ISIS in the Middle East is growing

[Steken]

Remember what I wrote earlier in this thread about Iran leading its own anti-US coalition? Prof. Cole, citing Al-Zaman (an Iraqi newspaper), now reports that Iran has asked the new Iraqi leadership to join in "an anti-ISIL axis including Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq that would be led by Iran, as an alternative to the US-led coalition proposed by President Barack Obama." According to the newspaper,

al-Abadi was extremely annoyed by the openly anti-Western public pronouncements of Iranian officials and Revolutionary Guards commanders. The whole point of his repeated rejection of foreign ground troops in Iraq the previous day (after a visit to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in the Iraqi holy city of Najaf) was to avoid such criticism from Iran.

Adding to al-Abadi’s headache, Iran is also pissed about his new Sunni minister of defence, who is moving to purge the Iraqi army of pro-Iranian officers, whom he blames for the defeat at Mosul. Oy, vey.

Meanwhile, the Sunnis of Anbar have reached the conclusion that… “Meh, fuck it.” Despite the best efforts of American General John Allen – “officially the US’ Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter IS” – and the mastermind behind that “Awakening” bidniz from way back when - the region’s six most powerful Sunni groups (apart from IS itself) have decided to sit this one out.

“The latest decision was not to support the international alliance against the IS group. But they also decided not to cooperate with IS either,” Mohammed al-Sawbaei, a senior member of the 1920s Revolution Brigades, told NIQASH. “If the army or the militias attack the areas they control though, they will fight both groups.” [A leading figure] explained that groups like his are trapped between two difficult choices: support the IS group, or support the Shiite-led government.

Any good news? Well, the BBC reports that ISIS is retreating from (at least parts of) Kobane. So that’s nice.

[voltaire]

@Steken

Prof. Cole, citing Al-Zaman (an Iraqi newspaper), now reports that Iran has asked the new Iraqi leadership to join in "an anti-ISIL axis including Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq that would be led by Iran

That’s phrased so appropriately - Iran asks Iraq’s new leadership to join their forces, which *already *includes Iraq.

[Steken]

Heh, yeah, sorry about the shitty phrasing there. The way I’m reading it, Iran is proposing a new coalition, which would include Iraq.

[voltaire]

I wasn’t being facetious, I was *actually *admiring that phrasing for it’s accurate portrayal of the power dynamics.

[tagos]

@voltaire

I doubt their calculus is that simple. ISIS may not be an external threat to Turkey, but they obviously see the Kurds as an internal threat. Even before the ISIS-driven exodus of Kurds to Turkey, Kurds made up roughly 25% of Turkey’s population. If ISIS ended up controlling the Syrian and Iraqi borders with Turkey, how many more restless, homeless Kurds would end up in Turkey?

Sure. But Turkey knows how to deal with that. The important thing for them is for there not to be a ‘Kurdistan’ crossing old borders. they are not that happy with Iraqi Kurdistan having the degree of independence it has, except in a ‘lesser of 2 evils’ thing. They don’t want to see that turn to full independence with expansionist tendencies taking it to their border.

Besides - ISIS isn’t a real threat to anyone. It’s just a small army. Its heavy arms and its money can be taken away easily enough. Crazy thought but maybe then we and our fleet-footed, yellow-bellied ‘allies’ should try and not rearm them.

If whatever passes itself for ‘Iraq’ nowadays doesn’t want them taking over then they can try fighting back for a change.

ISIL is not a threat to either the USA or the UK. The people they are a threat to could easily deal with them. They just choose not to so screw them.

[voltaire]

@tagos

Sure. But Turkey knows how to deal with that. The important thing for them is for there not to be a ‘Kurdistan’ crossing old borders. they are not that happy with Iraqi Kurdistan having the degree of independence it has, except in a ‘lesser of 2 evils’ thing. They don’t want to see that turn to full independence with expansionist tendencies taking it to their border.

I’m not so sure that’s Turkey’s true position. If it were, I don’t think they would call for a no-fly/demilitarized zone (largely administered by them, natch) in the Kurdish areas along with the ouster of the Assad regime. Their relationship with the Iraqi Kurds has been improving, and they might see that as an opening to have an honest, constructive broker between them and the rest of the region’s Kurds. If they were completely against an independent Kurdistan in any shape or form, ISTM that they wouldn’t be working with and treating the Iraqi Kurds as already effectively independent, which *hugely *furthers their progress towards that goal.

I think they see some form of independent Kurdistan as inevitable, and they want to be at the table that makes the decisions that affect what shape it takes and where. All their actions and the things they’re calling for seem to be geared towards achieving the best possible independent Kurdistan from a Turkish POV. If it’s inevitable anyway, it’s easy to see how that’s a much better proposition than a messy, hostile independent Kurdistan.

