Iraqi Kurdistan Independence: Drivers and Regional Implications

Netanyahu: Israël supports independent Kurdish state




(AhlulBayt News Agency) - Israel supports the establishment of a Kurdish state, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday, as Kurds in Iraq gear up for a referendum on independence that lawmakers in Baghdad oppose.

Israel has maintained discreet military, intelligence and business ties with the Kurds since the 1960s, viewing the minority ethnic group -- whose indigenous population is split between Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran -- as a buffer against shared Arab adversaries.

On Tuesday, Iraq’s Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani said he would press ahead with the Sept. 25 referendum despite a vote by Iraq’s parliament rejecting it.

“(Israel) supports the legitimate efforts of the Kurdish people to achieve their own state,” Netanyahu said, in remarks sent to foreign correspondents by his office.

Netanyahu said Israel does however consider the Turkey-based Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) a terrorist group, taking the same position as Turkey, the United States and the European Union.

An Israeli general told a conference in Washington last week that he personally did not regard the PKK, whose militants have been fighting Turkey for more than three decades, as a terrorist group.

Netanyahu, who is due to address the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 19, voiced support for “the Kurds’ aspirations for independence” in a speech in 2014, saying they deserve “political independence”.

His latest remarks appeared to be a more direct endorsement of the creation of a Kurdish state.

http://en.abna24.com/news/middle-east/israel-supports-independent-kurdish-state-netanyahu_853952.html

Bad news for Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq.

This means a increase in terror attacks in these 4 countries and a second ZOG-clientstate (Kurdish Republic).

Open secret since the beginning of time.

But the Palestinians don't I am guessing in his opinion....

Who gives a fuck what that ass hat thinks?

GarryB wrote:Who gives a fuck what that ass hat thinks?

Unfortunately some very power people do - some more stupid than others but powerful all the same...Putin also listens.

If it was not for Turkey, then there was already a Kurdish state, in Syria.

The succesfull Operation Euphrates Shield broke down the Syrian-Kurdish canton (Rojava) in two pieces, east and west.

Turkey is warning for years for a pro-US, pro-Israëli 'independant' Kurdish state that could be a pain in the ass for Iraq, Syria and Iran.

Nobody believed the Turks, now everyone in the Middle East is in panic mode.

I hope ZOG will succesfully create a 'free' Kurdistan in Iraq, so people will see what Turkey is suffering for almost 40 years.

The Ottoman wrote:If it was not for Turkey, then there was already a Kurdish state, in Syria.

The succesfull Operation Euphrates Shield broke down the Syrian-Kurdish canton (Rojava) in two pieces, east and west.

Turkey is warning for years for a pro-US, pro-Israëli 'independant' Kurdish state that could be a pain in the ass for Iraq, Syria and Iran.

Nobody believed the Turks, now everyone in the Middle East is in panic mode.

I hope ZOG will succesfully create a 'free' Kurdistan in Iraq, so people will see what Turkey is suffering for almost 40 years.

If it wasn't for Turkey, there would not be war in Syria, at least not on this scale. If Turkey had stopped supporting terrorists in Syria 5 years ago, there would not be danger of Kurdish state in Syria.


You reap what you sow.

calm wrote:

The Ottoman wrote:If it was not for Turkey, then there was already a Kurdish state, in Syria.

The succesfull Operation Euphrates Shield broke down the Syrian-Kurdish canton (Rojava) in two pieces, east and west.

Turkey is warning for years for a pro-US, pro-Israëli 'independant' Kurdish state that could be a pain in the ass for Iraq, Syria and Iran.

Nobody believed the Turks, now everyone in the Middle East is in panic mode.

I hope ZOG will succesfully create a 'free' Kurdistan in Iraq, so people will see what Turkey is suffering for almost 40 years.

If it wasn't for Turkey, there would not be war in Syria, at least not on this scale. If Turkey had stopped supporting terrorists in Syria 5 years ago, there would not be danger of Kurdish state in Syria.


You reap what you sow.

It's one of the greatest backfires I've seen in my lifetime when it comes to geopolitics. Just dumb beyond belief. You never ever set your backyard ablaze. You're just inviting fire to get carried with the wind, into your home.

Its that Israeli flag again, before the police confiscate it.



https://twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/909075365301071872

JohninMK wrote:Its that Israeli flag again...
https://twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/909075365301071872

Every damn time...

Instead of consolidating on what they have, Kurds are asking for a war with Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. All at the same time.
Geopolitical retardation 101

OminousSpudd wrote:

JohninMK wrote:Its that Israeli flag again...
https://twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/909075365301071872

Every damn time...

Yeah, always someone there who didn't get the memo.

