The Kurdish Dilemma
Filed under: Israel — qwertster @ 1:49 AM
Tags: Arab, Genocidal War, Iran, Iraq, Islamic State, Israel, Kurds, NATO, Ottoman Empire, President Erdogan, President Trump, Syria, Turkey, United States
History will judge and rejudge President Trump's move to pull American forces out of the Kurdish region of northern Syria allowing a Turkish invasion. This move by the President is likely traceable to his main weakness, taking leaders of other nations at their word. In the situation with the Kurds, the word of Turkish President Erdoğan stating that he was merely going to keep the Islamic State and other terrorists from making bases and a home in Syria and leaving civilian Syrians at peace is worthless. President Trump and his advisors should know from history that President Erdoğan considers all Kurds to be terrorists. Further, they should have researched and found where Erdoğan claimed to be leading the reestablishment of the Ottoman Empire and desires absorbing Syria as far as Aleppo and Iraq all the way through Mosul and the Mosul oil fields. This would also place almost all the remaining Kurds outside of Turkey within the enlarged Turkey and thus facing genocidal efforts. We had discussed and revealed Erdoğan's plans back on April 25, 2017, in our article Turkey Has a New Caliph Called THE President complete with a map of the Greater Turkey he envisions. We understood that the argument favoring Erdoğan's expansionist plans was the fact that Turkey is a NATO member state and thus the United States is obliged to militarily support Turkey against perceived threats. If that is what NATO demands, then this we elucidated upon in our January 25, 2018, article, Time for United States or Turkey to Leave NATO. We discussed and proposed establishing Kurdistan numerous times including here, here and here. These should stand as providing a solid background and so now on to the current set of events.
We understand that President Trump promised on the campaign trail to disengage from all the Middle East squabbling and specifically the Arab on Arab fighting. This promise was his direct reference when announcing the pullout of American forces from the Kurdish regions of Syria and probably will soon be followed by the same in Iraq if our premises prove accurate. There are a few intractable facts which make the situation with the Kurds different and separate from President Trump's campaign promise. The Kurds are amongst the very few peoples who refused to Arabize and thereby have kept much of their culture, kept their language and have distinct practices and are not uniformly following the Arab or Islamic dictates which have influenced most of the cultures which the Arabs have absorbed and destroyed. The Kurdish tribes include a large minority of Christians who the Islamic State had trapped and were set to annihilate them. These were the Yazidis of whom we spoke during our article of November 13, 2016, titled Erdogan Declares Border War on European Union, where the world, United States and her State Department included, ignored the plight of these largely unarmed civilians trapped on a mountain where ISIS promised to slaughter the men and use the women as they pleased. The Kurds of northern Iraq and Syria came to the rescue and pulled a majority of the Yazidis to safety. This is not an Arab on Arab fight but a Turk vs, Kurd war. We agree with President Trump when he complains that these wars between MENA tribes have been going on for centuries and the United States has fought in a few too many. We understand his not wanting to be dragged into another MENA conflict. We will even go so far as to understand his premise that the Kurds have received aid moneys, arms, training and support from the United States and it is time for them to stand on their own and emulate Israel, the one MENA nation to never have foreign troops defending them from her enemies. This begs one simple set of questions; can the Kurds be equated with the Israelis, does the United States owe the Kurds protections, and lastly, is there some means by which the United States can prevent a genocidal war by Turkey against the Kurds. We will take them one at a time.
Can the Kurds be equated with Israel? Actually, this is possible in a plethora of means. The first concerns statehood. When the Iraqi Kurds held their referendum and of those polled over 75% desired their declaring their independence, this was where the United States could have assisted the Kurds greatly. Instead, the State Department insisted that the United States would not provide them with support or even recognition as a new country insisting that this was not a good time for such a declaration. The State Department promised to let the Kurds know when it would be convenient. Read the top of this paragraph and instead of Kurds or Kurdish, replace it with Israel and Jewish and you have the reaction of the State Department to Israeli declaration of independence in May of 1948. Yes, President Truman recognized Israel and then the American government slapped an arms embargo on the entire region. As the Soviets were arming the Arabs, this embargo really only affected Israel. With the Kurds you have a heavily armed with American weapons Turkish military, one of the largest and presumed best armies in the world ranking within the top ten and the Kurdish militias who have limited armor and no air cover. Israel had far less equipped armies when the several Arab states augmented by militias attacking her on the very first morning of her existence. Israel received a fair amount of military aid from Czechoslovakia who sold Israel most of the arms remaining within their borders from the several armies of World War II. This aid included some armor and aircraft. The aid granted the Kurds had largely not included armor and had never included aircraft and minimal artillery. Any war between Turkey and the Kurds of either northern Syria or Iraq would be similar to Godzilla vs. Bambi. Israel was very fortunate to not be crushed in the 1948 Arab war to annihilate the Jewish State at her birth. Many feel it was nothing short of a miracle. Should the Kurds manage to throw off any Turkish attack, that too would be a miracle.
Next, we ask, does the United States owe the Kurds protections? The answer in realpolitik is an abrupt, "No!" According to realpolitik, no nation ever really owes another country or group anything just because they faced a common foe together. Britain used the animosity existing between Spain and France to their advantage by backing the weaker of the two turning the tables on the more powerful nation. When such a war ended, and during the lead-up to the next bout between France and Spain, Britain often was required to change sides as the other was not the weaker of the two. Britain never felt any debt to their last ally as for them, it was about preventing either France or Spain from becoming strong enough to challenge Britain. The United States never felt any debt to France for their aid in the Revolutionary War against Britain thus when the French Revolution erupted, the United States simply watched officially from the other side of the pond. If any nation has shown to be out of character and actually shown allegiance to former allies, that has been the United States who gives preference to things European, and particularly British. So, in the real-world of everyone out for number one, the United States does not actually owe the Kurds anything as they were fighting a common foe which the Kurds would have been required to face with or without any assist from the United States. This was proven when the Kurds went to the aid of the Yazidis and the world twiddled their thumbs.
And lastly, is there some means by which the United States can prevent a genocidal war by Turkey against the Kurds? The answer is that there is a means by which the United States can assist the Kurds, and not all of them require the use of any military force. Probably the most obvious would be for the United States to pressure Turkey such that they decide that it is not worth the sacrifice just to attack the Kurds of Syria and probably Iraq after them. President Trump honestly believes that economic threats and potential sanctions will be sufficient to persuade President Erdoğan to largely remain within his borders. One only need look at the collapsing economy and currency of Turkey to realize that Erdoğan does not care about these things anywhere near as much as he desires to reestablish the Ottoman Empire, or at least taking the initial steps, which he defines as taking northern Syria and Iraq south to Aleppo and Mosul along with the oil fields and the elimination of the Kurds. One would not be unfair to expect Turkey to follow up with the elimination of the Kurds within their current borders. They have carried out such attacks previously. The United States, had the Kurds been of any real importance, could have aided them far more greatly by aiding their declaring independence at least from Iraq after the resolution for independence. There are two means by which America could back their former allied Kurds at this late date. The first would be to threaten to remove Turkey from NATO, something which should have been done over a decade past. The other would be to provide air cover for the Kurds against Turkish air power which the Kurds have no ability to fight alone. This could be provided by providing them with anti-aircraft missiles, namely MANPADS. The other would be using American air-power to prevent Turkish raids on Kurdish villages, something we predict will soon be part of the Turkish offensive. Without such aid, the Kurds will prove to be sitting ducks falling victim to Turkish air attacks aiding their military thrusts into northern Syria and probably northern Iraq soon thereafter. President Erdoğan was completely serious when he claimed to be the new leader of the reestablished Ottoman Empire and his desire to capture Aleppo and Mosul.
Shiite Crescent including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Iran
Could there be a bright side to the presumed coming Turkish assault on northern Syria and Iraq? Yes, there is one positive in that Turkey will become a threat to the Iranians establishing their Shiite Crescent pictured above connecting Iran with the Mediterranean and placing them on the borders of Israel. The downside would be a conflict between Iran and Turkey which would bathe the entire region in blood. Such a conflict would greatly weaken one side while likely eliminating the military ability of the other. In case of a war between Iran and Turkey, the United States can expect to be drawn into a far more costly war in the Middle East as Turkey could call upon NATO to aid in any conflict with Iran. Should NATO members agree to intervene, their decision would mean that most of the fighting would be conducted by the United States with perhaps moral support from the remainder of NATO. American air power should be used either as a threat or, should it be necessary, as a hammer to crush any ability for the genocidal assault on the Kurds. Still, much of the problem the Kurds currently face comes down to two main factors. The first is the Kurds not following through and establishing their own nation of Kurdistan and the second the inability for the Syrian Kurds and Iraqi Kurds from being able to join together and form a political entity which both could endure. There are strong differences in their political outlooks with one favoring a democratic rule and the other a socialist government under a strong leadership. The coming conflagration between the Kurds and Erdoğan's Turkey could result in a far greater conflict between Iran and Turkey which will result in a great loss of life and far reaching destruction. Such a conflict could result in one side initiating the use of nuclear weapons. We have stated often our expectation that Iran already had dozens of nuclear weapons and possibly a number of thermonuclear weapons while Turkey had a sharing agreement with NATO should they face nuclear attacks to utilize in their response, NATO willing. Should an Iran-Turkey war turn to nuclear weapons, it will be unavoidable for NATO to remain neutral as Turkey would most likely be the one attacked with such weapons which obligates the intervention of NATO and thus the United States. Such an escalation could pull Russia, amongst others, into the fray leading to escalation after escalation with nobody knowing what would be the end result.
