraq will have two effects on Iran’s stability. The first, and most obvious, is the effect such a Kurdish state would have on the eight million Kurds in Iran. They have been exhilarated by the referendum in Iraq; public demonstrations of solidarity have unnerved the rulers in Tehran, who have dispatched troops to Kurdish cities. This has always been one of Tehran’s worst fears: the possible violent uprising by masses of Kurds. They tried it in 1979, and were ferociously crushed, with at least 30,000 Kurds killed.
Why should the Kurds in Iran not now take up arms received from a newly-independent Kurdistan, and welcome, too, outside volunteers from the Peshmerga in Iraq and Syria? For that matter, why wouldn’t Israel, which has had a long secret history of working with the Kurds, help out with training and weaponry for the Kurds in Iran? There is no better way for now, to strike a destabilizing blow at Israel’s most dangerous enemy.
A rebellion among Iran’s Kurds at this point, with all of the Iranian military’s commitments abroad, is a nightmarish possibility for Tehran. If the Iranians are too ruthless in suppressing it, they will only inflame the Kurdish population inside and outside Iran against the Islamic Republic. In the Middle East, those eight million Iranian Kurds would no longer be fighting alone; now they would have behind them the support of many millions more, out of a total Kurdish population of between 35 and 45 million, Kurds who everywhere would have been inspired by the newly independent Kurdish state would be eager to enlarge it with the Kurdish territories in Iran. The new Kurdish state could offer military help to Iran’s Kurds in the form of its own battle-tested and American-armed Peshmerga. The Peshmerga, it needs to be repeated, have fielded the most effective fighters against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. They are well-armed, with both the American arms given to them to fight ISIS, and the arms they seized from ISIS, arms which ISIS had previously taken from Iraqi forces beating a hasty and chaotic retreat from Mosul in 2014. And Iran’s Kurds could also be getting more weapons, and training, from Israel. The Iranian Kurds will be a much more formidable foe than ever before, in numbers and in the experience of their fighters, in amount and sophistication of their weaponry, in the fact that next door in Kurdistan they would now have available a place where their soldiers could regroup, plan, and attack anew.
For Iran, an open revolt by its Kurds presents an even worse possibility than the loss of Kurdish-populated territories. Such a revolt could threaten the very existence of the country. The various non-Persian minorities in Iran make up between 35% and 50% of the population (the government claims the lower figure; outsiders claim the latter). Many of them resent their treatment at the hands of the Persians. The Azeris are the largest ethnic minority in Iran, 18 million of them, or approximately 20% of the population. In fact, there are more Azeris in Iran than in Azerbaijan itself, which has 9 million. They have not been well treated. The Iranian government has banned the teaching of the Azeri language and literature in Iranian schools. When in 2015 the Iranians broadcast programs that mocked the Azeri accent and language, this alone led Azeris, already on the edge, to demonstrate in many cities, shouting such slogans as “stop racism against Azeri Turks,” “long live Azerbaijan,” and “end the Persian racism,” in Tabriz, Urmia, Ardabil, and Zanjan, and even Tehran itself. Civil unrest among the Azeris is a given. And independent Azerbaijan is just over the border.
The Baluch people in the east of Iran, bordering the Province of Baluchistan in Pakistan, are Sunni, and have suffered terrible discrimination in Shi’a-ruled Iran. Only 2,000 of the 3.3 million college students currently in Iran, for example, are Baluchis. On the other hand, Baluchis make up 55% of those who have been executed in recent years by the Islamic Republic. The Iranian regime has forbidden the exclusive use of the Baluchi language in writing — that means any Baluchi text must always include a Farsi translation. In 2002 Baluchis founded the Jundullah, a religious and political organisation that has claimed rights for the Baluchis in eastern Iran. It has carried out both attacks on the Iranian military, and suicide bombings of Shi’a mosques. It is also suspected of kidnapping an Iranian nuclear scientist. Like the Kurds and the Azeris, the 1.6 million Baluchis can count on aid, including men, money, and materiel, coming from the other side of a porous Iranian border, offered by the 8.3 million Baluchis in Pakistan, who are keenly aware of the mistreatment of their fellow Baluchis by the Shi’a government in Iran.
The final minority that has been mistreated by the Persians are the Arabs in Khuzestan, the oil-producing southern province that was devastated in the Iran-Iraq war, with much of the area left in ruins. The Iranians claim there are two million of them; the Arabs claim there are five million in Khuzestan. Whatever their number, the Khuzestanian Arabs have long complained of discrimination by the Persians. In 2005, there were mass riots and mass arrests of 25,000 people, and many Arabs were summarily executed. Arrests, torture, and executions have continued to imperfectly keep the peace. There were more riots in 2007, followed by more repression; in 2015, there were a wave of arrests made so as to head off any tenth-anniversary revolt; the rage remains. But if those Arabs were supplied directly with arms, or with the money to buy arms, they could cause a great deal of destruction to the oilfields and thus to the Iranian economy.
Were Iran to lose control of Khuzestan, it would also be losing the region from which 85% of its oil, and 60% of its gas, comes from. In other words, the loss of Khuzestan would destroy the Iranian economy. And even if the territory were not lost, if the Arabs of Khuzestan rose in revolt, armed with weapons bought or supplied by Saudi Arabia and the other oil-rich Gulf Arab states, the destruction unavoidably wrought on the oilfields and pipelines, either by the Arabs in revolt, or by the Iranians fighting those Arabs, could put much of Iran’s oil production out of commission for years. The prospect of this is no doubt causing nightmares in Tehran, and complacent glee in Riyadh. From the viewpoint of the Arab members of OPEC, there’s an added bonus to a heavily-armed insurrection in Khuzestan, which is that with Iranian oil production way down as a result, both from actual damage to oilfields and pipelines, and from interruptions in the flow that would be the result of hostilities, the price of oil will rise considerably, and among the greatest beneficiaries of that price rise due to diminished deliveries of oil from Iran would be the Arabs in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Emirates.
Everyone in the world — with the lone exception of Israel — opposed the Kurdish referendum of September 25, but nowhere more so than in Iraq itself and among its immediate neighbors. Iraq’s Arabs may be at daggers drawn, but both Sunnis and Shi’a agree that Iraq must remain an Arab-dominated polity, as by right, with the Kurds there by sufferance, and forced to remain under Arab masters. Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacism, and it is right and proper that non-Arab Muslims, like the Kurds in the Middle East or the Berbers in North Africa, should be kept in their place. The Syrian regime would, if it could, suppress “its” Kurds but is no longer in any position to recover Kurdish-dominated Rojava. Turkey continues to deny the Kurds their peoplehood, still describing them as “Mountain Turks” who, over time, “forgot” their Turkish language; the Turkish military has repeatedly attacked the Kurdish militias in Syria instead of focussing all of its energies on ISIS. Finally, the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to murder Kurdish leaders and suppress any outward and visible signs of dissidence.
Also opposed to that Kurdish referendum, and certainly to a Kurdish state, has been the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or O.I.C. All 22 members of the Arab League were opposed, circling the wagons on behalf of Arab supremacism. China and Russia are opposed to a Kurdish state, because neither country sees any advantage in opposing the world’s Muslims on this (why antagonize the O.I.C.?), and each country also has minorities — such as the Tibetans and Tatars — whose ambitions the Russians and Chinese do not wish to see encouraged by examples of new states being achieved abroad. The E.U. was opposed, and one assumes that its opposition was based on the fear of antagonizing either Erdogan or the O.I.C.
