هل سيفعل الأزرق الأزرق الصقر مرة أخرى؟   

لماذا الأكراد أصدقاء أمريكا في الشرق الأوسط 

————————————————————————————————— 

​Why the Kurds Are America’s Friends in the Middle East. TL;DR. Kurdish Significance: The Kurds, numbering 30-45 million, are one of the largest stateless ethnic groups, spanning Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Their fight against ISIS and push for regional stability has made them crucial allies for the U.S. in the Middle East.. U.S.-Kurdish Relations: The U.S. has worked with the Kurds during key conflicts, from the Gulf War to the battle against ISIS. However, the relationship is inconsistent, with notable withdrawals of U.S. support, such as in Syria in 2019, leaving Kurds vulnerable to Turkish aggression.. Strategic and Economic Importance: Kurdish regions are rich in oil and gas, making them economically pivotal. Their governance, emphasizing democracy and rights, aligns with U.S. values, but their aspirations for autonomy are met with resistance from regional powers like Turkey and Iran.. Challenges and Future: U.S. support is often tempered by Turkey’s hostility toward Kurdish autonomy and broader geopolitical concerns. Strengthening ties requires the U.S. to advocate for Kurdish rights, provide military and economic aid, and navigate regional complexities.. Outlook: The Kurds remain vital to U.S. interests in counter-terrorism and stability, but whether the U.S. will maintain consistent support or repeat past patterns of abandonment remains uncertain, particularly under shifting U.S. administrations.. GeopoliticsUnplugged Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.. And now the Deep Dive…. Introduction. The Kurdish people, numbering between 30 to 45 million, are spread across a region known as Kurdistan, which spans parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. As one of the largest ethnic groups in the Middle East without a nation-state, they have played a significant role in the geopolitics of the area. Their strategic location in the mountainous regions has made them key players in regional security dynamics, particularly in the fight against terrorism and in stabilizing volatile areas like those previously controlled by ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Their efforts have not only contributed to dismantling terrorist strongholds but also in maintaining a semblance of peace and democracy in regions fraught with conflict, making them an important ally for any power seeking influence or stability in the Middle East.. Historically, the relationship between the United States and the Kurds has been fraught with complexities. The U.S. first engaged with the Kurds during the Cold War, where they were seen as a counterweight to Soviet influence in the region through Iraq. This relationship saw significant development during the Gulf War in 1991 when the U.S. established a no-fly zone over northern Iraq to protect Kurds from Saddam Hussein’s forces, leading to the creation of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq. The collaboration intensified with the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, where Kurdish forces, the Peshmerga, were instrumental allies in ousting Saddam and later in the fight against ISIS, further solidifying their military and political ties with the U.S. However, this relationship has been marked by instances where the U.S. has withdrawn support, most notably in 2017 when the U.S. did not support the Kurdish independence referendum in Iraq, and in 2019 when it pulled back from northern Syria, leading to Turkish incursions against Kurdish forces.. Despite these ups and downs, the thesis that the Kurds have been reliable and strategic allies to the U.S. holds true. They have consistently fought alongside American forces against common enemies, particularly against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria, showcasing their commitment to shared goals like counter-terrorism and regional stability. The Kurds share values with the U.S., particularly in their aspirations for democracy, autonomy, and rights protection, which aligns with American ideals. However, the U.S. has not always been a steadfast protector or supporter when the Kurds faced threats from regional powers like Turkey or when they sought greater autonomy or independence. This pattern of engagement and abandonment has led to a complex dynamic where trust is continually tested, yet the strategic importance of the Kurds in the Middle East keeps drawing the U.S. back to them, highlighting both the potential and the pitfalls of this alliance.. Who Are the Kurds?. The Kurds are an ethnic group indigenous to a region known as Kurdistan, which encompasses parts of several countries: primarily Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran. This area stretches across the mountainous terrain of the Zagros and Taurus ranges, providing a natural fortress that has shaped much of their cultural and political identity. The