By John Q. Hosedrinker 
ITV News has learned that the United States and Israel are reportedly orchestrating an armed Kurdish uprising within Iran, with weapons being supplied to thousands of Kurdish volunteers in Western Iran. Recent American and Israeli strikes have targeted Iranian security infrastructure in the region, potentially to pave the way for a ground operation expected to commence imminently. Kurdish sources indicate a request has been made for air cover from American and Israeli forces during this anticipated rebellion.
Read the original article here
The notion of the United States actively seeking an armed Kurdish uprising within Iran, with ground operations potentially commencing within days, brings to mind a recurring historical pattern and a considerable degree of skepticism. It’s a scenario that many find difficult to believe, given past experiences where similar strategies have unfolded with decidedly unfavorable outcomes for the very groups involved. The core concern revolves around the United States’ track record of engaging with and subsequently abandoning allied groups, leaving them vulnerable and facing severe repercussions.
Indeed, the memory of past instances where the Trump administration, or preceding administrations, have seemingly turned their backs on Kurdish allies after securing their assistance is a significant factor in this skepticism. There’s a prevailing sentiment that the Kurds are being asked to become “Charlie Brown with the football” once again, an analogy that captures the feeling of repeated deception and eventual disappointment. The question arises: are we truly expecting the Kurds to fall for this perceived cycle of engagement and abandonment, particularly when the stakes are so incredibly high?
This kind of strategic maneuvering, the idea of fomenting internal dissent within a nation for geopolitical gain, has a long and often cautionary history. Take, for instance, the Gulf War in the early 1990s, where uprisings, at least in part, were encouraged. The outcome for those who rose up was devastating once the immediate strategic objectives of the United States were met, and they were left to face the brutal retaliation of their government. The question of whether the United States might be considered “grandfathered in” to certain actions if they have already initiated or encouraged such movements is an interesting, albeit grim, hypothetical.
Furthermore, the idea of orchestrating an armed uprising inside Iran is seen by many as a strategy that has consistently ended poorly for the Kurdish population. There’s a strong feeling that either the United States is misjudging the internal strength of anti-regime protests in Iran, perhaps exaggerating their capacity to effect immediate governmental change, or that the true objective might be something other than a straightforward regime change.
The past actions, such as bombing Iran, are viewed by some as having only achieved “regime degradation” without successfully altering the regime itself. This approach is seen as less likely to lead to a peaceful transition of power and more likely to usher in a period of civil war. The ultimate goal, some suspect, might not be a complete regime overthrow but rather the disintegration of Iran itself. This could manifest as various ethnic groups declaring independence and seeking to carve out their own territories from within Iran, presumably with external backing.
The prospect of such a scenario raises serious concerns about the potential for extensive conflict and instability. The idea of inciting sectarian divisions within a nation, particularly one already considered a “failed state” by some observers, is viewed as a profoundly flawed strategy, with parallels drawn to the protracted conflicts and ensuing humanitarian crises in places like Syria and Afghanistan. The “stupidity of this administration,” as some commenters put it, lies in the perceived lack of foresight regarding the inevitable backlash.
It’s widely anticipated that any such uprising would be met with a severe and brutal crackdown by the Iranian state. Moreover, regional players like Turkey, which has its own complex relationship with Kurdish populations and territorial aspirations, are seen as likely to exploit such a situation, potentially launching their own incursions to gain advantages rather than supporting a new Kurdish insurgent region. This could lead to a multi-front conflict with devastating consequences for all involved.
The timing and preparedness of such an operation are also called into question. The sentiment is that this feels “too little, too late,” suggesting a lack of proper planning and a reactive rather than proactive approach. The potential outcomes are viewed as among the worst possible for the region, characterized by widespread destabilization and conflict.
While there may be an understanding that some segments of the Iranian population sympathize with the distinct identity and aspirations of the Kurds, the strategy of promoting conflict along ethnic lines is seen as inherently destabilizing. It risks creating a unified regional enemy, potentially rallying diverse groups against the perceived external interference. The hope is expressed that the United States would not abandon the Kurds to face the consequences alone, though past actions cast considerable doubt on this possibility.
The logistical and political feasibility of such an operation is also debated. The idea of “boots on the ground” is a significant consideration, and it’s questioned whether the American public is prepared for the potential human cost, especially without the clear precursor events that mobilized the nation for past military interventions. The lack of prior justification or a clear public narrative that would rally support for such a costly endeavor is noted.
The historical precedent for the United States arming and supporting insurgent groups, only to see those groups later turn against its interests or become destabilizing forces, is a significant point of contention. The notion of the Kurds trusting the word of an administration with such a track record is met with considerable doubt.
There are also more speculative, and perhaps cynical, observations about the potential geopolitical outcomes, including the involvement of other regional actors like Azerbaijan, with the aim of territorial expansion. The idea of Iran being carved up along ethnic lines, with the United States potentially benefiting from strategically important areas, is presented, though with a degree of sardonic disbelief.
The question of how such an uprising would acquire arms and ammunition, especially given the long history of persecution and limited resources for many Kurdish communities, is also raised. The concern is that this could inadvertently lead to the creation of new militant groups, drawing parallels to the rise of groups like the Taliban, and potentially replicating the disastrous outcomes seen in conflicts like the Syrian civil war.
The overarching sentiment is one of profound skepticism and a grim foreboding of historical repetition. The idea that “this time it will work out” is met with cynicism, as is the notion that the United States’ involvement in such complex geopolitical situations has historically been without significant unintended consequences. The involvement of intelligence agencies like the CIA is also alluded to, suggesting a level of clandestine activity that many find inherently risky. The fundamental question remains: why pursue a strategy that has repeatedly proven disastrous, with the high probability of backfiring and exacerbating regional instability?