But why did the American government add its voice to the shameful chorus? There are several reasons. The American government appears eager to appease the Iraqi government, in the hope that somehow the trillions spent in that country, and the thousands of American lives lost, and tens of thousands seriously wounded in that country, all in order to remove Saddam and then to create a modern, democratic, well-functioning state, one that is a friend of the West, will have been worth it. But that state does not exist, and cannot exist. The Sunni Arabs will never fully accept their loss of power; the Shi’a do not intend to relinquish any of the power that finally devolved to them when the Americans toppled Saddam. And the Sunnis cannot forgive the Americans for having toppled their protector, and the Shi’a, who have welcomed Iranian military advisors and troops into Iraq, cannot forgive the Americans for refusing to hand all of Iraq over to the Shi’a. The gratitude we might have expected, for getting rid of Saddam’s monstrous regime, was remarkably short-lived. Now we can please neither the Shi’a nor the Sunni Arabs in Iraq. But by not supporting the Kurdish referendum, we turn our backs on the one group that is sincerely grateful to us, and that has been fighting alongside us, ever since American troops entered Iraq in 2003. Neither Sunni nor Shi’a Arabs in Iraq will allow the Kurds independence, or anything like the degree of autonomy (including control of their own oil resources) that just possibly might win Kurdish favor. Instead of trying to keep Iraq in one piece, the American government should recognize all the benefits such a Kurdish state could bring to the West, especially as it could threaten Iran’s territorial integrity, not only by inspiring Iran’s Kurds to strive for secession, but by the effect that, in turn, would have on Azeris, Baluchis, and Arabs in Iran.
Another consideration that may explain the American reluctance to support a Kurdish state in northern Iraq is Turkey. As was noted in a previous article, many in Washington still regard Turkey as an ally, despite the repeated malevolent anti-Western re-islamizing conspiracy-peddling misrule of Erdogan. Those who are wiling to update their view of Erdogan’s Turkey, understanding it is not the Kemalist state it once was, a half-century ago, may be more willing to consider the benefits of having the Kurds in Anatolia attempt secession in order to join an enlarged Kurdish state. At the very least, it would keep Turkey more occupied at home, and less able to cause mischief abroad.
Finally, one more reason for the lukewarm attitude toward Kurdish independence: there is a certain exhaustion in Washington with the Muslim world, a desire to detach (so many disappointments, so many betrayals, so many lives and so much money squandered), and not just from former “ally” Pakistan, a disinclination to support any potential new upheaval, with possible new streams of refugees, for fear of the unknown consequences. Kurdistan is different.
There is an overwhelming argument to be made that an independent Kurdistan fully deserves, both on geopolitical and moral grounds, Western and especially American support. The Kurds in northern Iraq were there for a thousand years before the Arabs arrived; the 182,000 Kurds murdered by Saddam’s Arabs between 1986 and 1988, certainly form part of the moral case for their independence, as does their mistreatment, by Assad’s Arabs, by the Turks, and by the Persians. The oil in Iraqi Kurdistan, the revenues from which used to be appropriated by the Arabs in Baghdad, but which deservedly belong to the Kurds, is sufficient to guarantee the new state’s economic viability. It’s Iraq’s Kurds, not Iraq’s Arabs, who are democratic, pro-Western, pro-American — exactly what we would have wished Iraq to have become. The Kurds are even pro-Israel, and Israel, in turn, is the only country to publicly declare its support for Kurdish independence. So let the part of Iraq that meets those criteria, and that can both defend itself, with its battle-hardened Peshmerga, and pay for itself, with its own oil, be given a chance to become the state of the stateless Kurds, to which other Kurds, in Syria first, then Iran, and finally, even in Turkey, may later adhere in one form or another. We do not have a stake in making things easy for Assad, Erdogan, or Rouhani. We have, rather, a stake in making their lives more difficult. That’s what the Kurds, merely by furthering their own, justified interests, can do.
The exhilaration that would be felt by Kurds all over the Middle East, at the spectacle of a Kurdish state carved out of northern Iraq, could have significant consequences, all of them good.
Anti Jihad says
Mainly focus on Turkey, Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. that area is more important.These Muslim dictators cheating their own people and investing their money in west. And west support them. Instead of that overthrow dictators and Islam completely. Then invade these areas directly. Take non Muslims to west.
mortimer says
The US should immediately recognize, bolster and even defend the Kurdish state and encourage the Kurds to develop a greater Kurdistan. This will bring stability to the region as well as defend the Kurds from genocide.