Kurdish population is estimated to be between 30 to 45 million, making them one of the largest stateless nations in the world. Their language, Kurdish, has several dialects with Kurmanji and Sorani being the most widely spoken. Culturally, the Kurds are distinct, with their own traditions, music, and literature, often centered around themes of resilience and the longing for a homeland where they can practice their culture freely.. Historically, the Kurds have struggled for independence and recognition as a sovereign entity. After World War I, the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 promised them autonomy, but this was nullified by the subsequent Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which carved up Kurdistan among the newly formed or reformed states. This set a precedent for the marginalization by regional governments, where Kurds faced systemic discrimination, cultural suppression, and violent crackdowns on any movements towards independence or even greater autonomy. In Iraq, the Kurds have faced particularly harsh treatment under various regimes, notably under Saddam Hussein, who used chemical weapons in the Halabja massacre in 1988. The fall of Saddam’s regime in 2003 brought a semblance of hope with the establishment of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in northern Iraq, but the dream of full independence remains elusive, as evidenced by the failed 2017 independence referendum that led to international and regional backlash.. The relationship with the United States has been a rollercoaster of commitment and abandonment. During the Iran-Iraq War and the subsequent Gulf War, the U.S. supported the Kurds to counterbalance Saddam Hussein’s power, establishing a no-fly zone in 1991 that protected Kurdish areas from Iraqi military actions. This period marked a significant U.S. involvement in Kurdish affairs, fostering hope for a sustainable partnership. However, post-Saddam, the U.S. has shown inconsistent support. After the 2003 invasion, while the Kurds were crucial allies, the U.S. did not support their push for independence, prioritizing Iraq’s unity. The most poignant example of U.S. withdrawal came in 2019 when American forces unexpectedly pulled back from northern Syria, leaving Kurdish fighters vulnerable to Turkish attacks. This pattern of engagement and then retreat has left a legacy of skepticism among the Kurds towards the reliability of international allies, particularly the U.S., in their quest for recognition and security.. (Pictured above: The flag of Kurdistan). Shared Values and Interests. The Kurds share a profound commitment to democratic principles which aligns closely with American values, especially when viewed against the backdrop of the often authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. In Iraq, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) stands as a beacon of relatively stable democratic governance, particularly since its formation in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War. The KRG has held regular elections, maintained a multi-party system, and engaged in a legislative process that includes broad representation. This commitment extends to their governance in regions like Rojava in Syria, where despite ongoing conflict, local councils and a form of direct democracy have been implemented. This region also puts a significant emphasis on secularism and gender equality, with policies that promote women’s participation in politics and society at large, which is notably progressive in a region where such values are often challenged.. In terms of fighting extremism, the Kurds have been at the forefront of battling Islamic State (ISIS) forces, particularly in Iraq and Syria. Kurdish fighters, notably the Peshmerga in Iraq and the People’s Protection Units (YPG) in Syria, played pivotal roles in preventing ISIS from achieving further territorial gains and were instrumental in the liberation of cities like Kobani and Raqqa. Their resistance not only halted the advance of extremism but also helped in dismantling ISIS’s territorial control, which had significant implications for global security. This battle against extremism has been a clear area where U.S. and Kurdish interests converge. The United States has provided military support, including air strikes, training, and weaponry, to these Kurdish forces, recognizing their effectiveness and shared goal in counter-terrorism. This cooperation has not only been strategic but has also fostered a bond based on mutual respect and shared sacrifices in the fight against a common enemy. However, the relationship has been tested by geopolitical complexities, particularly with Turkey viewing Kurdish gains in Syria as a threat, leading to U.S. policy shifts that sometimes left the Kurds exposed. Despite these challenges, the Kurdish commitment to democracy and their frontline role in fighting extremism underscore a deep-rooted alignment with core U.S. interests in promoting