[shikinism]

@voltaire

I’m not so sure that’s Turkey’s true position. If it were, I don’t think they would call for a no-fly/demilitarized zone (largely administered by them, natch) in the Kurdish areas along with the ouster of the Assad regime. Their relationship with the Iraqi Kurds has been improving, and they might see that as an opening to have an honest, constructive broker between them and the rest of the region’s Kurds. If they were completely against an independent Kurdistan in any shape or form, ISTM that they wouldn’t be working with and treating the Iraqi Kurds as already effectively independent, which *hugely *furthers their progress towards that goal.

I think they see some form of independent Kurdistan as inevitable, and they want to be at the table that makes the decisions that affect what shape it takes and where. All their actions and the things they’re calling for seem to be geared towards achieving the best possible independent Kurdistan from a Turkish POV. If it’s inevitable anyway, it’s easy to see how that’s a much better proposition than a messy, hostile independent Kurdistan.

In my opinion turkey is waiting for Kobani to fall because the Kurds will hold it with everything they got but the kurds wouldn’t last without support. However, It will still take a lot of time and ammo for ISIS to take Kobani and that would severely weaken them. The turkish army is already standing by at the border. Once the kurds are dead and ISIS is weak they’ll storm right in. Killing 2 birds with one rock.

[tagos]

@voltaire

I think they see some form of independent Kurdistan as inevitable, and they want to be at the table that makes the decisions that affect what shape it takes and where. All their actions and the things they’re calling for seem to be geared towards achieving the best possible independent Kurdistan from a Turkish POV. If it’s inevitable anyway, it’s easy to see how that’s a much better proposition than a messy, hostile independent Kurdistan.

I don’t think Turkey thinks that at all. As I said - lesser of two evils. In extremis they might reluctantly accept an independent Iraq Kurdistan. That’s very different from it joining with the Syrian part to become a bigger Kurdistan right on the border. The border with the Turkish Kurdish bit of ‘Greater Kurdistan’.

In the end Turkey wants Assad gone and he’s named his price for joining in with fighting ISIS. So long as we’re not willing to pay it Turkey are not going to help deal with the mess we’ve created no matter how much the West wants them to.

[shikinism]

@tagos

I don’t think Turkey thinks that at all. As I said - lesser of two evils. In extremis they might reluctantly accept an independent Iraq Kurdistan. That’s very different from it joining with the Syrian part to become a bigger Kurdistan right on the border. The border with the Turkish Kurdish bit of ‘Greater Kurdistan’.

In the end Turkey wants Assad gone and he’s named his price for joining in with fighting ISIS. So long as we’re not willing to pay it Turkey are not going to help deal with the mess we’ve created no matter how much the West wants them to.

I don’t believe that the turks want an extremist state right next to them. They have enough trouble with the kurds. Even though ISIS says it doesn’t want to attack Turkey, if they succeed in Syria and Iraq its only a matter of time before they do, ISIS is crazy they even want to attack Mecca. There is also the possibility that the turks are waiting for ISIS to take out Assad so that the kurds can’t support Assad after they defeat ISIS.

Turkey asked the West to take 3 specific actions aimed at overthrowing Assad.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made very clear where he stood during a visit to a refugee camp at Gazantep, saying “Kobani is about to fall”. He explained that the Turkish price for rescuing Kobani and acting against Isis would have been three measures aimed, not at Isis, but at displacing President Bashar al-Assad. Mr Erdogan said: “We asked for three things: one, for a no-fly zone to be created; two for a secure zone parallel to the region to be declared; and for the moderate opposition in Syria and Iraq to be trained and equipped.” In effect, he was saying that given a choice between Isis and Assad, he would chose the former.

If they are not willing to help why do they request this?

1. a no- fly zone, maybe because the turks doesn’t want america in the picture.
2. a secure parallel so that the turkish army can make a full offensive without worrying about civilian casualties
3. Militia are being trained so that it lessens turkish casualties

[voltaire]

@tagos

In extremis they might reluctantly accept an independent Iraq Kurdistan. That’s very different from it joining with the Syrian part to become a bigger Kurdistan right on the border. The border with the Turkish Kurdish bit of ‘Greater Kurdistan’.

Now either I’m confused, or you are. The majority Kurdish (and problematic, from their POV) area of Turkey aligns more with their border with Kurdish Iraq (and Iran) than it does with Kurdish Syria. IOW, Kurdish Iraq is smack dab on “the border with the Turkish Kurdish bit of ‘Greater Kurdistan’.”

And any conceivable independent Kurdistan would include *all *of Turkey’s border with Northern Iraq, while it would more or less only include the NE corner of the Syrian border.