There is a time to create a national state. That time is RIGHT NOW. SUPPORT FREE KURDISTAN.
Fred Parsons says
At one time Iran was looked upon as stabilizing force in the Middle East, Then the Shaw was gone.
What better than to have the Kurds as that stabilizing force. And they like us
Chand says
Agreed.
Cornelius says
Question: If Kurdish independence efforts become a hot war, how will the USA provide sustained support if we’re denied physical access to the region? Kurdistan is surrounded by Iraq, Turkey and Iran. Which one of these countries would give us access to their air space so we could supply the Kurds by air? Which one of these countries would voluntarily help us undermine their own territorial integrity? ISIS is now a spent force in Iraq….and the Iraqis would sooner boot us out and cast their lot ENTIRELY with Iran…rather than to allow us to split their country in two.And we can expect no cooperation from Turkey or Iran.
I’m a strong supporter of Kurdish national aspirations, but we best counsel them to move cautiously…with the full knowledge that regardless of American intentions, there are very real logistical limits to our ability to help. We don’t want to engage in a fool’s errand and end up helplessly witnessing a tragedy. Iraq cannot defeat the Kurds on their own, but they surely can in concert with Turkey and Iran.
b.a. freeman says
good point. OTOH, i think that the islamic war against us has advanced to the point that we should stop paying attention to what islamic dictators want.
a little explanation might be in order. first of all, foreign “adventures” are more often than not a bad idea, if only because our *fellow citizens* will be dying in the fight. thus, we need to put off such fights as long as possible (and safe); after the time for nice play has passed, we should identify what our goals are, then commit *100%* of our military to reaching that goal as quickly as possible. in other words, once the decision to take military action has been made, we should hit *any* roadblocks thrown in our way with massive strength. there is no such thing as “parity” in war; U either win, or U lose. we want to win, and rapidly.
thus, should we need to resupply our *temporary* allies, the kurds, across hostile muslim enemy countries, we need to make it clear to the entire world, but especially the muslim enemy countries, that we will not attack them directly, unless we are attacked. if we are attacked, however, we will smash their entire military. no doubt, one of these tinhorn monsters will call our bluff, so we must be prepared to do exactly what we said: seek out and destroy every bit of their armaments and troops.
i’m sure that the leftist traitors among us will be appalled, but they don’t give a s**t if an american soldier dies; instead, they glory in it, so we should pay no attention to them. once the military of one country has been flattened, the others will leave us alone.
of course, i am not so foolish as to actually expect us to act rationally; the leftist whiners among us, as well the the leftist dictators-in-waiting in eurabia, would threaten to boycott us were we to even think about such responses. we will continue to kowtow to the u.n. and other organized criminals, and things will continue to get worse. what else can we expect with the leftist traitors running the nations of the west doing their best to destroy civilization?
b.a. freeman says
oops – foreign adventures are a *BAD* idea – bad editing. sorry.
Cornelius says
Friend, if Turkey invades northern Iraq to crush the nascent state, do you actually believe the USA will go to war with Turkey over the fate of the Kurds?….given our existing problems with North Korea and Iran? We’ll bitch and moan and maybe even slap sanctions on the Turks, but there is no way the USA is going to engage in a massive military adventure against the Turks on behalf of the Kurds in northern Iraq. Let’s be realistic
Hugh’s long-term strategy – weakening Islam by supporting non-Arab entities like the Kurds and the Berbers of North Africa – is sound. His short-term advocacy of encouraging Kurdish independence is reckless.We need to counsel the Kurds to proceed cautiously….and avoid a catastrophe.
Chand says
Cornelius says: “Hugh’s long-term strategy – weakening Islam by supporting non-Arab entities like the Kurds and the Berbers of North Africa – is sound. His short-term advocacy of encouraging Kurdish independence is reckless.We need to counsel the Kurds to proceed cautiously….and avoid a catastrophe.”