stability and democratic governance in the region.. (Pictured above: Kurdish-led militiamen ride atop military vehicles 17 October 2017 as they celebrate victory over the Islamic State in Raqqa, Syria. (Photo by Erik De Castro, Reuters)). Oil and Natural Resources. The Kurdistan region, particularly in Iraq, is notably endowed with substantial oil and natural gas reserves, which have a significant impact on both its local economy and international politics. The area is estimated to hold around 45 billion barrels of oil, which, if Kurdistan were an independent nation, would rank it among the top ten countries for oil reserves globally. This wealth is concentrated in several key fields. For instance, the Taq Taq, Khurmala, and Shaikan fields are among the most prominent, with Shaikan alone believed to have over 14 billion barrels of oil in place at one point, although later assessments adjusted these figures downward. Additionally, the region’s potential for natural gas is vast, with estimates of 25 trillion cubic feet of proven reserves and up to 198 trillion cubic feet of largely unproven gas deposits.. The economic implications of these resources are profound. Since the early 2000s, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has attracted international oil companies from around the globe, including major players like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Total, who have invested billions in exploration and development. This influx of foreign investment has led to a boom in oil production, which increased from around 75,000 barrels per day in 2011 to over 400,000 barrels per day by 2019, though production has seen fluctuations due to political disputes, pipeline closures, and the global oil market’s volatility. The KRG has also been developing infrastructure like the Khurmala-Fish Khabur pipeline to export oil, although this has been met with significant resistance from Baghdad over control of oil revenues and export rights.. However, the richness of these resources has also been a double-edged sword, fueling ongoing tensions between the KRG and the Iraqi central government. The Iraqi constitution stipulates that oil and gas are federal resources, yet the KRG has passed its own oil and gas laws, leading to legal and political conflicts. Baghdad has at times withheld budget allocations from Kurdistan, arguing over the legitimacy of independent Kurdish oil exports. This tension climaxed with the closure of the Iraq-Turkey pipeline in 2023 following an arbitration ruling, severely impacting Kurdish oil exports and revenues. Moreover, the region’s natural gas, particularly from fields like Khor Mor, has been critical for local power generation, but the development of this sector is challenged by security issues and the need for extensive infrastructure investment beyond what has been accomplished.. The strategic value of these resources extends beyond economics into geopolitics. The control and export of oil have been pivotal in the Kurdish quest for greater autonomy or independence, providing both leverage and a central point of contention with neighboring states and the Iraqi government. The presence of such resources makes Kurdistan a focal point for international energy interests but also a target for regional powers wary of Kurdish independence, complicating the Kurds’ political and economic landscape. Thus, while oil and gas offer economic potential, they also entangle Kurdistan in a complex web of international relations and internal Iraqi politics.. Strategic Importance of the Kurds. The Kurds play a critical role in regional stability, particularly in the volatile areas of Iraq and Syria. Their military forces, including the Peshmerga in Iraq and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Syria, have proven to be effective in maintaining security and countering insurgencies, notably against the Islamic State (ISIS). In Iraq, the Peshmerga have been instrumental in holding back extremist groups, ensuring that the Kurdistan Region remains one of the most stable parts of the country amidst the chaos that often surrounds it. Similarly, in Syria, the SDF, predominantly Kurdish-led, has been pivotal in liberating territories from ISIS control, thereby preventing further expansion of extremist influence and providing a semblance of order in the northeast. Their presence and effectiveness have made them indispensable for any strategy aimed at stabilizing these regions, where governance is weak or non-existent.. From a geopolitical perspective, the Kurds hold significant leverage in the Middle East. Their influence extends beyond their immediate territories, impacting the political landscapes of Iraq, Syria, and even touching upon Turkey and Iran. In Iraq, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has managed to establish a degree of autonomy, which gives it a unique position to influence national politics, particularly in matters concerning oil and security. In Syria, the Kurdish-led