Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Iraq’s Kurdish regions may end up under Turkish rule

Kurds may be about to vote to forfeit their autonomous status in Iraq only to join Turkey under military rule.

Published

on

2,238 Views

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has promised heavy sanctions against parts of northern Iraq, should Kurdish secessionists go through with their threat to hold a referendum for “independence” in two days time.

With leaders of the separatist movement declaring that they will proceed with the referendum in spite of the US, Russia, Turkey, Iran and Iraq all opposing such a move, Turkey is already working on the details of its contingency plan.

Historically, Turkey’s relations with Iraqi Kurdish groups has been better than its relations with those in Syria, as the latter are openly aligned with the PKK, a Turkish based group classified by most countries as a terrorist organisation. In spite of this, Turkey is steadfastly opposed to Kurdish separatism in all areas, including in Iraq.

The Iraqi Kurds stand in defiance of the international community in holding their referendum which non-Kurds in the area are set to boycott. Turkey’s National Security Council has held meetings in order to develop a response that based on the language used in the Turkish press and by Turkish officials, implies a stronger response than mere economic sanctions or even economic boycott.

One of Turkey’s deputy Prime Ministers, Bekir Bozdag offered the following statement on the situation,

“We have discussed all options in the event of the referendum taking place and if it doesn’t. Turkey takes this matter seriously and will act to protect its national security interests”.

This is similar language to that which Turkey used prior to commencing operation Euphrates Shield and also Turkey’s less talked about military intervention in northern Iraq.

While both Euphrates Shield and Turkish involvement in the Iraqi conflict were opposed by Damscus and Baghdad, the issue of Turkey intervening in a Kurdish separation zone presents more dubious legal realities.

While any country’s intervention in the borders of another state must be done with the consent of the state which is being entered or else be authorised by the United Nations, if the Kurds vote for separation, the area could become a partial no-man’s-land, albeit on legal Iraqi territory, thus making the matter instantly turn from an area of black-and-white to one of grey.

Turkey could then make the argument that a renegade entity which legitimately threatens regional security is operating on Iraq soil and invoke the Caroline Test in order to legally justify a military presence.

Iraq would be caught between a rock and a hard place were such a thing to happen. On the one hand, Iraq does not want to see its territorial integrity threatened by Kurdish militants and does not need to fight another armed conflict on yet another front.

On the other hand, Iraq has already expressed its anger over previous Turkish incursions into Iraqi territory and a further incursion would likely not be popular in Baghdad, even given the different circumstance. In the longer term, if the Turkish presence became semi-permanent, Iraq would still have effectively lost an oil rich part of its legal territory, thus making Iraq a country that has been the victim of poor fortune more than just about any other over the last 30 years.

In reality though, if nothing and no one prevented Turkey from going into Syria and Iraq previously, without a legal mandate, surely nothing is going to prevent Turkey from going into a would be Kurdish entity in Iraq. This intervention could be legally justified as an uncontrollable Kurdish entity on Turkey’s border does post genuine concerns not just for Turkish security, but also for the security of Iran, Iraq and Syria. Each of these countries have Kurdish populations, among which, are secessionists. While political differences exist between various Kurdish factions from state to state, it is not hard to extrapolate a domino effect based on a blood and soil nationalism which trumps pre-existing party political differences.

As for the wider international reaction, one only needs to remember that in 1974 when Turkey illegally invaded Cyprus, none of the major powers did anything to stop this. While the invasion of Cyprus was and remains totally unjustified, such a move against Kurdish forces is again, far from black-and-white. The key point here is that if no one stopped the invasion of Cyprus and today no country does anything meaningful to end the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, who is going to do so in respect of self-proclaimed Kurdish regions of Iraq? The short answer is: no one. Furthermore, while nuclear Israel is the only nation in the region and the wider world in favour of Kurdish “independence”, Turkey has historically been and remains one of the few countries in the region that isn’t subject to regular Israel treats, invasions and bullying. Indeed, throughout most of the 20th century, Tel Aviv and Ankara had good relations. This dynamic will simply not change over the Kurdish issue.

Beyond all of this, there is also a farcical nature to the Kurdish adventurism in Iraq. After years of legal autonomy in Iraq both under both the Ba’ath Party and under more recent post-2003 governments, Kurds in Iraq may find themselves going backwards in this respect.