Ya but it may be too late. The way Turkey has been attacking the Kurds in Turkey recently, with massacres and severe oppression of the civilians, a general uprising and a full scale secession and Kurdish consolidation movement seems quite possible, including the creation of a Kurdistan composing of the Syrian, Iraqi and Turksih Kurdish areas.
ElderlyZionist says
+1
b.a. freeman says
i favor giving the muslim dictators of the middle east a hard time, so i see creating kurdistan as a win for the west. unfortunately, due to the evil manner in which islam was spread (thanks to islam’s scriptures, which are its very definition), most kurds are sunni muslims; thus, they may “like” us for a while, were we to support an independent kurdistan, but we should *never* depend on their gratitude. the u.s. was well liked after our intervention in bosnia, but our “ally” saudi arabia has spent millions on staffing mosques there with fundamentalist (salafi) imams, so we are now widely hated. the bottom line is that islam is evil, and at any time, it is not a hard task to point the average muslim back to the roots of his religion. this can only be a temporary alliance.
dumbledoresarmy says
Exactly.
The Kurds remain mostly Sunni Muslim (though, interestingly, within the past 20 years, after the translation of the Christian gospels into the Kurdish language – a language that, as Hugh has pointed out, has been ferociously *attacked and suppressed* both by Persia and Turkey – there has come into existence an ethnically-Kurdish Kurdish-speaking body of *Christians*, both within traditionally Kurdish area, but also amongst the Kurdish diaspora in the west; a truly remarkable movement that could by various means be heartily encouraged, particularly by, say, radio broadcasts stressing the ways in which Islam is a vehicle of Arab supremacism/ imperialism).
So one should be duly wary; though I would, to repeat, argue that every effort could be made to encourage those Kurds who have *left* Islam, whether they have become Christians or atheists. Imagine the discreet production and circulation of Kurdish-language translations of works by leading apostates from Islam, along with Kurdish-language Bibles, and broadcasts – 24/7 – of Kurdish-language dubs or subtitled versions of Fr Zakaria Botros’ systematic critiques of Islam. There would be scholars out there somewhere who have delved into the *pre-Islamic* history and culture of the Kurds; whatever they’ve unearthed, could be widely promulgated and promoted.
Frank Anderson says
One of the best, well-written and thorough discussions of any situation I have seen on JW. Thank you.
dumbledoresarmy says
‘Hugh Fitzgerald’ has been writing wonderful essays here since the very beginnings of Jihadwatch, way back in 2003. His work is challenging, inspiring, brilliant. He is not young, I suspect; but I pray all the more fervently that he may be blessed with long, long life; we *need* him!
jewdog says
My recent letter in the Jerusalem Post supporting Kurdistan:
Seth J. Frantzman’s “Baghdad continues to threaten Kurds with more sanctions following referendum” (October 10) indicates that the US does not support Kurdish independence.
This is a shortsighted policy that is an unfortunate product of a tendency to seek a single panacea for the region.
Under former president George W. Bush, the monomania was democracy. All the evils of the region allegedly stemmed from rabble-rousing dictators who used hatred and violence to stay in power. As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump correctly pointed out that the main beneficiary of Bush’s ambitious policy was Iran. That truth helped put the kibosh on the Republican establishment and nominate Trump.
Now President Trump has found his white whale in the form of ISIS. He has promised to hunt it down and kill it, and it would appear that we have another panacea. Nothing must get in the way of this endeavor, not even Kurdish independence.
Forget the fact that Kurdistan would actually mean an advance for real democracy and self-determination apart from an Iranian-allied Iraq. Forget our long-standing commitment to the pro-western and largely secular Kurds. Our obsession with evil ISIS has blinded us to the possibility of doing right by supporting a noble cause.
The panacea will fail again because there is no magic cure for a sick Middle East. The best we can do is nurture those people and movements that reflect our values and hope that the region will gradually improve.
Michael says
Just read Walid Shoebat’s blog on the Muslim Kurd’s abuse of Christians. He points to quotes from the above article where Robert is promoting an “independent Kurdistan, and a well-armed Peshmerga,” as being a good thing. When in actuality the Kurds are currently subjugating local Christians in much the same way many other Islamic countries are doing.
