Many key details remain to be negotiated, including the future of Iran’s nuclear program. Another issue that remains uncertain – how the deal will impact the Kurdish minority in northern Iran.
The United States and Israel have failed to achieve the main goal of their war: overthrowing the Islamic regime in Tehran. US President Donald Trump is now under pressure to end the war as quickly as possible – and answer for its failures.
Instead, in recent days, he has reiterated an allegation the US sent weapons to the Kurds in the early days of the war to help overthrow the regime. Trump claims the Kurds kept the weapons for themselves.
For the Kurds, this is not surprising. This kind of rhetoric follows a historical trend. Washington has long promised the Kurds support in exchange for their help in Syria and Iraq, only to abandon them later.
Who are the Kurds?
The Kurds are the world’s largest ethnic group without sovereignty over their own land.
The estimated population of 35-45 million (or higher) is divided among four countries – Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey – a legacy of the Sykes-Picot Agreement that carved up the Ottoman Empire in 1916.
In Iran, their population is estimated at between 7-15 million people – one of the country’s largest minority groups. They have long posed a threat to the Iranian regime, with opposition groups having taken up arms and setting up bases in neighbouring Iraq.
Before the US-Israel-Iran war broke out, six of the opposition groups formed a coalition aimed at ousting the Islamic regime.
Their potential role, then, in the future of the region’s political landscape cannot be ignored.
Were US weapons going to the Kurds?
In early March, CNN reported the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was working to arm the Kurds in Iran to lead a popular uprising against the regime.
However, Kurdish parties claimed the US had not engaged with them directly, continuing a long-running lack of support for their cause. Trump himself also poured cold water on the plan. This issue is quite sensitive regionally, as any plan to arm Kurds would be opposed by the US’ ally, Turkey.
Months later, though, Trump publicly accused the Kurds of seizing weapons his administration sent to protesters opposing Iran. He said:
The Kurdistan regional government in Iraq categorically denied receiving any weapons from the US, as did Iranian Kurdish parties. In fact, they expressed surprise at Trump’s seemingly irresponsible remarks.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempted to contain the situation, explaining Trump’s comments were a general expression of support for the Iranian people and not a confirmation of any secret arms deals.
But late last week, Trump made the accusation again in an interview with Fox News, saying he had “disagreed” with the US plan to send weapons to the Kurds in the first place.
So, the question remains: did the US and Kurds have a secret plan, and if so, what happened?
One possible answer, according to a former Israeli intelligence chief, is that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan talked Trump out of it, due to Turkey’s fears of a future independent Kurdish state in the region.
A history of abandonment
Henry Kissinger once said, “politics is not charity”. The quote perfectly encapsulates the way the US has historically treated the Kurds.
The Kurds have learned the US – or any power, for that matter – isn’t to be trusted, because politics is inherently unpredictable, with nations often acting in their own interests. Several moments in history illustrate this:
- the global silence in 1988 when Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds, killing thousands
- the indifference the world has shown to the Turkish government’s systematic oppression of the Kurds
- the US abandonment of its commitments to the Kurds in Iraq after the fall of Hussein’s regime in 2003
- the opposition in the West to a Kurdish independence referendum in 2017
- Trump’s decision to withdraw US forces from Kurdish-controlled Syria in 2019, which enabled Turkey to invade with its forces
- and the negative US stance towards Kurdish forces during the Syrian government’s offensive against them this year.
This, along with other similar events, demonstrated, at the very least, an American coldness towards the Kurds.
In short, America’s relations with Turkey, Syria and Iraq matter more than the Kurds. Even countries without Kurdish populations are influencing the US position on the Kurds, as American interests in the region remain key.
In this context, some influential figures in the US government see the Kurds as a force to be used when needed. This has hurt Kurdish pride, which partly explains why they did not join the recent war by the US and Israel against the Iranian regime.
Setting their own agenda
In a phone conversation with me, a Kurdish official (who preferred not to be named) summed up all of this with great displeasure:
After decades of disappointment, the Kurds are now prioritising their own goals and their push for self-determination.
Ali Aziz, PhD candidate in philosophy, Western Sydney University and Charles Barbour, Associate Professor, School of Arts, Western Sydney University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