governance in Rojava has introduced a model of federalism and democracy that contrasts with the authoritarianism of the Assad regime, offering a potential blueprint for post-conflict governance. This influence also allows the Kurds to act as a counterweight to adversarial powers. In Iraq, they serve as a check against Iranian influence, which seeks to extend its reach through Shia militias and political parties. In Syria, their control over significant oil and agricultural resources, coupled with their alignment with Western powers, particularly the U.S., provides them with leverage against both the Assad regime and Turkey, which views Kurdish autonomy as a security threat due to its own internal Kurdish issues.. However, this strategic importance also places the Kurds in a precarious position. Their alliances and autonomy are often viewed with suspicion or hostility by neighboring states, which see Kurdish aspirations for independence or greater autonomy as threats to national integrity. Turkey, in particular, has launched military operations against Kurdish forces in Syria, citing security concerns but also aiming to prevent the establishment of a Kurdish state along its borders.. The feud between Turkey and the Kurds, particularly in the context of Syria, is deeply rooted in both historical grievances and contemporary geopolitical concerns. Turkey’s relationship with its own Kurdish population has been fraught with conflict, primarily due to the activities of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been fighting for Kurdish autonomy within Turkey since the 1980s. This conflict has led to a perception of Kurdish movements as a direct threat to Turkey’s unity and territorial integrity. In Syria, the rise of Kurdish autonomy in areas like Rojava, controlled by the Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its military wing, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), has exacerbated these tensions. Turkey equates the PYD and YPG with the PKK, labeling them as terrorist organizations, despite the YPG’s significant role in defeating ISIS, which included cooperation with the United States.. (Pictured above: A PKK checkpoint. Diyarbakir has seen street fighting between Turkish forces and PKK rebels). Turkey’s threat perception is multifaceted. Firstly, the establishment of a semi-autonomous Kurdish region in northern Syria, often referred to as Rojava, is seen as an existential threat because it could inspire Turkey’s own Kurdish population to seek similar autonomy or even independence. This fear is heightened by the ideological links between the PKK and the PYD, both of which are influenced by the political philosophy of Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned PKK leader. Secondly, the strategic location of these Kurdish-controlled areas along Turkey’s border provides a physical space where Kurdish nationalist sentiments could be organized or where PKK fighters could operate with relative safety, thus directly challenging Turkey’s security. The possibility of these regions becoming a base for attacks against Turkey has led to repeated military incursions into northern Syria, such as Operations Euphrates Shield, Olive Branch, and Peace Spring, aimed at creating “safe zones” free of YPG control.. Moreover, Turkey’s actions are also driven by domestic politics. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has leveraged anti-Kurdish sentiment to rally nationalist support, portraying the fight against Kurdish forces as a defense of the nation. This narrative has been particularly potent during times of political instability or when his government faced electoral challenges. Additionally, there’s an economic and demographic dimension to Turkey’s strategy in Syria: by controlling these areas, Turkey aims to facilitate the return of Syrian refugees, who number in the millions in Turkey, to these newly cleared zones, which would not only alleviate domestic pressures but also alter the demographic balance to reduce Kurdish influence. However, this has led to accusations of ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses from international observers, as Turkish-backed forces have been implicated in displacing Kurdish populations and settling Arab families in their stead.. The international community’s response to Turkey’s actions has been mixed, with some allies like the U.S. occasionally criticizing Turkey’s military offensives but also needing its cooperation in NATO and other strategic arenas. The U.S., while supporting the Kurds against ISIS, has had to maintain a delicate balance due to Turkey’s importance within NATO and its strategic location. This has sometimes resulted in the U.S. withdrawing or repositioning its forces, leaving Kurdish fighters vulnerable to Turkish attacks, which further fuels the cycle of mistrust and conflict. Thus, the Turkish-Kurd feud in Syria is not just about immediate security threats but is deeply intertwined with Turkey’s national