Not sure why Robert and Walid are at odds with each other on this and what the full truth is. Any further insight would be appreciated.
marc says
don’t really have too much time for the Shoebat’s here https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/09/robert-spencer-in-frontpage-theodore-shoebat-joins-the-jihad-says-pamela-geller-is-worthy-of-death
Peshmerga, yes i’m not keen on them, they are marxists, but they are killing a lot jihadis, and i don’t think you can compare their treatment of Christians with the jihadis treatment, not ideal, not what we would want, but not close to “much the same way.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Marc.
gravenimage says
I’m still not sure to what extent an independent Kurdistan would present a real bulwark against Jihad terror–after all, Kurds are Muslim, too.
Kurds also enthusiastically took part in the Armenian Genocide, despite their also being oppressed by the Turks.
That being said, given recent history, Kurds in Iraq have been at least less oppressive of Christians than have other Muslims, and they have also stood against the spread of ISIS.
If we are going to aid and arm any Muslims–always an iffy proposition–then our supporting the Kurds makes more sense than most of these things.
Raja says
Hugh Fitzgerald has shown great knowledge of the region and the geopolitical realities. All except Israel have developed cold feet to support the Kurds, some for clumsy reasons but most for political expediency.
Independent Kurdistan might be good at the cost of Iran, Turkdy and Iraq, in the long term this will be another nuisance for the World as they would love to hate all democracies and all secular nations (As Islam always does). In all probability, Kurds will fight the very same who might help with independence.
Most comments have based their Idea that Islam is pliable which takes us to Alice in wonderland (about Kurdistan(.
Frank Anderson says
Raja, I think your last sentence is one of the most perfect statements describing the vast majority of people who are both uninformed and “undecided”. “. . .Alice in Wonderland. . .” The evil and their collaborators have made up their minds, as limited or non-existent as their minds may be, to promote slavery, murder, and . . . Then there are most of the readers of JW who resist as best as possible for the moment. Having faced an entire community that is subject to an open commitment to be murdered for 1400 years, who steadfastly deny the promises, is an incredible experience for me. Any attempt to reform, change, modify or moderate islam is punishable by death, not only to the person who proposes it, but also potentially the entire family. People who get into the “positive” (the glass is half full) every time some little bit of “sunshine” shows are unbelievably stupid, uninformed and deliberately ignorant. There is only one cure for this kind of stupidity: Riding a train to a Holocaust Death Camp while denying they exist. When the deniers are shoved into a gas chamber, they might not believe even then. Some of us have more sense.
dumbledoresarmy says
It was a Kurdish apostate from Islam – now a Christian – who many years ago, as reported in a Bible society newsletter – summed up the mentality and ‘atmospherics’ of Islam in a mere nine words: “If you are among Muslims, you would always fight”. He wasn’t talking about attitudes toward infidels: he was talking about the bloody *innards* of Islam.
This was a man who had been raised in a Kurdish intellectual milieu within Turkey, during the period when Islam was to some extent restrained, but when Kurdish identity was ruthlessly suppressed – as it still is, today – by Turkish supremacists. He was not raised in the primitive tribal badlands; he was an educated man, an intellectual, his family would have been what westerners call ‘moderate’ Muslims.
Yet when (long story) he found himself involved in the project to translate the Christian gospels into his mother tongue, his heart language, Kurdish, he found the gospels hitting him between the eyes with a whole lot of ideas that were wholly unfamiliar… but that he, personally, found powerfully attractive. The sermon on the Mount knocked him for six. He’d never encountered anything like it.
Here is part of the story (Bible Society, World Report, 1st February 2006).
“As he became immersed in reading and translating the New Testament, he found that he was being deeply affected by it.
“He discovered that Christianity’s culture was quite different from that of Islam.
“Certain Bible teachings highlighted the differences strikingly.
“It totally changed me to deal with how you are taught to forgive people, to love people and live with them in peace.
