United Kurdistan and a Partitioned Middle East
15 October 2016
By Eyad Abu Shakra
The sudden move by Bashar Al-Assad's regime in the city of Al-Hassakah, north
eastern Syria, was really interesting both in terms of the target chosen and
the timing. The regime has launched air raids against Kurdish militias inside
the city and its environs while there are increasing signs of a scaling down
of tension between Turkey and Iran, specifically after the visit of Mohammad
Jawad Zarif, Iran's foreign minister to Turkey.
Contrary to Washington's silent approval of a 'Greater Kurdistan', it is
obvious that neither Ankara nor Tehran accept such a project; indeed, it is
where their interests converge. In the meantime, since the failed coup
attempts Turkish leaders have been sending ambiguous signs regarding Ankara's
current views on the Assad regime which may be construed as indirect messages
to influential regional players.
This has been taking place while preparations gather pace in Iraq for the
''liberation of Mosul'', against continued confusion surrounding the roles of
the Kurdish Peshmerga and Shi'ite 'People's Mobilisation' militias in the
expected battle for Mosul, the Arab Sunnis' largest city in Iraq. As Prime
Minister Haider Abadi insists on what he regards as the ''right' of the
Shi'ite militia to take part in the fighting despite its blatantly sectarian
crimes in several locations, Kurdish leaders still insist that it is within
the ''right'' of their militia to keep every territory it liberates regardless
of its ethnic composition!
In spite of the much touted 'Neo-cons'' plan of ''Organized Chaos'', there is
no firm proof that George W. Bush was aware of the 'domino effect' in the
Middle East when he ordered the war to topple Saddam Hussein and occupy Iraq.
The same applies to the ''de-Ba'thification'' policies of Paul Bremer, head of
Iraq's 'Occupation Authority' and the 'recipe' prepared by several 'lobbies'
whose diverse aims intersected temporarily to bring down Saddam and destroy
the '1920-2003 Iraq'.
However, what we are witnessing now in Syria and Iraq rules out any excuse
based on ignorance or miscalculations. Strategic politics of superpowers
towards one of the world's most dangerous and sensitive regions, may sometimes
suffer from passing misunderstanding here or bad execution there, but it is
impossible that such an 'erroneous' course continues without change or
reappraisal for 13 years.
Today, with what is left of Barack Obama's presidency we see an Iraq that is
totally different from the pre – 2003 Iraq. We see two almost fully-fledged
Shi'ite and Kurdish entities, the first part and parcel of Iran's strategy of
hegemony in the Middle East, and the second has become the nucleus of a de
facto independent 'national state'. On the other side, the rest of Iraq's
ethno-religious components, led by Sunni Arabs, are losing out. The Sunni
Arabs who were the country's ruling elite between 1920 and 2003 have been
marginalized, demonized and persecuted beginning with Bremer's laws of ''de-Ba'thification''
and ending with Iranian-inspired accusations of harbouring and collaborating
with Al-Qaeda, and later ISIS.
Religious, sectarian and ethnic minorities, sure enough – like all minorities
– suffer most from lengthy instability and civil wars. Thus, the ongoing
struggle between the tools of Iran's sectarian hegemony and nationalist
secessionist Kurds is more than just a ferocious fight over the remains of the
Sunni Arab prey, but rather the coup de grace for Iraq as a country.
Furthermore, even if some ultra-zealot Arab nationalist had for a while –
intentionally or unintentionally – the civilised and tolerant idea of Arabism,
what Iraq is sliding to in the age of the two sectarian and ethnic
'alternatives', during the countdown to the ''liberation of Mosul'', is much
more dangerous, extremist and aggressive.
In Syria too we find ourselves staring at a ''scenario'' that has surely not
materialized by accident. It is impossible that it has been unintentionally
emerged with all the carnage and destruction we see. For those blessed with
good memory, it is worth recalling how the Syrian regime since the reign of
Hafez Al-Assad at the helm of his non-Sunni Ba'th was one of the main
beneficiaries of the attacks targeting Saddam Hussein and his Sunni Ba'th.
Hafez Al-Assad was also an ally of Iran during the Iran – Iraq War
(1980-1988), and his participation in the war to expel Saddam from Kuwait
rewarded him generously by giving him a free hand in Lebanon, where his regime
was the 'nursery' of Hezbollah, Iran's sectarian plant in the region.
Following the occupation of Iraq in 2003, the Syrian regime played a pivotal
role in the Iranian plot to unsettle the Americans, and push them to leave
Iraq to Iran after Washington's valuable gift of bringing down its bitterest
enemy in the region, i.e. Saddam's regime.
Damascus' role, under Al-Assad Jr, was to facilitate the influx of Al Qaeda's
and other extremist fighters across the Syria – Iraq borders to engage
American troops with the intention of pressurising Washington to withdraw them
and hand the then occupied country to Iran. The plot succeeded, and Tehran
through Nuri Maliki, its 'Man in Baghdad' took over the affairs of Iraq. As a
result, the weakened Sunnis were left to choose between two evils: either
Iran's sectarianism and hegemony, or Al Qaeda's, and later ISIS', extremism
with all the resulting suffering and uprooting.
Eventually, in March 2011, when the Syrian people rose against the regime and
its police state, it was expected than Iran would rush to rescue Al-Assad.
What was ironic, however, was that Barack Obama's Washington refused to
support the people's uprising against a regime it has always accused of being
a 'backer and sponsor of terrorism' citing its unwillingness to repeat the
mistake of intervention in Iraq. The fact of the matter, however, is this
refusal to interfere on the side of the Syrian people only consolidated the
results of the ''mistake'' of Bush Jr's policy in Iraq not the contrary!
Subsequently, as if this was not enough, Washington went further in destroying
and burying the Syrian uprising, by encouraging secessionist Kurds, and
letting down Turkey to the extent of forcing it to give in to the vision of
Tehran – Moscow axis, ostensibly because President Obama wants to save and
cement the JCPOA with Iran.
Today, everybody in the Middle East is monitoring what the Kurds are up to.
They are now seeking a unity culminating in a 'Greater Kurdistan' that will
only be created if the region's current entities are undermined and
partitioned.
Given such a 'scenario' Washington can either act to stop this … or wait for
the big explosion!
Eyad Abu Shakra is the managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat. He has been with
the newspaper since 1978.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments