Posted on 10/23/2011 3:47:56 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Tension between Baghdad and Kurdistan region has reached its peak since the Iraqi PM, Nuri AL-Maliki ordered the removal of Kurdish flags from government buildings in Khanaqin in Diyala province, which is in the disputed territories defined under Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution.
Since the directive was issues by the Iraqi PM, many protests in Diyala province and elsewhere in Kurdistan region have taken place... The head of Diyala province also refused to comply with the order from the PM to remove the Kurdish flag from government buildings.
The focal point of the incident was in Khanaqin, in an area which has been the subject of ethnic cleansing and arabization for decades by the former regime. The Iraqi PM's latest decision to remove Kurdish flags has evoked painful memories from the past, and brought the simmering ethnic disputes and mistrust to the surface.
Maliki's directive is seen as a symbolic move by Baghdad to assert control over the areas, which is still disputed and successive Iraqi government after 2003 failed to deal with it. Kurds does not see areas like Khanaqin as a disputed territory but as part of Kurdistan region, which is waiting to be annexed back to the region if and when the long-awaited article 140 of the Iraqi constitution is implemented.
It is needless to say that areas like Khanaqin and Kirkuk which falls under the "disputed territories" are strategically very important for whoever controls it, because it has abundant hydrocarbon reserves and Kirkuk has one of the largest giant oil filed in Iraq.
Resentments and tit for tat politics are on the increase between the central government and the KRG (Kurdistan Regional government). Oil output from Kurdistan region is decreasing as payment issues is still not being resolved.
(Excerpt) Read more at kurdishaspect.com ...
How long after we leave until the three-way Shia-Sunni-Kurd civil war breaks out in Iraq?
It’s good that the flags of Slovakia and Slovenia are so different, so people won’t get the two countries confused.
:’) That’s the risk they take by having a tricolor.
It’s a terrain that not very conducive for conventional warfare. The Kurds wound up in factions because of the Shah of Iran and (later on) Saddam Hussein; they were recruited to fight in each other’s territory. After the Shah fell, the mullahcracy stopped supporting the Kurds altogether, and Saddam turned all the factions to his own will. But they never forgot his poison gas attacks and the fact that the oil from their land was going to enrich the Arab regime.
It’s been going on continually for decades already. :’) After the Syrian regime is tossed, the Sunni will purge / repress / exile / exact retribution on the Alawites (deviant branch of Shia Islam). They’ll be allied with the Assyrians, Kurds, and the Christians (they will flip, if they haven’t already; Christians have been participating in the uprising).
The Saudis and the GCC already support whatever the successor state will be, and the Turks have turned on Assad. He’s not a loved man in Lebanon, and his father’s earlier iteration of the regime invaded Jordan in support of the PLO’s attempt to overthrow King Hussein in 1970 (the Israelis buzzed the tank columns, and they turned tail). The Iraqi Arabs irrespective of how they identify themselves don’t like him because Syria was in the Gulf War alliance, and supported terrorism after Saddam’s overthrow. For that matter, Syria supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, which pissed off the Gulf states as well as the Iraqis.
Not many tears will be shed over Assad. I don’t think he’ll stick around long enough to be killed, but his only viable haven when he flees Syria is probably Russia.
Whoops, so, anyway, after the Syrian regime change, we can probably expect any fight in Iraq to pit the Kurds (supported by Syria and the Gulf States; this will be a diplomatic problem with Turkey, should be interesting) and the Sunni in Iraq against the Shia and Iran in Iraq.
Also, the Hizzies in Lebanon will be getting a little visit from the Syrian army, which will roll up the Bekaa valley and spend a few months or seasons in a very loud firefight. The Turks will not bitch too much about that, since the Hizzies have of late been trying rapprochement with the Russians.
We’ll probably see a new alliance shake out regarding the natural gas and petroleum exploration in the eastern Med. A few weeks back there was a tempest about Turkish threats toward Israel’s economic zone, and Turkey’s backing of the TRNC (only Turkey recognizes it as a state) pissed off the Greeks, the Greek Cypriotes, and the Russians. A Turkish/Lebanese/post-Assad-Syrian alliance over this issue is likely.
Iran, the Hizzies, and Russia will wind up in an alliance. The only shot they’ve got is to try to overthrow the Gulf States and keep control in Iraq, and those things depend on the effectiveness of Iran. Iran’s been trying to worm its way into Afghanistan, and as a consequence is in direct conflict with the alleged gov’t of Pakistan. India is also trying to deal itself in with Afghanistan, and it’s not unlikely they will succeed. China’s balked on its economic deals with Pakistan because of the complete lack of security in that alleged country.
The Saudis have lost in Afghanistan.
The move will be, a rice buffet and confab between Iran and India. Iran can live with Indian troops and whatnot in Afghanistan, as opposed to US troops. And India and Russia have great relations as well. Iran and India can then collaborate on the dismembering of Pakistan, not that there’s much left to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