If they pull the trigger on “independence”, Turkey might well send in the tanks, drones and troops and occupy that portion of Iraq.

In this sense, the Kurds in Iraq may be unconsciously voting to forfeit their autonomous status in Iraq, only to join Turkey as a land under military rule. It is both ironic and surreal.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
samo war
Guest
samo war

kurdistan is mosad ?

Have a cigar!
Guest
Have a cigar!

If it destroys Assad’s cannon the it is not Syria’s TOW missile. Besides, Syrian Arab Army does not using TOW missiles.
And you samo war, you are full of crap.

Gio Con
Guest
Gio Con

And if Turkey does invade and occupy N. Iraq, will the West slap sanctions against it as they did when Russia peacefully and legally annexed the Crimea?

Jets
Guest
Jets

I guess, the answer to your question is a big “NO”. We have seen it before

Gonzogal
Guest
Gonzogal

“when Russia peacefully and legally annexed the Crimea?”

Russia DID NOT “annex” Crimea….look up the definition if you must! While I agree with most of your comment, I cant let that point slip by. Using the same term as the West only gives credence to its lie.

TravelAbout
Guest
TravelAbout

As bad as the constant use of the word regime in describing the freely elected government of President Assad by the presstitues.

Gonzogal
Guest
Gonzogal

I agree 1000%. The term “regime” should be applied to the US instead.

Screwloose
Guest
Screwloose

The most historically-accurate description for the US would indeed be ‘fascist regime’. Used in its strictest sense: ‘a government controlled by financial and other corporations’ the US is now, sadly, a textbook example of Fascism. Politicians are totally dependent on ‘campaign contributions’ to maintain their cushy positions and further grow their unexplained millions. By tolerating overt political corruption, the American people lost the wondrous Constitutional Republic which the staggeringly far-sighted Founders left in their care. Worse; those in control have no loyalty to the US and are cynically looting the people’s accrued wealth through deliberate currency inflation and manipulated interest… Read more »

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

Accurate..IT WAS ALWAYS THE PLAN by Rothschild/Rockefeller puppets of SOROS,BUSH,CLINTON,OBAMA to destroy the country ……THE INTERNATIONAL BANKERS!!!!
comment image
comment image

Screwloose
Guest
Screwloose

That statement alone should have qualified Sssssssoros (H/T Suzanne) for the ‘known terrorists’ list – or even a drone target.

Plenty of foreign leaders have died for far less. I don’t recall Quadaffi ever saying anything as threatening – even after Reagan killed his son – planning a non-banker-issued gold-linked dinar was his fatal error.

Gonzogal
Guest
Gonzogal
Screwloose
Guest
Screwloose

The now-widespread use of the word ‘annexed’ originated from Nato’s lie-machine and was instantly adopted by their compliant presstitutes. (They’ve now been ordered to upgrade their fake propaganda to the endlessly regurgitated: ‘Crimea was invaded and seized’…) Annexation is usually understood to mean – ‘land taken by force and added to a country’s own territory’ – hardy the case when an autonomous state’s referendum-backed elected parliament asks to reunite with its historic motherland. Crimea was still shown as a province of Russia on the UN’s own definitive map, as all land borders were frozen at the end of WW-II –… Read more »

VeeNarian (Yerevan)
Guest
VeeNarian (Yerevan)

Surely, it is time for the region to solve the Kurdish issue once and for all? If they do not, then the Kurds will be used by Israel, US and the EU, the “superior and civilized” West, to divide, rule and suppress the whole of the Arab, Turkic and Iranian world. Unless the Arab/Turkic/Iranian world stoop to the barbarism of the West, when they implemented the “Final solution” for their Jewish population, the Kurds will not go away. They will continue to preserve their separate language, culture, traditions and aspirations. The whole Muslim world has to step up to the… Read more »

Constantine
Guest
Constantine

The communities of India have had a more cohesive sense of community than the Arabs, even without adding Turks and Iranians to this mix. The fact that they haven’t been able o make any serious effort to collaborate on various endeavors explains why the divisions exist even today.

