The United States has once again resorted to using proxies to achieve its objectives. History has repeatedly shown that in the power struggles between major nations, the most expendable pawns are often ethnic minorities aspiring for independence.
America's foremost challenge currently is finding a way to end its conflict with Iran. Sending ground troops into Iran is a risk the U.S. is unwilling to take. So, what is the alternative? According to CNN, the CIA is "actively arming Kurdish militias with the aim of inciting a popular uprising within Iran."
Why target the Kurds? The reasons are straightforward. First, while many among Iran's dominant Persian population may hold grievances against the leadership, in times of national crisis, they lack both the capability and the desire to overthrow the current anti-American regime. Historical experience consistently proves that external pressure often strengthens national unity rather than weakens it. Second, the Kurds have a history of dissent, maintain relatively independent armed forces, oppose the central government in Tehran, and aspire to establish an independent Kurdish state. Instigating national division, arming separatist groups, and providing funds, weapons, and strategic planning are longstanding specialties of the CIA. This tactic is akin to planting explosives in the load-bearing wall of a building; the collateral damage from the collapse is of no concern to those who set the charge.
The focus is now on Iran. President Trump has taken personal involvement. As reported by U.S. media, on March 1st, Trump held a phone call with Mustafa Hijri, the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI). Amid intense fighting in the Middle East and a packed schedule, the fact that Trump found time to speak with a relatively obscure leader of an Iranian ethnic minority underscores the importance the U.S. places on this matter. The topic of discussion was not disclosed in detail by the U.S., but it can be inferred that it involved encouraging the Kurds to take up arms and engage in ground operations against the Iranian regime, with the U.S. and Israel providing military support. CNN reported that "Iranian Kurdish opposition groups are expected to participate in ground operations in western Iran in the coming days."
However, the Kurdish forces within Iran are relatively weak. Therefore, on the same day, Trump also spoke with Kurdish leaders from Iraq to "discuss U.S. military operations in Iran and how the U.S. and Kurds could cooperate as the mission progresses." It is possible that the U.S. is encouraging not only Iranian Kurdish militias but also Iraqi Kurdish groups to seize the opportunity, launch cross-border attacks, create chaos within Iran, drain Iranian military resources, and even attempt to establish autonomous zones, thereby helping the U.S. and Israel secure a buffer area. Consequently, Israeli airstrikes on Iran have been concentrated primarily on major cities like Tehran and, significantly, along the Iran-Iraq border. U.S. media suggest this is essentially "paving the way for Kurdish forces to enter northwestern Iran." Fox News even reported that thousands of Iraqi Kurdish fighters have begun advancing into northern Iranian regions, with the U.S. and Israel initiating airdrops of supplies to the Kurds.
Iran is currently in a state of unprecedented vulnerability, and some Kurdish militias appear eager to act. It is important to note that among the five major ethnic groups in the Middle East—Arabs, Turks, Persians, Kurds, and Jews—the Kurds are the only ones without a state of their own. This is a people with a illustrious history; the legendary figure Saladin was a Kurd. However, in modern times, Kurdish lands have been divided among various nations, and many Kurds have indeed suffered discrimination. The grievances of a nation are often easily exploited, transformed into a sharp, poisonous arrow in the game of geopolitics. Thus, in countries like Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, the primary ethnic conflict revolves around the struggle between the dominant majority and Kurdish separatist movements.
Over the past decades, amidst the turmoil in the Middle East, some Kurdish armed groups saw an opportunity, aligning themselves with the CIA, acting as U.S. proxies, and at times gaining significant territory, establishing de facto autonomous regions. While the weakened central governments of Syria and Iraq were unable to curb the growth of these Kurdish militias, Turkey launched vigorous assaults against them. During Trump's first term, Turkey carried out multiple devastating attacks against Kurdish forces in Syria. Despite the fact that these Syrian Kurdish militias were the most reliable allies of the U.S. in the fight against ISIS, serving bravely on the front lines, when Turkey attacked, the world watched in astonishment as U.S. forces rapidly withdrew, leaving many Kurdish fighters to be captured or killed. A poignant scene emerged, with angry Kurdish civilians throwing potatoes at retreating American soldiers, shouting, "Go away, American liars!" Alas, the wheels of history show no mercy for shattered pawns, regardless of their past loyalty.