President Trump Mishandles Turkey and Iran
Tags: Iran, Islam, Kurds, middle east, NATO, President Erdogan, President Trump, Sanctions, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United States
Turkish President Erdoğan demanded that the United States move out of his forces way, enabling attacks upon the Kurdish regions in Syria and potentially beyond into Iraq. These were the Kurdish allies in the war against the Islamic State working with American advisors and air support. One would pray that President Trump would stand his ground and deny President Erdoğan's demands and protect the Kurds who were there against Islamic State with the United States. Instead, President Trump once more showed his excessive reluctance to use any form of force if he can avoid any fighting. President Trump assured Erdoğan that the American forces would be removed enabling his assault on the apparently former American ally Kurds in northern Syria. It was back in last January that President Trump threatened to "devastate Turkey economically" should Turkey attacked the Kurdish forces. At that time, Erdoğan agreed to set up a safe zone where Kurdish forces and civilians would be safe from any Turkish attacks. Instead, Erdoğan plans to use the idea of a safe zone to eradicate the Kurds along the entirety of the southern Turkish border into Syria. We believe that Turkey will be absorbing these lands into Turkey to make good on former Erdoğan promises. Apparently, that agreement is no longer accepted by President Erdoğan as he now desires to attack the Kurds in Syria probably taking over Aleppo if possible and not stopped. The actual reason for these attacks is simply the Turkish leadership regard the Kurds as an enmity and scourge which Turkey insist must be eradicated.
President Erdoğan and President Trump
This is simply another all too obvious example that President Trump apparently lacks the intestinal fortitude to take on a fight which can be easily avoided with minimal blowback. Within the United States the bringing of military forces home is often met with great support. This time will be little different simply because the average American, J.Q. Public has little if any knowledge about who the Kurds are, where they reside and probably have forgotten the assistance by the Kurds in the fight with the Islamic State. Most are also unaware that much of the Turkish claims to be fighting the Islamic State (or ISIS) were more often than not fighting Kurdish regions where they killed fighters and civilians alike. One reason which may be forcing this decision by President Trump is since Turkey is a NATO ally, they may have used this alliance when insisting the United States desert the region under Kurdish rule and allow Turkey to do as they please. We predicted just such scenario where allowing Turkey to remain in NATO would force the United States to take on or desert a fight so their NATO ally Turkey could operate as they pleased. Still, President Trump has sent the message that he desires avoiding conflict and depending upon economic and social pressures to influence friend and foe alike.
Previous stories made President Trump's avoidance of taking military action evident and in one case to an adversary in the Middle East. These have not been major stories as there have yet to be any direct repercussions from any of these actions. There was the rumored heated argument between the two men over use of force against Iran. When President Trump and John Bolton parted ways, the Iranian reaction was it simply proved that President Trump was too reluctant to defend anything if it required the use of military force. The Iranians had this idea reinforced when President Trump launched attack air craft after Iran had shot down an expensive United States drone presumably in international airspace and then cancelled the attack calling the aircraft back. This simply further emboldened the Iranians as they believe that Trump will always run and hide rather than actually use force and hold the line. We believe that with President Trump having a strong economic background has assumed a false concept, that everyone is concerned with finances and that this makes them vulnerable to economic pressures. Iran has proven repeatedly over time when sanctions have been placed upon them, they actually do not react as if it really matters until the situation shows signs of becoming volatile within Iran.