FlorianGeyer
Guest
FlorianGeyer

Another well written and logical opinion of the future for the Kurds who in their quest for more power will lose all the power they currently have.

Michalis Kane
Guest
Michalis Kane

Turkey is in its way to be cut I to pieces. And Kurdistan will play a leading role.

hvaiallverden
Guest
hvaiallverden

No, I still dont trust any Turk. I see this as the “solution” witch Turkics and uISISa agrees, this have been the goal from day one, expanding Turkish territory, and Kurds and Turks are the same people, this war, is just smoke and mirrors. Syria will loose this area, to Turks, with the curtice of the Russians, to have an perfect excuse of making “peace”. The continuing ethnic cleansing is an issue nobody touches, why, huh, the Turks have never bothered about that, since they are in same page regarding wiping out the natives, the Turks is “good” at that,… Read more »

Latest

Putin Keeps Cool and Averts WWIII as Israeli-French Gamble in Syria Backfires Spectacularly

Putin vowed that Russia would take extra precautions to protect its troops in Syria, saying these will be “the steps that everyone will notice.”

Published

on

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


By initiating an attack on the Syrian province of Latakia, home to the Russia-operated Khmeimim Air Base, Israel, France and the United States certainly understood they were flirting with disaster. Yet they went ahead with the operation anyways.

On the pretext that Iran was preparing to deliver a shipment of weapon production systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israeli F-16s, backed by French missile launches in the Mediterranean, destroyed what is alleged to have been a Syrian Army ammunition depot.

What happened next is already well established: a Russian Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft, which the Israeli fighter jets had reportedly used for cover, was shot down by an S-200 surface-to-air missile system operated by the Syrian Army. Fifteen Russian servicemen perished in the incident, which could have been avoided had Israel provided more than just one-minute warning before the attack. As a result, chaos ensued.

Whether or not there is any truth to the claim that Iran was preparing to deliver weapon-making systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon is practically a moot point based on flawed logic. Conducting an attack against an ammunition depot in Syria – in the vicinity of Russia’s Khmeimim Air Base – to protect Israel doesn’t make much sense when the consequence of such “protective measures” could have been a conflagration on the scale of World War III. That would have been an unacceptable price to achieve such a limited objective, which could have been better accomplished with the assistance of Russia, as opposed to NATO-member France, for example. In any case, there is a so-called “de-confliction system” in place between Israel and Russia designed to prevent exactly this sort of episode from occurring.

And then there is the matter of the timing of the French-Israeli incursion.

Just hours before Israeli jets pounded the suspect Syrian ammunition storehouse, Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan were in Sochi hammering out the details on a plan to reduce civilian casualties as Russian and Syrian forces plan to retake Idlib province, the last remaining terrorist stronghold in the country. The plan envisioned the creation of a demilitarized buffer zone between government and rebel forces, with observatory units to enforce the agreement. In other words, it is designed to prevent exactly what Western observers have been fretting about, and that is unnecessary ‘collateral damage.’

So what do France and Israel do after a relative peace is declared, and an effective measure for reducing casualties? The cynically attack Syria, thus exposing those same Syrian civilians to the dangers of military conflict that Western capitals proclaim to be worried about.

Israel moves to ‘damage control’

Although Israel has taken the rare move of acknowledging its involvement in the Syrian attack, even expressing “sorrow” for the loss of Russian life, it insists that Damascus should be held responsible for the tragedy. That is a highly debatable argument.

By virtue of the fact that the French and Israeli forces were teaming up to attack the territory of a sovereign nation, thus forcing Syria to respond in self-defense, it is rather obvious where ultimate blame for the downed Russian plane lies.

“The blame for the downing of the Russian plane and the deaths of its crew members lies squarely on the Israeli side,” Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said. “The actions of the Israeli military were not in keeping with the spirit of the Russian-Israeli partnership, so we reserve the right to respond.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, took admirable efforts to prevent the blame game from reaching the boiling point, telling reporters that the downing of the Russian aircraft was the result of “a chain of tragic circumstances, because the Israeli plane didn’t shoot down our jet.”

Nevertheless, following this extremely tempered and reserved remark, Putin vowed that Russia would take extra precautions to protect its troops in Syria, saying these will be “the steps that everyone will notice.”