Despite some optimistic projections for Kurds claimed by non-regional commentors/analysts or Kurds themselves, Kurds will be the biggest loser of this turmoil. The reason is simple, their area of interest is very limited in resources and financial means. On top of that, region is enclaved by countries they make territorial claims from. And on top of everything, Kurdish population in general is not productive, what I mean is, for example Catalonia has Barcelona, the financial capital of Spain.And their seperation from Spain is more likely to mean seperation of locomotive from the carriage. However, Kurdish population can not impose fatal economical threat within their proclaimed habitat.

But, there is an exception

If they enlarge their area of control and facilitate oil reserves of DeZ in Syria, of Kirkuk in Iraq and rich agricultural fields in Turkish/Arabic populated south Turkey, they can sustain themselves and get an opening to the rest of the world.

However,

To do this, they have to escalate level of aggression and violate general power balance. They know they will be drained between four countries if they dont start to do something, and foreign powers know too, so they will be used and forgotten, when they are not useful anymore.Or when they are too expensive for desired goal.

I can give you a solid example.It is Mahabad Kurdish Republic.When Iran was smashed by Soviets, this republic is brought to life. Soviets thought if they can form such a state, It would be easier to thwart Western blockade. However, things have changed, Soviets foresee Iran acts like a barrier and possible breakdown of Iran may end up with a mess, they just fell back and leave Mahabad alone.Result is simple. Iran crushed them within days and erased from maps.

The thing is, Kurds dont secede from one country, they cant. If they secede, they will secede from Iraq/Iran/Syria and Turkey altogether.

Airman wrote:BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq is prepared to intervene militarily if the Kurdish region’s planned independence referendum results in violence, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview Saturday.

Can Iraq's central government beat the Kurds? Now that ISIS is pretty much smashed in Iraq it may be able to concentrate forces if need be. But what would the US do?

The Ottoman wrote:
I hope ZOG will succesfully create a 'free' Kurdistan in Iraq, so people will see what Turkey is suffering for..

How can ZOG do that? By getting the US to back the Kurds against Abadi if need be? Btw Iraq has been suffering the same thing for about as long (see Pollack's account of Baghdad's wars with Kurds starting in the '60s).

starman wrote:

Airman wrote:BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq is prepared to intervene militarily if the Kurdish region’s planned independence referendum results in violence, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview Saturday.

Can Iraq's central government beat the Kurds? Now that ISIS is pretty much smashed in Iraq it may be able to concentrate forces if need be. But what would the US do?

Iraq can easily make a move on Kirkuk or push north to Zakho, once they're done with IS. This will be possible, some time in early summer of 2018. There's still a lot of work to be done in Iraq. At the same time SAA & friends can cross the Euphrates river from Deir Ezzor, like by end of next week. This is the biggest worry the Kurdish militia faces. They're not fighting a proper war, they act as fronts hoping in the first difficulty Uncle Sam will bail them out.

What I guess will end up happening, in areas SDF controls all the way to Hasaka and Qamishli, is this:

KiloGolf wrote:
Iraq can easily make a move on Kirkuk or push north to Zakho, once they're done with IS. This will be possible, some time in early summer of 2018.

Even without US airpower, they can count on Iranian and Turkish help, can't they? Btw if the main focus of Baghdad becomes the Kurds, might that lead to a new alliance--instead of Shiite and Kurd vs Sunni, it'll be Shiite and Sunni vs Kurd?

starman wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:
Iraq can easily make a move on Kirkuk or push north to Zakho, once they're done with IS. This will be possible, some time in early summer of 2018.

Even without US airpower, they can count on Iranian and Turkish help, can't they? Btw if the main focus of Baghdad becomes the Kurds, might that lead to a new alliance--instead of Shiite and Kurd vs Sunni, it'll be Shiite and Sunni vs Kurd?

It will be plain and simple Arab vs Kurds with Iranian support and some winks and nudges from Russia. How Kurds have been allowed to snatch cities like Kirkuk is beyond imagination. Same in Syria where they snatched Hasaka, Qamishli and Manbij. Like some totally Arab and non-Kurdish places.

Shiite vs Sunni tension was artificial. After Saddam, Iraq's constitution was designed to create newer turmoils. And it is still like that. Article 140, federalism, legalization of Sunni/Shia/Kurd seperation, manipulation of parties, indefinite budget regulations, it was a mess,in short.

And guess what, this constitution was a US invention.

This constitution led Shiite to rush into state affairs meanwhile Sunnis immediately fell into a power struggle. Neighbors became enemies with neighbors. Seperation of mosques (like seperation of churches in Rome) led provocative mosque attacks.One night Sunnis, other night Shiites. Now after all, Arabs from both sects understood these were all a game, losers being planned to be themselves.