Because of this reliance on economic pressure to alter Iranian actions, President Trump has relied on ratcheting up sanctions despite their showing absolutely very little effect beyond Iran making false moves in attempts to hide their nuclear activities. But after realizing that President Trump would only use economic pressure and avoid any military actions, they have begun flaunting their breaking of the limits of the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) testing the European signatories who also refused to take any actions beyond threatening to act. President Trump has all but ignored the Iranian actions as if after placing more severe sanctions would eventually show progress in persuading Iran to forgo their nuclear weapons research. Meanwhile, as the Mullahs and other Islamist elites are eating well and living large, the Iranian unemployment is spiking, the economy is hurting from the sanctions and the Iranian Rial has crashed forcing prices higher as inflation sets in. The rulers in Iran have shown little concern for the problems their people are suffering because under their Islamic rule, only the desired end result matters and that is the total destruction of the United States, Saudi Arabia, Israel and eventually world conquest spreading Shia Islam to the entire world while maximizing violence and destruction in order to force the return of their messiah. Economic concerns are secondary to their religious commitment to spreading Shia Islam making it the only religion on Earth.
The possibility that President Trump will rely solely on economic pressures and avoid any military confrontation even with Iran will leave Iran free to spread their terror and control even further. Iran is already active in Yemen, Syria and Iraq and intending to continue these efforts against Saudi Arabia from within Yemen while threatening Israel using their proxy forces of the IRGC and Hezballah. Iran is also spreading their influence using terrorist forces largely in the Middle East but the real question is where does Iran plan on stopping their warfare. The truth is there is no conquest which would satisfy the Mullahs who honestly believe that Shia Islam will become the only true and allowed religion if they simply continue to follow their interpretation of the Quran. Their religious philosophy is based on the spread of Islam, for them Shia Islam as they consider Sunni Islam as a heretical cult despite ninety-percent of Muslims being Sunni and merely ten-percent being Shia. Their intent is to convert all Sunni Muslims to the real form of Islam, Shiite Islam. After this has been accomplished and they have also conquered all the oil assets in the Middle East, the Iranian leadership is convinced that with time their efforts will succeed in conquering the rest of the world replacing all other religions. Such beliefs allow for the true believers to suffer any hardships as all is reasonable in the pursuit of the promised end results if they simply continue on through all challenges. The leadership in Iran believe that they were chosen by Allah to spread his religion to the whole world. Their belief goes far beyond the world known by Muhammad as it includes the Americas and other lands unknown in his times. Western powers and governments need to address the Islamic threats which have been pressing to establish beachheads within Europe and the Americas. This is currently being pressed by two competing factions, the Iranians and Shia Islam versus the Muslim Brotherhood and Sunni Islam. Some of these efforts have been financed by Qatar backing the Muslim Brotherhood. Such efforts have to be either opposed even if force is required or surrendered to surrendering all free will, specifically religious freedom as under such a world all will be expected to live under totalitarian rule which demands complete compliance under pain of torture or death. That is the reality even if much of the Western world refuses to believe such thinking still exists today.
Time to Impeach President Trump and Other Tall Tales
Tags: claims, Facts, Hamas, Impeachment, Islamic State, Israel, President Hassan Rouhani, President Trump, Syria, Terrorism, United Nations, United States, Weapons
Apparently, the Democrat leadership has decided that the time has come to start impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump. This intent was announced on Tuesday by Nancy Pelosi with the below announcement at a press conference.
"Today, I'm announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I'm directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella."
"For the past several months we have been investigating in our committees and litigating in the courts so the House can gather all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise its full Article 1 power, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity, approval of articles of impeachment."
"Our republic endures because of the wisdom of our constitution enshrined in three coequal branches that act as checks and balances. The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law."
We noted that the wording of Ms. Pelosi's announcement had a glaring omission, namely what the actual charges are for which an impeachment is necessary and the exact charges which will be passed on to the Senate for trial. Instead, we have the urging of their efforts to continue with investigating President Trump stating, "I'm directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella." Her pronouncement continues stating, "For the past several months we have been investigating in our committees and litigating in the courts so the House can gather all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise its full Article 1 power…" Then came the big finally to close her statement with an unarguable fact that, "The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law." Well, actually nobody is above the law, including the President, that is most definitely true. In her full statement, the video above, she states that the offense was the President instructing one of his appointees to keep a whistleblower's complaint. This is the latest smoking gun, what a whistleblower claims without having even heard the claims, as they must mean that he colluded with a foreign power to act in a manner which would "make the President look better."
This sounds so ominous except that any time a foreign leader meets with a United States President, any actions resulting from such a meeting which follow what the President desires are actions which will make them look good. Problematically, President Trump is overly concerned with appearing to act strongly and thus looking good in the eyes of his supporters and beyond if possible. Should the American people be concerned that the President used a phrase that doing what was in the service of the United States and its goals would "make him look good" is applying pressure on the foreign leader to attain a goal. This is, of course, presuming that one would desire having the President look good or if you would prefer for him to fail and fail so miserably that he would lose any and all support and especially the 2020 elections. We will allow our readers to decide which is preferable, a President seeking to appear powerful and competent or a President preferring to meekness and appeasing others even when such would not be to the advantage of the United States and the American people.