Now there is much consternation in Israel that the IDF will soon find its freedom to conduct operations against targets in Syria greatly impaired. That’s because Russia, having just suffered a ‘friendly-fire’ incident from its own antiquated S-200 system, may now be more open to the idea of providing Syria with the more advanced S-300 air-defense system.

Earlier this year, Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached an agreement that prevented those advanced defensive weapons from being employed in the Syrian theater. That deal is now in serious jeopardy. In addition to other defensive measures, Russia could effectively create the conditions for a veritable no-fly zone across Western Syria in that it would simply become too risky for foreign aircraft to venture into the zone.

The entire situation, which certainly did not go off as planned, has forced Israel into damage control as they attempt to prevent their Russian counterparts from effectively shutting down Syria’s western border.

On Thursday, Israeli Major-General Amikam Norkin and Brigadier General Erez Maisel, as well as officers of the Intelligence and Operations directorates of the Israeli air force will pay an official visit to Moscow where they are expected to repeat their concerns of “continuous Iranian attempts to transfer strategic weapons to the Hezbollah terror organization and to establish an Iranian military presence in Syria.”

Moscow will certainly be asking their Israeli partners if it is justifiable to subject Russian servicemen to unacceptable levels of danger, up to and including death, in order to defend Israeli interests. It remains to be seen if the two sides can find, through the fog of war, an honest method for bringing an end to the Syria conflict, which would go far at relieving Israel’s concerns of Iranian influence in the region.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

This Man’s Incredible Story Proves Why Due Process Matters In The Kavanaugh Case

Accused of rape by a fellow student, Brian Banks accepted a plea deal and went to prison on his 18th birthday. Years later he was exonerated.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by James Miller of The Political Insider:


Somewhere between the creation of the Magna Carta and now, leftists have forgotten why due process matters; and in some cases, such as that of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, they choose to outright ignore the judicial and civil rights put in place by the U.S. Constitution.

In this age of social media justice mobs, the accused are often convicted in the court of (liberal) public opinion long before any substantial evidence emerges to warrant an investigation or trial. This is certainly true for Kavanaugh. His accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, cannot recall the date of the alleged assault and has no supporting witnesses, yet law professors are ready to ruin his entire life and career. Not because they genuinely believe he’s guilty, but because he’s a pro-life Trump nominee for the Supreme Court.

It goes without saying: to “sink Kavanaugh even if” Ford’s allegation is untrue is unethical, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. He has a right to due process, and before liberals sharpen their pitchforks any further they would do well to remember what happened to Brian Banks.

In the summer of 2002, Banks was a highly recruited 16-year-old linebacker at Polytechnic High School in California with plans to play football on a full scholarship to the University of Southern California. However, those plans were destroyed when Banks’s classmate, Wanetta Gibson, claimed that Banks had dragged her into a stairway at their high school and raped her.

Gibson’s claim was false, but it was Banks’s word against hers. Banks had two options: go to trial and risk spending 41 years-to-life in prison, or take a plea deal that included five years in prison, five years probation, and registering as a sex offender. Banks accepted the plea deal under the counsel of his lawyer, who told him that he stood no chance at trial because the all-white jury would “automatically assume” he was guilty because he was a “big, black teenager.”

Gibson and her mother subsequently sued the Long Beach Unified School District and won a $1.5 million settlement. It wasn’t until nearly a decade later, long after Banks’s promising football career had already been tanked, that Gibson admitted she’d fabricated the entire story.

Following Gibson’s confession, Banks was exonerated with the help of the California Innocence Project. Hopeful to get his life back on track, he played for Las Vegas Locomotives of the now-defunct United Football League in 2012 and signed with the Atlanta Falcons in 2013. But while Banks finally received justice, he will never get back the years or the prospective pro football career that Gibson selfishly stole from him.

Banks’ story is timely, and it serves as a powerful warning to anyone too eager to condemn those accused of sexual assault. In fact, a film about Banks’s ordeal, Brian Banks, is set to premiere at the Los Angeles Film Festival next week.

Perhaps all the #MeToo Hollywood elites and their liberal friends should attend the screening – and keep Kavanaugh in their minds as they watch.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending