Reports: Iran is sending thousands of drones to the Kurds. The same US backed Kurds are now turning their backs on the US and instead turning to Iran.
Why would the Kurds make such a change?
One potential rationale for the Kurdish shift in alignment lies in their analysis of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. After 20 years of military engagement, the U.S. expended $2 trillion, suffered the loss of 2,500 U.S. soldiers, dead, 4,000 contractors, dead, and another 20,000 soliders, wounded, and left behind billions of dollars in military assets. The sudden and chaotic pullout has left US supported groups like the Kurds questioning the reliability of U.S. support. With Turkey now escalating its military posture against the Kurds, the absence of any clear U.S. commitment to intervene suggests to the Kurds that they may once again be abandoned at a crucial moment.
The U.S. is presently not positioned to effectively counter Turkey’s actions, nor has there been any indication of support for the Kurds in their ongoing conflict. As a NATO member, Turkey holds a strategic advantage, and the U.S. is unlikely to take a stance that would directly oppose its alliance with Turkey. Instead, it is more probable that the U.S. will prioritize maintaining diplomatic relations with Turkey, leaving the Kurds without the expected backing in their confrontation with Ankara.
Why would Iran do this?
For several reasons, Iran sees an opportunity in aligning with the Kurds. First, Iran understands that Turkey is an increasingly unstable nation. President Erdogan’s policies have not only destabilized Turkey’s internal affairs but also strained relations with NATO allies and other regional powers. Iran also harbors significant resentment over Turkey’s support for rebel groups in Syria, which ultimately contributed to the overthrow the Assad regime. This action has been seen as a direct challenge to Iran's regional interests and influence.
Furthermore, Erdogan’s unpredictable behavior and willingness to act unilaterally, often disregarding established agreements and alliances, have led Iran to believe that Turkey cannot be trusted as a reliable partner. Given these considerations, Iran views the Kurds as a more trustworthy ally, especially in contrast to Turkey’s shifting allegiances.
A strategic benefit for Iran in aligning with the Kurds is the potential creation of a new corridor for military logistics. By gaining access to Kurdish-controlled areas in northern Syria and Iraq, Iran could establish a more secure and direct route for supplying weapons and resources to its proxy forces in Lebanon, namely Hezbollah.
One potential rationale for the Kurdish shift in alignment lies in their analysis of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. After 20 years of military engagement, the U.S. expended $2 trillion, suffered the loss of 2,500 U.S. soldiers, dead, 4,000 contractors, dead, and another 20,000 soliders, wounded, and left behind billions of dollars in military assets. The sudden and chaotic pullout has left US supported groups like the Kurds questioning the reliability of U.S. support. With Turkey now escalating its military posture against the Kurds, the absence of any clear U.S. commitment to intervene suggests to the Kurds that they may once again be abandoned at a crucial moment.
The U.S. is presently not positioned to effectively counter Turkey’s actions, nor has there been any indication of support for the Kurds in their ongoing conflict. As a NATO member, Turkey holds a strategic advantage, and the U.S. is unlikely to take a stance that would directly oppose its alliance with Turkey. Instead, it is more probable that the U.S. will prioritize maintaining diplomatic relations with Turkey, leaving the Kurds without the expected backing in their confrontation with Ankara.
Why would Iran do this?
For several reasons, Iran sees an opportunity in aligning with the Kurds. First, Iran understands that Turkey is an increasingly unstable nation. President Erdogan’s policies have not only destabilized Turkey’s internal affairs but also strained relations with NATO allies and other regional powers. Iran also harbors significant resentment over Turkey’s support for rebel groups in Syria, which ultimately contributed to the overthrow the Assad regime. This action has been seen as a direct challenge to Iran's regional interests and influence.
Furthermore, Erdogan’s unpredictable behavior and willingness to act unilaterally, often disregarding established agreements and alliances, have led Iran to believe that Turkey cannot be trusted as a reliable partner. Given these considerations, Iran views the Kurds as a more trustworthy ally, especially in contrast to Turkey’s shifting allegiances.
A strategic benefit for Iran in aligning with the Kurds is the potential creation of a new corridor for military logistics. By gaining access to Kurdish-controlled areas in northern Syria and Iraq, Iran could establish a more secure and direct route for supplying weapons and resources to its proxy forces in Lebanon, namely Hezbollah.
22-25