identity, its regional ambitions, and the broader geopolitics of the Middle East.. Iran, on the other hand, while sometimes working with Kurdish groups against common enemies, also manipulates internal Kurdish politics to prevent a unified Kurdish front that might challenge its control in the region. Thus, while the Kurds are vital for regional stability and offer geopolitical leverage to powers like the U.S., their strategic importance is also a source of vulnerability, as they navigate the complex interplay of international politics, local conflicts, and the aspirations of their people for recognition and self-determination.. Key Contributions to U.S. Interests. The Kurdish forces, particularly the Peshmerga in Iraq and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Syria, have made significant contributions to U.S. military interests in the Middle East, primarily through their role in combating terrorism. The Peshmerga have been pivotal allies in the fight against ISIS, preventing further expansion of the extremist group’s territory in northern Iraq, and reclaiming areas previously under ISIS control. Their bravery and effectiveness on the battlefield were crucial in operations like the Battle of Mosul, where they worked alongside U.S. and coalition forces to oust ISIS from one of its key strongholds. The level of cooperation extended to intelligence sharing, with the Kurds providing valuable on-the-ground insights about ISIS movements and strategies, which were instrumental for U.S. air strikes and special operations. Similarly, in Syria, the SDF, led predominantly by Kurdish fighters, was instrumental in the defeat of ISIS in Raqqa and other key territories, demonstrating a level of trust and operational synergy with U.S. forces that was vital for the success of the anti-ISIS campaign.. On the humanitarian front, the Kurds have played a significant role in supporting U.S. interests through their efforts in hosting refugees and providing aid in conflict zones. The Kurdistan Region of Iraq, for instance, has been a major refuge for displaced people, including those fleeing persecution or war in other parts of Iraq and Syria. At the height of the Syrian crisis, the Kurdish areas opened their borders to hundreds of thousands of refugees, offering them shelter, food, and medical care despite their own limited resources. This humanitarian gesture not only alleviated some of the human suffering but also aligned with U.S. objectives of promoting stability and humanitarian relief in crisis zones. Moreover, the Kurds have been at the forefront of advocating for human rights and the protection of minorities. In both Iraq and Syria, Kurdish-led administrations have implemented policies aimed at fostering pluralism, gender equality, and the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, including Yazidis, Christians, and others who have historically faced persecution. This commitment to human rights resonates with American values, providing a model of governance that contrasts with the autocratic tendencies seen in other parts of the region.. These contributions have not only been tactical but have also shaped the narrative of the U.S. engagement in the Middle East, showcasing a partnership that aligns with both strategic military goals and humanitarian ideals. However, the relationship has its complexities, with the U.S. sometimes pulling back support due to geopolitical considerations, particularly in light of Turkey’s opposition to Kurdish autonomy and influence. Despite these challenges, the Kurds’ military and humanitarian efforts have solidified their position as key allies in the region, contributing to U.S. interests in promoting security, democracy, and human rights, even as they navigate their own aspirations for recognition and autonomy.. Challenges in U.S.-Kurdish Relations. The relationship between the United States and the Kurds is fraught with challenges primarily stemming from the complex web of regional politics. One significant hurdle is Turkey’s vehement opposition to Kurdish autonomy, particularly in Syria. Turkey views the Kurdish-led groups in Syria, like the People’s Protection Units (YPG) and its political wing, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), as extensions of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which it considers a terrorist organization. This has led to military operations by Turkey in northern Syria, aimed at curbing Kurdish influence and autonomy, which directly conflicts with U.S. interests in supporting Kurdish forces against ISIS. The U.S. has had to navigate this delicate balance, trying to maintain its strategic partnership with Turkey, a NATO ally, while supporting the Kurds, creating tensions that have occasionally led to U.S. policy adjustments that favor Turkish concerns over Kurdish ones.. Balancing relations with Iraq and Syria presents another layer of complexity. In Iraq, while the U.S. supports the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) for its role in stabilizing the region and countering terrorism, it must also work with the central government in Baghdad, which has historically been at loggerheads with the KRG over issues like oil revenue sharing and territorial disputes. The U.S. often finds itself mediating these conflicts to maintain Iraq’s unity while not alienating the Kurds. In Syria, the situation is even more convoluted with the U.S. supporting Kurdish forces in the fight against ISIS but also needing to consider Assad’s government, Russian influence, and the broader goal of a political solution to the Syrian conflict, which might not include a significant role for Kurdish autonomy as envisioned by the Kurds themselves.. U.S. policy shifts have often been perceived by the Kurds as instances of abandonment. A stark example was in October 2019 when President Trump decided to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria, leading to a Turkish offensive against Kurdish-held areas. This move was seen as a betrayal by the Kurds who had fought alongside U.S. forces against ISIS, relying on American protection against Turkish aggression. Such withdrawals and policy changes have significantly impacted Kurdish trust in the U.S., fostering a sense of unreliability. The inconsistency in U.S. support, often influenced by domestic politics or shifts in foreign policy priorities, has left the Kurds in precarious positions where they must quickly adapt to changing circumstances without guaranteed support. This has not only tested the Kurds’ faith in their American allies but also complicated their strategic planning and political maneuvers in a region where trust is a scarce commodity. The history of U.S. policy towards the Kurds, oscillating between support and withdrawal, continues to shape the dynamics of this relationship, with the Kurds often left to navigate the fallout of these shifts while trying to advance their own interests in autonomy and security.. Ways the US can Strengthening the Partnership if it wants. Strengthening the partnership between the United States and the Kurds requires a strategic approach that encompasses both political and practical support. On the political front, the U.S. should advocate more robustly for Kurdish autonomy and human rights on the international stage. This could involve diplomatic efforts to ensure that Kurdish rights are recognized not only in Iraq but also in Syria, where they have established governance structures in areas like Rojava. By leveraging its influence in international forums like the United Nations, the U.S. could push for resolutions or discussions that highlight the need for protecting Kurdish cultural, political, and human rights. Moreover, supporting the development of democratic institutions within Kurdish regions is crucial. This would mean backing electoral processes, legal frameworks, and governance reforms that promote transparency, accountability, and inclusivity, thereby reinforcing the Kurds’ commitment to democratic values which align with American ideals.. From a military and economic perspective, continued support for Kurdish forces is essential. This includes maintaining or increasing military aid like training, equipment, and intelligence sharing to keep Kurdish fighters, such as the Peshmerga in Iraq and the Syrian Democratic Forces, capable of defending against threats like ISIS or potential aggressions from neighboring states. However, beyond military aid, the U.S. should also focus on economic development. Investing in Kurdish infrastructure, such as roads, schools, hospitals, and energy projects, would not only improve the quality of life for Kurds but also strengthen economic ties, making the region more self-sufficient and less vulnerable to external pressures. Such investments could include support for oil and gas development, given Kurdistan’s significant reserves, but with an emphasis on sustainability and local economic benefits. Additionally, fostering trade relations, encouraging U.S. businesses to invest in Kurdish regions, and providing technical assistance for economic diversification would be beneficial. This holistic approach would not only solidify U.S.-Kurdish relations but also contribute to regional stability, providing the Kurds with the tools to build a resilient and prosperous society, thereby aligning with broader U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East.. Most likely future for the Kurds. Predicting whether the U.S. will abandon the Kurds in Syria under another Trump presidency, particularly in light of his previous actions, involves examining both historical patterns and current geopolitical dynamics. In 2019, President Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria led to a Turkish military incursion against the Kurds, causing widespread criticism for abandoning a key ally in the fight against ISIS. This historical precedent suggests a potential for similar actions if Trump follows through with his previous “America First” policy, which prioritizes reducing U.S. military commitments abroad.. Trump’s rhetoric and policy have often emphasized bringing U.S. troops home from “endless wars,” which could again influence his approach towards U.S. military involvement in Syria. However, several factors might alter this course. First, the strategic importance of the Kurds in counter-terrorism efforts remains significant. Their control over regions previously held by ISIS helps prevent the group’s resurgence, which is a key U.S. interest. Secondly, the international backlash and the impact on U.S. credibility from the 2019 withdrawal might make Trump and his administration more cautious about another sudden pullout. Now with the Assad government out and Russia barely holding on to its presence in Syria, the political landscape is different.. Moreover, the geopolitical landscape has evolved since 2019. The U.S. now has a more complex relationship with Turkey, which has been navigating its own set of international criticisms and sanctions related to its actions in Syria. The Biden administration has tried to balance support for the Kurds with maintaining NATO relations with Turkey, suggesting that even when Trump returns, he might not have a free hand to repeat the 2019 scenario without considering these dynamics. In all respects, it is extremely unlikely that Trump will invest with “boats on the ground” to support the Kurds. At most, he may offer military aid. However, that is also doubtful.. In conclusion, while there’s a risk of history repeating itself given Trump’s past actions, it’s not a foregone conclusion. The situation in Syria, the strategic value of the Kurds, and the lessons learned from 2019 could lead to a policy that seeks to support Kurdish forces in a way that mitigates the risks of a Turkish offensive. However, Trump’s unpredictability and his emphasis on withdrawing from international conflicts could still sway the outcome towards another form of abandonment, though possibly with different terms or conditions. The actual policy direction would become clearer once Trump assumes office and reveals his administration’s strategy, but the Kurds, U.S. allies, and regional powers will likely be watching closely to see if the U.S. commitment holds or falters once more.. Conclusion:. The story of U.S.-Kurdish relations is one of shared ideals and values tested by shifting geopolitical priorities. The Kurds, a people who have demonstrated their commitment to democracy, counter-terrorism, and regional stability, have been both steadfast allies and victims of the changing winds of American foreign policy. Their contributions to U.S. interests, from battling ISIS to fostering pluralism in volatile regions, underscore their strategic importance. Yet, the pattern of engagement and abandonment has left the Kurdish people questioning the reliability of their most powerful ally.. The future of this partnership hinges on the United States’ willingness to solidify its support—politically, militarily, and economically—for Kurdish aspirations of autonomy and security. Without consistent and strategic backing, the U.S. risks not only the destabilization of key areas in the Middle East but also the erosion of its credibility as a reliable partner. The Kurds, resilient and determined, will continue to navigate these challenges, but whether they will do so with the full backing of the United States remains uncertain. This alliance, though tested, offers an opportunity for mutual benefit and regional progress, provided it is nurtured with foresight and commitment. The question remains: will the United States seize this opportunity or falter once again?. Thanks for reading GeopoliticsUnplugged Substack! This post is public so feel free to share it.. Sources:. BBC News. (n.d.). Who are the Kurds? Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29702440. Hubbard, B. (2024, December 16). Kurdish forces face new challenges amid U.S.-Turkey tensions. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/16/world/middleeast/kurdish-forces-syria-turkey-isis-america.html. Washington Institute for Near East Policy. (n.d.). What U.S. diplomacy with the Kurds in Syria looks like. Retrieved from https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/what-us-diplomacy-kurds-syria. TeachMideast. (n.d.). Kurdish relations in the Middle East. Retrieved from https://teachmideast.org/kurdish-middle-eastern-relations/. Associated Press. (n.d.). Syrian war challenges Kurdish autonomy. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/syria-war-assad-kurds-rebels-turkey-us-2b4af609c4dcf853ac6d7a22d3dccf5d. The Free Press. (n.d.). Will America abandon the Kurds? Retrieved from. The Free Press. Will America Abandon the Kurds—Again?. Call it the dark side of liberation. America’s most loyal allies in Syria, the Kurds, are now facing the wrath of Turkish proxies that helped topple Bashar al-Assad’s tyranny earlier this month. As of now neither President Joe Biden nor president-elect Donald Trump have offered any guarantees for the survival of the 200,000 Kurds who are…. Read more. 10 days ago · 98 likes · 93 comments · Eli Lake. Wilson Center. (n.d.). Kurdistan and the U.S.: What happens after ISIS? Retrieved from https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/kurdistan-and-united-states-isis-defeated-what-happens-now. Brookings Institution. (n.d.). Is America a bad wingman in the Middle East? Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-america-a-bad-wingman-in-the-middle-east/. The Dispatch. (n.d.). Trump, the Kurds, and a new Syrian reality. Retrieved from https://thedispatch.com/article/trump-the-kurds-and-a-new-syrian-reality/. Middle East Eye. (n.d.). U.S. smells Russian and Iranian blood in Syria. Retrieved from https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-smells-russian-and-iranian-blood-syria-rebel-offensive-poses-challenges-kurdish-ally. Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East. (n.d.). Fact sheet: The Kurds. Retrieved from https://www.cjpme.org/fs_216. Foundation for Defense of Democracies. (2024, December 4). America must stand with Syria’s Kurds. Retrieved from https://www.fdd.org/analysis/op_eds/2024/12/04/america-must-stand-with-syrias-kurds/. Washington Institute for Near East Policy. (n.d.). The U.S.-Kurdish relationship in Iraq after Syria. Retrieved from https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/us-kurdish-relationship-iraq-after-syria. Council on Foreign Relations. (n.d.). The Kurds’ long struggle for statehood. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/timeline/kurds-long-struggle-statelessness. Heinrich Böll Stiftung. (2022, March 30). Values and attitudes among the Kurds. Retrieved from https://tr.boell.org/en/2022/03/30/values-and-attitudes-among-kurds. Foreign Policy. (2023, March 22). Iraq’s Kurdistan region balances democracy and conflict. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/22/iraq-kurdistan-region-democracy-war-invasion-united-states/. BBC News. (n.d.). Who are the Kurds? Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29702440. Center for Strategic and International Studies. (n.d.). Examining extremism: The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Retrieved from https://www.csis.org/blogs/examining-extremism/examining-extremism-kurdistan-workers-party-pkk. European Journal of Turkish Studies. (n.d.). Kurdish parties and conflicts. Retrieved from https://journals.openedition.org/ejts/4656. Council on Foreign Relations. (n.d.). The role of Kurds in Iraqi politics. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/role-kurds-iraqi-politics. Council on Foreign Relations. (n.d.). Conflict between Turkey and Kurdish armed groups. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-between-turkey-and-armed-kurdish-groups. Brookings Institution. (n.d.). Turkey’s Kurdish policy: Two routes to an impasse. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/two-routes-to-an-impasse-understanding-turkeys-kurdish-policy/. Middle East Forum. (n.d.). Recognizing Rojava as an autonomous state. Retrieved from https://www.meforum.org/mef-observer/it-is-time-to-recognize-rojava-as-an-autonomous-state-of-kurdistan. Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). The Kurds in conflict. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-review-of-the-red-cross/article/abs/kurds-as-parties-to-and-victims-of-conflicts-in-iraq/99BC4AA7051EEEEA89C24C1D5CD8650A. Foreign Policy. (2015, October 28). Kurdistan’s democracy on the brink. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/28/kurdistans-democracy-on-the-brink/. Associated Press. (n.d.). Turkey-Syria insurgents and the Kurdish conflict. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/turkey-syria-insurgents-explainer-kurds-ypg-refugees-f60dc859c7843569124282ea750f1477. France24. (2024, December 5). Kurdish dreams under threat in Syria. Retrieved from https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20241205-kurds-dream-of-self-rule-under-threat-as-turkish-backed-forces-sweep-across-syria. BBC News. (n.d.). What’s next for the Kurds in the Middle East? Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49963649. Foundation for Defense of Democracies. (2024, December 1). Are Kurds under threat amid Syria’s civil war? Retrieved from https://www.fdd.org/analysis/op_eds/2024/12/01/are-kurds-under-threat-amid-civil-war-resurgence-in-syria/. Voice of America. (n.d.). Turkish strikes resonate globally. Retrieved from https://www.voanews.com/amp/turkish-strikes-on-us-kurd-allies-resonate-in-ukraine-war/6861124.html. The Telegraph. (2024, December 10). Turkey’s existential threat to Kurds in Syria. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/12/10/turkeys-threat-to-the-kurds-in-syria-is-existential/. Times of Israel. (n.d.). Turkey’s position post-Assad regime. Retrieved from https://www.timesofisrael.com/where-turkey-stands-after-assad-regime-falls-to-syrian-opposition/