By Matt Underwood The recent news of former President Trump reportedly reaching out to Kurdish leaders in Iran, suggesting their involvement in a potential war effort, immediately brings to the forefront a deeply concerning and frankly, recurring pattern of historical engagement. It’s hard to ignore the collective sigh of disbelief and the echoing question: haven’t the Kurds been through this before? The very idea of them once again being asked to place their trust in Western powers, only to potentially find themselves abandoned when it’s no longer politically convenient, feels like a déjà vu of the worst kind.
This repeated scenario evokes a sense of profound disappointment and frustration, given the immense sacrifices the Kurdish people have made. They have repeatedly put themselves on the line, often for causes aligned with Western interests, only to be left vulnerable and betrayed in the aftermath. The history books, and indeed, the memories of many, are unfortunately replete with instances where the United States has seemingly turned its back on the Kurds when it suited their geopolitical objectives.
Specifically, the context of Trump’s previous presidency looms large in these discussions. There are strong recollections of how, during his term, the Kurds felt significantly let down, most notably in Syria. The perception is that they were instrumental in clearing out ISIS, a threat that also posed a danger to Western nations, yet relief and consistent support were often denied. This historical precedent naturally fuels skepticism about the sincerity and long-term commitment behind any current overtures.
Interestingly, some accounts suggest that the initial idea of involving the Peshmerga, a Kurdish military force, in actions against Iran might have originated with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. This detail adds another layer to the complex web of international relations and strategic calculations at play, hinting at a broader coalition of interests pushing for a particular course of action.
The prospect of Iraqi Kurds potentially annexing parts of Iran, while perhaps a fanciful thought for some, underscores the ongoing aspirations of Kurdish populations for self-determination and territorial integrity. However, the reality of regional politics and the historical challenges they face make such hopes a distant dream, often complicated by the very powers that might now be seeking their assistance.
The long and often painful history of the Kurds being let down by the United States cannot be overstated. Their pleas for assistance, particularly regarding the fate of captured ISIS fighters they had effectively neutralized, were met with what felt like repeated refusals. It’s a pattern that has become tragically familiar, leaving many to question the reliability of such alliances.
One can only hope that the potential downfall of the current Iranian regime might, at long last, offer the Kurds a chance to exist peacefully, free from the pressures of neighboring powers like Turkey, as well as the internal machinations of Iraq and Iran. The notion of Trump, who has been accused of betraying the Kurds in Syria and Iraq, now seeking their involvement in a new conflict, is met with significant cynicism. The recurring sentiment is that this time is unlikely to be any different.
The perceived insincerity of such calls is further highlighted by anecdotal imaginings of Trump’s approach, portraying him as more concerned with superficial outcomes, like the aesthetics of a “beautiful ballroom,” rather than the profound implications for the Kurdish people. The imagined opening of such a call, referencing past betrayals before asking for a significant favor, perfectly encapsulates the distrust that has been cultivated.
There’s a palpable fear that the Kurds are once again being set up to be abandoned. The question arises: will they learn from past experiences and refuse to be drawn into another situation where they are ultimately left to face the consequences alone? The involvement of Turkey, a nation with a deeply antagonistic relationship with the Kurds, is also a significant concern, raising doubts about the true intentions and feasibility of any US-led initiatives.
The framing of this situation as solely an “Israel and USA war” versus bringing other players into the mix suggests a desire to clearly delineate responsibilities and perhaps, to avoid spreading the blame if things go wrong. However, the deep-seated distrust, particularly after previous betrayals, makes the idea of the Kurds readily trusting the US again seem incredibly far-fetched.
The image of Trump actively seeking out groups to potentially “fuck over” on any given day paints a grim picture of his perceived approach to foreign policy. It suggests a transactional and self-serving engagement, where historical commitments and loyalties are easily discarded. The wound from the last betrayal is still fresh, and the idea of them readily offering help now is met with widespread incredulity.
The repeated history of abandonment, where the Kurds have been left to fend for themselves after providing crucial support, leaves many wondering if they have finally learned their lesson. The notion of them agreeing to help under these circumstances is met with a resounding “No Whey,” reflecting the deeply ingrained skepticism.
The question of what such a call would even entail, and who would be listening, highlights the uncertain and potentially manipulative nature of these interactions. The recurring theme is that the Kurds are being asked to risk everything, again, with little assurance of lasting support.
It’s hard to escape the feeling that this is a cynical maneuver, aimed at leveraging the Kurds in a geopolitical game, with little regard for their long-term well-being. The idea that they would unconditionally support the US, knowing they might be betrayed again, stems from a grim assessment of their precarious position.
The reality is that the Kurds are often viewed with animosity by many in the region, a fact they are acutely aware of. This isolation makes their reliance on external powers even more critical, yet also more susceptible to exploitation. The notion of them being unquestioning allies, as some might portray them, is seen as a romanticized view that doesn’t reflect their complex reality.
The prospect of Iranian Kurds, witnessing the fate of their counterparts in Iraq and Syria, choosing not to be entangled with America again, is a logical and understandable outcome. The speed, or rather lack thereof, in initiating such calls also raises questions about the genuine commitment to their cause.
There’s a sense that the US is looking for a proxy, someone else to carry the burden, so they can claim victory and withdraw. The immediate need for a stable and long-standing ally like the Kurds, who have consistently demonstrated their fighting capabilities, should have prompted these discussions much earlier.
The abandonment of the Kurds in Syria is a particularly sore point, making their eagerness to help this time around highly questionable. The repeated claims that Trump never betrayed them before are met with incredulous laughter, highlighting the vast gulf between those statements and the lived experiences of the Kurdish people. The question of who will ever trust the Americans again looms large.
The fear that Trump might resort to threats and intimidation if the Kurds don’t comply with his demands is a grim prediction, but one that aligns with past observations of his negotiating tactics. The idea of the US having abandoned the Kurds on numerous occasions, even overlooking established alliances like NATO, suggests a pattern of behavior that is difficult to break.
The current situation is seen by some as simply another attempt to “release the proxies” and advance the agendas of those in power. The inherent danger for the Kurds lies in being enlisted and then systematically betrayed, a cycle they seem to be trapped in despite their undeniable fighting prowess. The irony of pleasing their NATO ally, Turkey, by potentially arming the Kurds is not lost on observers.
The mention of an organized Kurdish resistance within Iran against the current regime, particularly in contrast to a lack of widespread Persian civilian resistance, does highlight a unique political dynamic. However, the internal divisions, with some Persian Iranians not supporting Kurdish separatism, add another layer of complexity to the situation, potentially complicating any external intervention.
The unlikely scenario of Turkey supporting the US in providing weapons to the Kurds, given their history, further underscores the convoluted nature of the proposed involvement. The whole endeavor is seen by many as a US-led war, with attempts to involve others, and a likely outcome of the Kurds being exploited once more.