Imperialism's indispensable collaborators

The last few days…

The Middle East has been locked into another bloody period.

The attack launched by the US and Israel against Iran has shaken the region to its core. The concern of these two countries is not merely to block Iran's nuclear program, topple the mullah regime, or eliminate the threat to Israel. There is a more comprehensive and strategic plan at play that closely concerns regional countries like our own.

We wrote on Tuesday about the energy dimension of the issue; specifically, Trump's desire to seize the tap and cut off the oil flowing to China. Looking from a broader perspective, we can easily say that this is a new step in the US and Israel's ambition to rewrite regional power balances.

Let's not beat around the bush…

It is understood that a similar calculation to the one used in Syria is now being activated for Iran.

The game-makers in Washington have pressed the button to bring the Kurds, who serve as a geopolitical tool for them, back onto the field.

According to reports, after setting the war machine in motion on February 28, Trump did not waste time and called two key Kurdish leaders in Iraq. He spoke with Barzani and Bafel Talabani, the son of Mam Jalal.

The content of the meetings was not fully disclosed. However, it was written, especially in the foreign press, that sensitive diplomatic assessments were made regarding the course of the attacks and the role of Kurdish elements within the framework of Pentagon planning. According to some claims, Trump even made contact not only with Iraqi Kurds but also with dissident Kurdish movements in Iran.

It is stated that such contacts aim to evaluate the US's search for military and intelligence cooperation with actors in the region.

So, the issue is not just about an “airstrike on Iran.”

As far as can be understood, Washington's calculation is this: to deepen the power vacuum it assumes will emerge within Iran through various ethnic and sectarian actors, and then to prepare the ground for a process leading to regime change. Or even, as in the cases of Iraq and Syria, to create autonomous structures that are nominally tied to the central government but are in practice independent, protecting and upholding the interests of the West.

Will the plan at home match the reality in the market?

This is exactly where the trouble begins.

The situation of the Kurds in Iran is one of the most sensitive topics of the issue from a sociological, political, and historical perspective. It is estimated that they make up 10 percent of the approximately 90 million population. Throughout history, their relations with Tehran have followed a fluctuating course.

It is worth remembering that the Mahabad Kurdish Republic, established with Soviet support after the Second World War, came to life on Iranian soil. Its life was short, but it left a mark in memory.

Today, some groups are closely following developments from their bases on the Iraqi border. It is only a matter of time before they take up arms. However, what kind of assurance they have received from the US, or if they have received any at all, remains unknown for now.

The goal is clear: to shake the country's internal security balance, weaken the army's western-facing front, and cut off the breath of the regime in Tehran in the face of US-Israeli pressure.

However, it is also clear that this scenario carries the risk of a major regional conflagration. For border neighbors, especially Turkey, this is a direct national security issue.

In short; the mobilization of elements within Iran should not be seen merely as a matter of internal instability. This development is part of a strategy that has been woven step by step for a long time.

While talking about regional dynamics, let us not overlook the structure that has been supported for years in Syria.

After 2011, in the scene of the civil war, the PYD and its armed wing, the YPG, established areas of control in the environment of chaos. De facto cantons were established on the Iraq-Syria border line; this structure was later transformed into a political and administrative framework under the name Rojava.

There were two main dynamics behind these gains:

First, the US using the YPG as the most effective ground force in the fight against ISIS.

Second, military cooperation generating political legitimacy.

With Washington's support, the YPG gained visibility in the international arena; it established local councils and developed diplomatic contacts.

However, the gains achieved were not permanent.

When the US reconfigured the equation on the ground according to its own interests, the balances changed.

Let us not forget that the US can distance itself today from what it called a “strategic partner” yesterday; this structure was forced to take a step back as the Damascus administration regained control in the northeast.

Nevertheless, the Kurdish presence in Syria has now gained legitimacy both politically and legally.

Let us not forget the Iraq dimension either.

After the US invasion in 2003, as the country was being restructured, a historic opportunity arose for the Kurds. With the 2005 Constitution, they gained constitutional status within the federal structure.

An administration emerged with its own parliament, security forces, and external economic relations. Erbil became a center that, while tied to Baghdad, had its own agenda.

The 2017 independence referendum failed; however, this attempt clearly revealed the goals of the political elite.

When we look at the picture today; we see constitutional status in Iraq, de facto autonomy in Syria, and now a potential internal fracture line in Iran.

Is it a coincidence?

Of course not.

The US's Kurdish policy is not a policy of “friendship”; it is interest-driven. For Washington, the Kurds are geopolitical tools that are deployed to the field when necessary and used as bargaining chips at the table when needed.

This does not mean that the Kurds do not have demands; desires for autonomy, federation, or independence certainly exist. However, the picture that emerges at the point where these demands intersect with the calculations of great powers has often worked in favor of global strategies, not the peoples of the region.

History is full of examples of this.

Rebellions that were supported for a time and then left in the lurch…

Promises that were not kept…

Actors that were used and then cast aside…

There is no different landscape today.

As the US and Israel attack Iran, they are putting the Kurdish card back on the table. Triggering ethnic fault lines, creating pressure on the border line, and weakening Tehran from within...

However, this move directly affects not only Iran but also Turkey, Iraq, and Syria.

Borders in the Middle East were drawn with a ruler. Now that ruler is back on the table.

In conclusion, while the region is being shaken to its foundations today, the Kurds are preparing to take the stage once again within the games of great powers.

They are no longer the subject of the “oppressed people” narrative as presented to the international public; they are seen as the collaborative elements, the “proxy forces” of imperialism that destabilize the Turkey, Syria, and Iraq line, let us conclude our article by saying.