In conclusion, several observations can be made. First, this is a profoundly treacherous strategy. Utilizing Kurdish forces to分裂 and overthrow the Iranian regime is likely to be a key feature of the evolving situation in Iran. As mentioned, while the U.S. and Israel can continue bombing Iran, they dare not commit ground troops. Yet, without ground forces, overthrowing the regime is nearly impossible. The U.S. urgently needs proxies, and the Kurds are being called upon. The U.S. and Israel are prepared to provide money and weapons. It is even possible that the U.S. has offered tacit promises of supporting the establishment of autonomous zones in exchange for cooperation. After all, this is a classic CIA tactic, previously employed to分裂 Iraq and dismember Syria. Former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo bluntly admitted, "I was the director of the CIA. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses devoted to this. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." What is glory for America is a nightmare for the Middle East.
Second, there is the tragedy of being a proxy. As previously noted, the Syrian Kurdish forces once fought fiercely for the U.S., paying a heavy price in blood. What was the result? When the Turkish military advanced, U.S. forces voluntarily retreated, standing by as their former allies were crushed by another U.S. ally. While Iran, Iraq, and Syria may currently lack the strength to fully assert control and eliminate separatist elements, Turkey does not. Turkey consistently views Kurdish militias as a grave threat, remains highly vigilant towards Kurdish groups beyond its borders, and is highly likely to take military action against them. Even if the Kurds were to render significant service to the U.S. again, would Washington choose to confront Turkey over the Kurds, or would it abandon the Kurdish militias for the sake of its relationship with Ankara? The answer is almost certainly the latter. From the Vietnam War to the more recent conflict in Afghanistan, the U.S. has never been short of local allies. But when the U.S. makes a hasty withdrawal, how many of these allies are immediately abandoned? Even those who manage to flee to the U.S. have faced crackdowns, labeled as illegal immigrants by the Trump administration. Therefore, the most probable outcome is U.S. abandonment after use. On the geopolitical chessboard, the fate of minor players is always determined by strategic winds, not by the blood and tears they have shed.
Third, the current situation in the Middle East is fraught with complexity and dilemma. The Kurds, in particular, face a difficult choice. Refusing to assist the U.S. risks American retaliation, while aiding the U.S. in an offensive against Iran would inevitably incur severe costs. Their fate resembles grain caught between millstones; whichever way the stones turn, they are the first to be crushed. The conflict is certain to spill over. Given that the Kurdish forces the U.S. primarily relies on are based in Iraq, any cross-border attack into Iran that fails could see the conflict spread back into Iraqi territory, leading to joint retaliation by Iranian and Iraqi forces against Kurdish autonomous zones. Reports indicate that while some Kurds are eager to act, many others openly express being "terrified." Starting a war is easier than ending one. Even if there is initial success over five years, what about the following five years, or fifty years? The blades wielded in the Middle East are invariably stained with blood.
Another significant problem involves the numerous U.S. military bases scattered across the region. It is often said that Iran's greatest misfortune is its proximity to these American installations. Should full-scale war erupt, U.S. personnel would likely be evacuated from these bases preemptively, making the bases themselves prime targets for Iranian missile and drone attacks, with some strikes potentially affecting other Gulf areas. U.S. defenses might not intercept all incoming ordnance. Iran argues that any base involved in attacks against it is a legitimate target for retaliation. This raises a critical question for many Gulf nations: Are these American bases truly there to protect the Gulf states, or do they exist to be protected *by* the Gulf states, thereby drawing them into conflict?
Comments