Kurds dont understand a reality, to live in a territory for some centuries does not mean claim can be made easily.Territorial claim needs state control and organization. For centuries, they were living in mountains and they were ruled by Turkmen/Persian states. Number of Turkmen states formed in that region are more than number of reknown Kurdish poets. Akkoyunlu,Qarakoyunlu, Seljuks, Ottomans,Safavites etc.

Now after all, they came down to civilized popular system from mountains and immediately claimed statehood.

Their fate reminds me rule of Brits in Raj region.For decades, against millions...

AbdulhamidtheSecond wrote:Shiite vs Sunni tension was artificial. After Saddam, Iraq's constitution was designed to create newer turmoils. And it is still like that. Article 140, federalism, legalization of Sunni/Shia/Kurd seperation, manipulation of parties, indefinite budget regulations, it was a mess,in short.

And guess what, this constitution was a US invention.

This constitution led Shiite to rush into state affairs meanwhile Sunnis immediately fell into a power struggle. Neighbors became enemies with neighbors. Seperation of mosques (like seperation of churches in Rome) led provocative mosque attacks.One night Sunnis, other night Shiites. Now after all, Arabs from both sects understood these were all a game, losers being planned to be themselves.

Kurds dont understand a reality, to live in a territory for some centuries does not mean claim can be made easily.Territorial claim needs state control and organization. For centuries, they were living in mountains and they were ruled by Turkmen/Persian states. Number of Turkmen states formed in that region are more than number of reknown Kurdish poets. Akkoyunlu,Qarakoyunlu, Seljuks, Ottomans,Safavites etc.

Now after all, they came down to civilized popular system from mountains and immediately claimed statehood.

Their fate reminds me rule of Brits in Raj region.For decades, against millions...

They're claiming statehood in regions and cities that have been Arab-inhabited since over 1,000 years. It's one thing to get Duhok and Irbil and completely different to claim, occupy and control Kirkuk and Hasaka. What the Kurds are doing in Iraq and Syria is exactly what they've been complaining others have been doing to them in Iranian Kordestan and SE Turkey Kurdistan. The problem is, both Iraq and Syria are countries with UN recognition, history, national identity and strong allies. Allies that won't hesitate to green-light weapons purchases even if such weapons will be used against Kurdish-occupied areas (Hasaka, Kirkuk and so on).

KiloGolf wrote:
It will be plain and simple Arab vs Kurds with Iranian support and some winks and nudges from Russia. How Kurds have been allowed to snatch cities like Kirkuk is beyond imagination. Same in Syria where they snatched Hasaka, Qamishli and Manbij. Like some totally Arab and non-Kurdish places.

If the Kurds insist on keeping those places, with or without full independence, war is certain right?

starman wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:
It will be plain and simple Arab vs Kurds with Iranian support and some winks and nudges from Russia. How Kurds have been allowed to snatch cities like Kirkuk is beyond imagination. Same in Syria where they snatched Hasaka, Qamishli and Manbij. Like some totally Arab and non-Kurdish places.

If the Kurds insist on keeping those places, with or without full independence, war is certain right?

I surely know Kirkuk as a city is barely 50% Kurdish, if even 40%. Yet they still want to snatch it away into the referendum. I know many people won't like that, so whatever this new Kurdistan becomes, it will surely inherit an insurgency. One that will have Baghdad's and Tehran's blessing.

KiloGolf wrote:

starman wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:
It will be plain and simple Arab vs Kurds with Iranian support and some winks and nudges from Russia. How Kurds have been allowed to snatch cities like Kirkuk is beyond imagination. Same in Syria where they snatched Hasaka, Qamishli and Manbij. Like some totally Arab and non-Kurdish places.

If the Kurds insist on keeping those places, with or without full independence, war is certain right?

I surely know Kirkuk as a city is barely 50% Kurdish, if even 40%. Yet they still want to snatch it away into the referendum. I know many people won't like that, so whatever this new Kurdistan becomes, it will surely inherit an insurgency. One that will have Baghdad's and Tehran's blessing.

Very true.

"IRAQI VICE PRESIDENT: WE WILL NOT TOLERATE “ANOTHER ISRAEL” IN NORTHERN IRAQ."


https://southfront.org/iraqi-vice-president-will-not-tolerate-another-israel-northern-iraq/

Kurds are GREATEST traitors of the Middle East.

Every time they invite the USA to create havoc in the region.

Look what Kurds did to Saddam Hussain and his stable Baath-Iraq.

Analize how far the Kurds pushed Turkey in the claws of the US Militairy Complex with weapon purchases and loans for almost 40 years

And now the Kurds are annexing Syrian land.

The US is Always promising land to the Kurds, but every time the Kurds get the middlefinger and other countries are destroyed.

Whats the next step? Iranian Kurds fighting for independance?

The Jewish Media is also pushing for Kurdish Independance, but for the Palestinians there is no room