President Trump and Speaker Pelosi and Impeachment
But the impeachment announcement was not the worst twisting of available facts as that award has to go to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. He used the known fact that Israel treats a host of people without asking their specifics and only judges their wounds and the best means for treatment. Israel has provided care and hospital stays, numerous ones also requiring surgical procedures, and after they are recovered, they are returned to Syria and no weapons are provided. From these Israeli actions he concludes that Israel is aiding the Islamic State through intentional actions. President Hassan Rouhani uses another claim that the Islamic State fighters/terrorists use some Israeli weapons. From the pictures and reports we have read; they use numerous countries weapons as they are able to gain these weapons. Probably their most frequently arming is with an AK-47. I guess this means that President Hassan Rouhani should also claim that Russia, China, Czechoslovakia or any of the plethora of other nations producing this widely utilized weapon are also actively arming Islamic State. Then there are the stores of equipment left in Iraq by the United States which fell into Islamic State forces means that the Americans are arming them. No, we all know that this finely crafted series of exaggerations were intended to harm Israel and, as this was during an interview with Fox News, to place doubts and suspicions within the American public about Israel and, by extension, Jews. His statements were just another of the long list of Iranian political attacks on Israel.
The problem is that Israel performs and provides aid to countries across the globe on a basis of need and receiving the permission of the receiving nation. Israel does such without any regard to politics. This becomes evident when one researches such activities and then looks at the United Nations General Assembly votes by these nations and the majority condemn Israel at every turn. The fact that Israel was one of the first to arrive and likely the last to leave after some natural or other disaster does not influence their voting at the world body. Did Israel assisting the Philippines after a major typhoon mean that they are assisting the rebel forces on Mindanao or possibly the Philippine forces engaging these rebels or are we allowed to choose whichever would be most damning to the audience which would mostly hear such claims? Israel came and treated the wounded in the Philippines after one of the most violent typhoons to hit land and they did not ask about the patient's politics or other possible affiliations which might put Israel in a poor light. When people are injured by war, weather or other catastrophic accident and Israel can assist to save lives, then Israel will act to save lives, all lives. Israel has, as we have pointed out before, treated a Hamas leaders' mother-in-law and daughter, yet Israel most definitely does not support Hamas. They were ill, Israel could treat them and was requested to do so and thus provided them with treatment as required. President Rouhani's claim is tantamount to claiming an American hospital supports criminals because they treated a person injured while under arrest; in other worlds, simply ludicrous.
Of course, Israel has gotten too used to such claims and seldom gives them any more consideration than they are worth. Unfortunately, these claims from over the years have become so frequent and damning that some have begun to fall for this kind of propaganda. What is more worrying is with the rising anti-Semitism worldwide, more and more people will fall for this form of reason and some happily will spread such claims without any explanation. They would take the statements by President Rouhani and spread simply that Israel assists and arms the Islamic State. This is a blatant misuse of Israeli activities of treating those, largely civilians, injured from the ongoing civil war in Syria. Israel does not check identities before treating these victims and only is concerned with making them whole again or as close as is medically possible. But President Rouhani also claimed that Israel has conducted terrorist attacks on Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. If one defines striking weapons supply routes intended to provide Hezballah and IRGC forces which regularly target Israel as terrorism, then Israel would be guilty. But international law regards intercepting such arms shipments as a form of proactive defense and regards them as completely legal. But one should wonder how Iran is so familiar with these strikes and what they took out. That is an easy one to answer. These shipments originate in Iran and are Iranian weapons intended for their proxies to attack Israel. But in this topsy-turvy world in which we live, Israel intercepting heavy-weapons on their way to terrorist operatives such as Hezbollah is called Israeli aggression or terrorism by her Arab and Islamic detractors for a simple reason, they desire her destruction and will stop at nothing to accomplish same.
We wish we could say that things appear as if they will improve with time, but we fear that Israel may face the impossible within the next decade and a half. The reality is that with Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister of Britain and potentially an anti-Israel President unhindered by Congress, and possibly supported by Congress, in the White House, Israel could be facing a United Nations Security Council without any veto protecting her from the worst intentions which may result. Perhaps Israel could work with Russia or China to find a new means for her protection, but just what Netanyahu would need is a Russian collusion investigation of his own. Fortunately, in the long run Israel will be vindicated and shall become a light unto the nations and the world will realize at long last that Israel is an asset for mankind, not an adversary.