Kurdistan Observer

Kurdistan Iran policy
By: Prof Goran Nowicki
May 14, 2006

Many researchers have looked at aspects of US, Turkish, Iraqi and Iranian policies towards Kurds. With the development in the regions and the establishment of the Kurdistan administration in Erbil, one can now discuss the Kurdistan's Turkish policy or Kurdistan's Iran policy. In this article, I look at some aspects of Kurdish Iran policy in the context of the looming US war against Iran.

KURDS AND PERSIANS

In [1], I looked at some history of Kurdish and Persian relations before the arrival of Turks in the region. One can divide the era roughly into:

1) Mitanni-Assyrian era (1600-800 BC) before the appearance of Persians in the region and the later domination of Kurdish regions by Assyrians.

2) Medes-Persian era (800-331 BC) when the Persians appeared in the region and the later domination of Medes empire by Persian kings and replacement of Medes Mithraism with Persian Zora sterism as state religion.

3) Greek-Roman era (331BC-363AD) when Kurdish regions was part of or neighbor to European powers until the defeat of Julian.

4) Persian era (363-636 AD) when Persians dominated Kurdistan again.

5) Arab-Kurd era (636-1040 AD) when Arab Islamic dynasties dominated and later establishment of Kurdish principalities.

6) Turkish-Persian empires (1040-now) arrival of Mongols and Turks in the region and establishment of Turkish dynasties (e.g. Seljuk, Ottomans).

Historians refer to Chalduran battle (1514 AD) between Ottomans Turks and Safavid Persians as the first division of Kurdistan. But going back to history one can find traces of temporary independence of Kurds from Persians and the division of Kurdistan between the Romans and Persians. For example the historians accompanying Julian, the Roman emperor in his failed campaign against Persia (363 AD) clearly refer to Kurdistan [2] in east of Tigris as the friendly country that the Romans can withdraw before their defeat by Persians.

This testimony by Julian's companions is significant because it marks not only the beginning of Kurdish European friendly relations but it is also one of the first instances of Independent Kurdistan's Iranian policy after the failed union of Medes an d Persians.

This evidence also may suggest that the Kurdish regions until 363 AD were still worshipping Mitra and their friendly relations towards Julian may have been because of the religious faith of Julian and his respect and worship of Mitra. Historians suggest that Julian may have been assassinated by one his own Galilean troops because of his religion and his bold attempt to revive
the Mithraism in Roman empire.

When the Ottoman Turks arrived, they crushed the last traces of Roman eastern empire in Anatolia and the Kurds warmed up to these new neighbors who were Sunni like Kurds. So one can analyze the Ottoman-Kurdish relations as the consequence of the re-emergence of the pattern of Roman era Kurdistan's Iranian policy.

KURDISTAN NEW BORDERS

The WW I disintegrated the Ottoman empire and the French-British Sykes-Picot agreement (1916) tried to impose new artificial borders in the middle east region. The later establishment of Iraq modified the Sykes-Picot plan and created an unstable and artificial country. The British mastermind of Iraq project, Miss Gertrude Bell (1868-1926) committed suicide on July 12, 2 days short of her 58th birthday and long before seeing the results of her design [3].

To Sir Mark Sykes, the pre-WWI British Foreign Office Arabist, "that damned fool," Miss Bell, created an "uproar" wherever she went in the Middle East and was "the terror of the desert." [3]

With the fall of Saddam (the terror of Iraq) and the establishment of Kurdistan government, a new chapter in the history of Kurds has opened. The Kurdistan region which was chopped into 4 pieces in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria in WWI has now a new chance for reunification of its regions. I highlighted two different scenarios for such unification in [4] and [1]. Depending on adopting the "Turkish centered policy" [1] or "Persian centered policy" [4], the Kurdistan's Iran policy and Kurdistan's Turkish policy will be formulated.

SOME THOUGHTS ON KURDISTAN IRAN POLICY

Kurdish Iran policy cannot be formulated without considering the Persian and Turkish state behavior in the region and the upcoming developments in the region. Currently, both Turks and Persians have adopted a hostile policy towards Kurdistan entity. Both governments in Turkey and Iran are pro-Islamist and at odds with US in the region. There is a possibility that the present Turkish government loose its present majority in the parliament or be overthrown by a coup. But such an internal development for Iranian regime is not foreseeable.

But by November 2006, some of the external ambiguities regarding Iran will be clarified. Whether US finally commits himself to attacking Iran by mid September will be finalized. This window of opportunity for Bush to attack Iran may close as soon as a democratic congress or Senate (or both) come into power in upcoming US elections.

If Bush attacks Iran in upcoming months then the Kurds will adopt a Turkish centered policy in the region. If instead he decides to go for a diplomatic solution, then the Kurdistan policy in the Kurds should adopt a Persian centered policy in the region that they have adopted for the past

Kurdish policy makers need to plan for the possibility of the war and be ready to act in the case of US-Iran war. Will they try to push to share power in Iranian capital or a liberated capital of the western region (e.g. Hamedan) or will they decide to watch other parties jockey for the power in Tehran and instead focus on Kurdish regions? In case Kurds are not present in Tehran's new regime, then the new pro-US regime in Iran will dwarf the importance of Kurds as a US ally in
the region.

Considering the 6 hours distance from Khaneqin to Tehran and the existence of no natural barrier such as mountain, desert or sea, the Kirmanshah-Tehran axis will be the central front for the attacks. Both the Northern front (Azerbaijan/Caspian) and Southern front (Persian Gulf) are farther away from the capital and facing natural barriers.

But in such a war, Bush will be a winner like the emperor Alexander and unlike the emperor Julian) considering the 70% percentage of Iranian population which are under 35 years and more than 90% of them are pro-American. If one adds the dissatisfied Iranian population above 35 years who are more passive, the percentage of pro regime-change by a US war will go up more than 90% of population. Such a war will put an end to Iran as the outlaw sanctuary for Al-Qaeda and groups
such as Hezbollah and states such as Syria and it will remove an atomic threat to the region.

In case Bush has no stomach for a new war with Iran, then the Kurds will continue their present passive "brotherly" and peaceful policy towards Iran and wait for the next presidential elections in US which may bring into power a new president with a plan for dividing Iraq into 3 states.

But as long as the threat of war is hanging over the head of Iran like a D amocles sword (over the next 2 years of Bush presidency), this brings new opportunities especially for the Kurds in Iran. And Kurds should bargain for more rights and possibly a UK style devolution of power to Kurdish provinces and region in Iran, if the Iranians are wise enough.

REFERENCE

[1] G. Nowicki, Turkey Playing with Fire II: Win Win Game, Kurdistan Observer, Mar 2006.

[2] E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 1776.

[3] Desert Queen : The Extraordinary Life of Gertrude Bell: Adventurer, Adviser to Kings, Ally of Lawrence of Arabia , by Janet Wallach, 1999.

[4] G. Nowicki, A New Chessboard of Middle East, Kurdistan Observer, May 2005