THE GREAT RECONSTRUCTION

The decision of the Kurdish autonomy of Iraq to hold a referendum on independence caused heated debate in the world political circles about the possible consequences of this initiative on the entire situation in the Middle East. While the West and its allies generally support the sovereignty aspirations of the Kurds and recognize this as a tool of their geopolitical influence, there are still countries that are far from being delighted with Erbil’s action. Especially given the role that the Kurds play in the longstanding confrontation in Syria, which is under the threat of being split same as Iraq.

A referendum is scheduled in Northern Iraq

The Kurdish authorities of Iraq are planning to hold a referendum on independence on September 25, 2017. Later, on December 6, it is planned to hold presidential elections. Therefore, Erbil is looking forward to the election as part of the legal authority of independent Kurdistan.

Actually, the Kurdish autonomy in the north of Iraq already de facto exists as an independent entity. It has its own power structure headed by president Masud Barzani, functioning law enforcement agencies and even consulates in various states and representations in a number of international organizations. During the period of autonomy, which was a result of the overthrow of the regime of Saddam Hussein, the local authorities already held a referendum. In 2005, it was organized by public organizations. As a result of the local campaign, about 98% of Iraqi Kurds voted for independence. However, unlike the popular will twelve years ago, the upcoming referendum is held by the autonomy authorities. Let alone the fact that at that time, the referendum took place on the territory less than the one controlled by the Barzani government currently.

The leader of the Iraqi Kurds is confident that the results of the referendum will be implemented. It seems, the main thing that gives him confidence is the high level of international support for Erbil.

Washington regarded Erbil's decision to hold a referendum diplomatically, but very unambiguously. The State Department said that the U.S. "supports single, stable, democratic Iraq" but "recognizes the legitimate aspirations of the people of Iraqi Kurdistan." There is a reproach to Erbil in this statement: they say that the referendum will only distract attention from more serious tasks in the region, such as the defeat of the notorious Islamic State. Although it is clear that the war with the jihadists rather than hinders the establishment of an independent Kurdistan, seen by the U.S. as an important tool for maintaining its influence in the Middle East in the controlled chaos regime, is an effective tool of pressure on traditional regional powers such as Turkey and Iran, as well as Iraq and Syria still floundering in the swirl of bloody wars.

It is noteworthy that shortly after the delegation of the Kurdistan Security Council was received in Washington in mid-May, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, General Vincent R. Stewart, spoke at the Senate hearings about the Kurdish independence as a resolved issue, the essence of which is not whether it was proclaimed, but when it happens. At the same time, the U.S. cannot help but realize that supporting the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan actually means supporting the disintegration of Iraq itself. Since the division of Iraqi Kurdistan is likely to be followed by a final separation between the Shiite and Sunni parts of Iraq. However, American strategists do not hide their development of the project of radical reconstruction of the region, named in the Washington dossiers "The Greater Middle East".

The closest U.S. ally in the Middle East, Israel, supports the American approach. It supports the idea of ​​Kurdish independence, and not only because a friendly state promises to appear in a hostile Arab environment. After Iraqi Kurdistan expanded its territory at the expense of the oil-abundant Kirkuk, Erbil became one of the key "black gold" extractors in the region. The buyer of Kurdish oil is Israel...

Meanwhile, the largest oil industry in the Arab world, Saudi Arabia, also supported the Washington-backed Kurdish referendum though informally. Apparently, Riyadh is going to use the almost ready-to-appear Kurdish state in confrontation with Turkey and Iran, with which the Saudis are fighting for leadership in the Islamic world. But if the support of Kurdish independence by the U.S. and its Western allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia and a generally loyal attitude to such a perspective on the part of Russia can be viewed as a favorable international background for Erbil, the position of Ankara and Tehran can become a stumbling block on the implementation of Barzani’s objective. In any case, the proclamation of the independence of Kurdistan, taking into account its rejection by Turkey and Iran, is fraught with further aggravation of the situation in this troubled region.

The Turkish principle

Turkey and Iran are not interested in the sovereignty of Iraqi Kurdistan, primarily because certain areas of their own territories are contaminated with the ideas of Kurdish separatism. This is particularly true of Turkey, which has been fighting the terrorist Workers' Party of Kurdistan (PKK) for several decades.

Official Tehran firmly supported the need to preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq. Ankara commented on the forthcoming referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan even in a more uncompromising tone. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Erbil's decision "a mistake". "The statement of the leadership of Northern Iraq deeply upset us. This is an erroneous step that threatens the territorial integrity of Iraq. This step will not benefit anyone," warned the Turkish leader.

"We consider the decision to hold a referendum on independence a terrible mistake. Preservation of the territorial integrity and political unity of Iraq is a fundamental principle of the Turkish policy towards this country," says the statement of the Turkish Foreign Ministry.

It seems that Erdogan regrets that immediately after the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 he refused to send Turkish troops to the northern part of this occupied country. After all, Ankara could prevent the creation of Kurdish autonomy, and, more importantly, ensure the security of the Turkoman tribes living in the north of Iraq. Caught behind the activities of the forces of the international coalition that occupied Iraq, Turkey actually allowed not only the creation of Kurdish autonomy, but also the subsequent expansion of its territory at the expense of the areas of residence of the Turkmens.

Official Ankara has always stated that it does not recognize the Kurdish affiliation of the city and the province of Kirkuk, a significant proportion of the population of which are Turkmans. Erdogan himself severely condemned Erbil's political claims to Kirkuk and demanded the descent of the Kurdistan flag in the city. Nevertheless, in general, Ankara has a very good relationship with the Kurdish autonomy. Turkey exports oil from Iraqi Kurdistan and, in a dialogue with Barzani, has even succeeded in denying the terrorist PKK. However, the very idea of ​​the withdrawal of Kurdish autonomy from Iraq is a threat to the security of Turkey. Since, undoubtedly, the sovereignty of the Iraqi Kurds will help to unite the Kurdish movement, and therefore lead to an even greater activation of the Kurdish forces fighting against the Turkish state. This is not only about the PKK, but also the allied organizations of the Syrian Kurds, who in fact created another front of the anti-terrorist struggle for Ankara.

Syria under a blow again

Apparently, the Syrian Kurds also are thinking about using Erbil’s experience to gain greater independence. As early as November 2013, a transitional government was established in the Kurdish-populated areas of northern Syria. In March 2016, Syrian Kurds proclaimed the establishment of federal region of Rozhava in Northern Syria. It is possible that the next stage will be an autonomy with expanded powers, by analogy with the Iraqi Kurdistan.

However, Turkey sees the problem in that the autonomy of Rozhava is promoted by the Kurdish party Democratic Union (PYD) and Kurdish self-defense units (YPG), which are considered to be PKK affiliates. Therefore, Ankara tries to prevent the autonomy of Syrian Kurdistan. The fact that such a scenario does exist is confirmed by nothing less than the patronage afforded by the U.S. to Rozhava. It is no coincidence that Washington ignored Ankara's demands, which categorically opposed the participation of Syrian Kurds in the battles for Raqqa against the ISIS. The Americans refused to withdraw the weapons they provided to the Syrian Kurds after the liberation of Raqqa, although Turkey threatened to "bring to justice any party" that supplies arms to Rozhava.

Under the conditions when the U.S. strengthens military-political alliance with the Kurds, Erbil planned a referendum on the self-determination of the Iraqi Kurds, and Rozhava moves towards autonomy, Turkey has no alternative but to force the situation. The Turkish General Staff announced the development of a plan designed to give "a decisive rebuff to any attacks by militant offshoots of terrorist organizations PKK - YPG and PYD." Turkish President Erdogan made it clear that he would launch a major military operation in the north of Syria in response to the strengthening of the military and political positions of local Kurds. Experts believe that the new military operation of Turkey can surpass the "Euphrates Shield", which allowed Ankara to take control of the area bordering Syria (​​about 3,000 sq.km) during August 2016 - March 2017.

Damascus is also not happy with the "autonomous" aspirations of Syrian Kurds, especially since YPG and PYD support the decision of the Iraqi Kurdistan to hold a referendum. The activities of Rozhava threaten the territorial integrity of Syria in the same way as the policy of Erbil, aimed at the complete disintegration of Iraq. But in both cases, the fate of peoples of Syria and Iraq depends largely on the will and interests of external forces.

One of the platforms for the Syrian settlement is the negotiation process in Astana led by joint mediation efforts of Russia, Turkey and Iran. The other day in the Kazakh capital, the fifth round of talks ended, during which the parties discussed the establishment of de-escalation zones in East Gut, North Homs and Idlib. The objective is to ensure demarcation of the zones of the moderate and radical opposition. Despite the fact that the participants could not sign any agreements, the meeting cannot be considered ineffectual. In fact, the parties agreed on the establishment of a joint working group, which will be directly engaged in the preparation of de-escalation process.

However, the complete settlement and stabilization of the situation in Syria and Iraq is still far away. Especially under the current circumstances when certain world forces are nurturing and have already begun implementation of the plans for a "great reconstruction" of the Middle East.