ETA: This wiki’s map might provide a better visual aid.

[tagos]

@voltaire

Now either I’m confused, or you are. The majority Kurdish (and problematic, from their POV) area of Turkey aligns more with their border with Kurdish Iraq (and Iran) than it does with Kurdish Syria. IOW, Kurdish Iraq is smack dab on “the border with the Turkish Kurdish bit of ‘Greater Kurdistan’.”

And any conceivable independent Kurdistan would include *all *of Turkey’s border with Northern Iraq, while it would more or less only include the NE corner of the Syrian border.

ETA: This wiki’s map might provide a better visual aid.

The Kurdish town under seige is just across the border. That’s the whole problem at the moment. The Turks really want the Kurdish Nationalist genie put back in the bottle but they also want Assad and ISIS gone.

Greater Kurdistan is pretty big and includes parts of Turkey. Once the genie is out that’s what is in the back of his mind. That’s why no-one has backed Kurdish demands for an independent state. There’s too much of Greater Kurdistan in Iran, Turkey, Syria and points north.

sure - some politicians might agree among themselves that an independent Kurdistan has subscribed borders but we all know that’s not how the nationalist genie swings. Especially in this volatile part of the world.

[voltaire]

@tagos

The Kurdish town under seige is just across the border. ** That’s the whole problem at the moment.** The Turks really want the Kurdish Nationalist genie put back in the bottle but they also want Assad and ISIS gone.

Greater Kurdistan is pretty big and includes parts of Turkey. Once the genie is out that’s what is in the back of his mind. That’s why no-one has backed Kurdish demands for an independent state. There’s too much of Greater Kurdistan in Iran, Turkey, Syria and points north.

sure - some politicians might agree among themselves that an independent Kurdistan has subscribed borders but we all know that’s not how the nationalist genie swings. Especially in this volatile part of the world.

All obviously true, except the bolded part (don’t we wish!), but mostly besides the point. The point is that Turkey has * already *been effectively furthering the independence of the Iraqi Kurds very significantly, and Kurdish Iraq makes up the whole Iraqi border, which is right in the heart of Kurdish Turkey. Their warming relationship signals a potentially pretty significant change of course regarding an independent Kurdistan, which yeah, they probably wouldn’t be doing if they didn’t see it as inevitable anyway.

[voltaire]

If you missed it last night, Frontline’s The Rise of ISIS makes for a good companion piece to this thread. (Link is to the full program, though you may have to be in a market served by PBS in order to view it - I’m not sure.)

[tagos]

@voltaire

All obviously true, except the bolded part (don’t we wish!), but mostly besides the point. The point is that Turkey has * already *been effectively furthering the independence of the Iraqi Kurds very significantly, and Kurdish Iraq makes up the whole Iraqi border, which is right in the heart of Kurdish Turkey. Their warming relationship signals a potentially pretty significant change of course regarding an independent Kurdistan, which yeah, they probably wouldn’t be doing if they didn’t see it as inevitable anyway.

Turkey isn’t furthering an independent Kurdistan. At best it’s fostering a dependent client state. as a fall back position.

Relations with those neighbours are fraught. To the west, Iraqi Kurdistan faces the flames of Syria’s civil war. To the east lies Iran which, wary of the ambitions of its own Kurds, opposes independence. To the south, the frayed relationship with Baghdad is worsening as the central and regional governments exchange inflammatory rhetoric.
Kurdistan could find that its only outlet is its powerful foe-turned-business partner in the north, Turkey. “We’re surrounded by sharks,” said one government official who asked not to be named. “Independence means tying ourselves to Turkey – the biggest shark in the neighbourhood.”

Bilal Wahab, a lecturer at the American University of Iraq in the Kurdish city of Suleimanieh, says Turkey would also depend on Kurdistan, for the gas Ankara wants to lessen its reliance on Russia. But Turkey would dominate the relationship. “You cannot argue the case of a politically independent Kurdistan when its economy is 100 per cent dependent on Turkey – or any other country 10 times [its] size,” he says.

Who knows - the game being played in some turkish heads could be Greater Turkey not Greater Kurdistan.

[voltaire]

@tagos

Turkey isn’t furthering an independent Kurdistan. At best it’s fostering a dependent client state. as a fall back position.

Who knows - the game being played in some turkish heads could be Greater Turkey not Greater Kurdistan.

And that’s along the lines of what I’ve been trying to point out. Of course Turkey isn’t acting selflessly when they do things that help the Iraqi Kurds. At best they see a potential symbiotic relationship and they’re going to do everything they can to make sure they get maximum benefit from such a relationship. But that’s how these things work, and if they’re smart about it, both sides can achieve a net benefit from that relationship.

If they’re not smart about it, well, more of the same where everybody loses.