“The Bible says ‘Love your enemies and your neighbours’ and ‘Treat your neighbour as you would like to be treated.’ This affected me.”
“From then on, while still a Kurdish intellectual, “In my heart,” he says, “I believed in Jesus.”
“When I recognised the Bible, I learned to be flexible… to listen to people… to forgive them… and to be more patient. **For example, if you are among Muslims, you would always fight.**
” I don’t want to fight; I always wanted to convince people, to argue with them. … to understand them.”…”.
Remember: his experience was not of Afghanistan, Yemen or LIbya. His experience was of a university-educated Muslim in a ‘moderate Muslim’ family. Yet he STILL sums up the default Islamic attitude as “you would always fight”.
This is exactly the same conclusion as is drawn by ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her books ‘Nomad” and “Infidel” as she reflects on the attitudes common among the Muslim milieux – Arab, and Somali – in which *she* grew up to young womanhood. Basically: the ‘defaults’ are suspicion and aggression. And that is *among* the Muslims, even *within the family*.
So you have two witnesses from opposite ends of the Islamic world – a Kurd ex-Muslim now-Christian, an African Somali ex-Muslim now-atheist – and they see *within the ummah* exactly the same thing – an ‘always-fight’ mentality.
Chand says
Hugh Fitzgerald: “In 2002 Baluchis founded the Jundullah, a religious and political organisation that has claimed rights for the Baluchis in eastern Iran. It has carried out both attacks on the Iranian military, and suicide bombings of Shi’a mosques.”
Although the Jundullah of Iran (as distinct from the Jundullah of Pakistan, a Tehrik e Talibani organization, now with the Islamic State) was born out of the need to protect Baluchi Sunni rights in Iran, it is now a Jihadi terrorist organization and may be aligned to Alqaeda.
Also: “Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacism……………………….”,
Exactly right, Hugh.
This Iran issue is a difficult one. On one side they are a grave threat to Iran, are ruled by Islamic Theocrats and oppress their minorities and yet they are an obstacle to a graver threat from the Sunni fanatics in the region, foremost the Islamic State and Alqaeda, but also their financiers and devotees, including Saudi Arabia and the Sunni Arab states. Saudi Arabia is the default Islamic State, equally oppressive and medieval, equivocal and extremely detrimental to human progress, with their aggressive propagation of Wahabbism around the globe, using their oil wealth, funding schools and charities, etc. brainwashing children with the ‘kill kafirs’ ideology.
Shia fundamentalism is of course very bad too and not at all desirable but the Shia Jihadis have not come close to the barbaric brutality and terrifying inhumanity expressed and carried out by the genocidal, maniacal Sunni Jihadi mass murderers recently.
Chand says
sorry, typo: I meant……………… “they are a grave threat to Israel” (not Iran).
Chand says
So now which is the greater threat: Iran or Saudi Arabia (and its Sunni allies)?
dumbledoresarmy says
Probably best to assume that they are *both* dangerous and not get suckered into siding with *either*.
I would like to see the USA finding ways and means to gradually but inexorably *disentangle* itself from all alliances with any Islamic entities at all, whether state or non-state. Notably the Abominable House of Saud; but also Turkey, and the UAE, and Jordan, and Egypt, and Pakistan, and Afghanistan and the whole boiling. I’d like to see the sinister Fethullah Gulen and the Gulenist movement uprooted from the USA and from the rest of ‘the west’. I’d like to see *all* ‘palestinian’ muslim entities similarly evicted; and *all* operatives and agents and members of organisations such as Tablighi Jamaat and the Ikhwan and Hizb ut Tahrir. Ban the lot and kick the lot of them out and seize their assets.
Treat the entire damn Ummah – ALL majority-Muslim members of the OIC – *exactly* as North Korea is currently treated. Quarantine them.
And – once having disengaged, with subsequent *massive* freeing-up of manpower and resources because of no longer paying all that jizya/ ‘tribute’ to the insatiable likes of Pakistan – suggest, very strongly, to Russia and China, that they should do likewise. That NO non-Islamic entity should get into playing footsie with Mohammedans.