Three Sides of the Middle East conflict, plus the US

Submitted by Michael S (United States), Aug 28, 2014 at 13:12

ISIL is simply killing Muslims for the sake of Israel.

Now I've heard everything :-)

the Islamic state has been busy with choking Muslims like chickens in Iraq mainly for just being Shia.

That sounds more realistic.

What more proof are you looking for?

Something tangible.

The leader of PKK, Karayilan openly stated Mossad-PKK ties and that Israel and PKK should move together against the "enemy" on an Israeli TV station.

I did not see the TV program, so I don't know whom you are referring to as the "enemy". Currently, the PKK have been at the forefront of Kurdish resistance to the ISIL invasion of their lands. Since ISIL works in coordination with HAMAS and the other terrorist groups in Gaza, it is reasonable that PKK and Israel should "move together".

Although I do not endorse the ALMonitor, they have just posted an interesting article that articulates the general alignment of sides in the Middle East: It goes like this:

Side I

Syria, Hezbollah, Russia, China, PYD (Syrian Kurds of Rojava), Iraq (central government), PKK (Kurdish Worker's Party), [PUK -- see below]

Side II

Turkey, KRG (Kurdish Regional Government, led by the Barzani clan), [ISIS -- see below]

To this mix, I might add that the PUK, led by the Talibani clan that controls the Presidency of Iraq, falls on "Side I", opposite the Barzani faction of the KRG. The Turks and Barzani have been promoting Iraqi Kurdish independence (Ironically, the same stance Israel has made -- and one Turkey has historically fought against); whereas the Talibani faction and others (including the US) have contrawise backed autonomy within Iraq rather than independence. That puts the US, in this instance, on the Iranian side and Israel (by coincidence) on Turkey's side.

I have also put (ISIS/ ISIL/ The Islamic Caliphate/ whatever they call themselves lately) on "Side II, with Turkey, for the simple reason that without supply routes through Turkey and the Turkish outlet for oil smuggling, ISIS would likely crumble. Turkey, for its part, has taken an officially "neutral" stance, presumably because of the "Mosul hostages" -- the same reason it has used for blacking out coverage of ISIS in Turkey.

Israel occupies a curious place in this tangled web. It backs Kurdish indepencence, yes -- aligning it on this matter with Turkey. At the same time, Turkey and Qatar are waging a proxy war against Israel in Gaza, against Egypt in Sinai and against the UAE and its Libyan allies in Libya. This points out a new set of players, which I will call "Side III":

Side II

Turkey, Qatar, HAMAS, Muslim Brotherhood, Ansar al-Sharia and allied militias in Libya

Side III

Israel, Egypt, UAE, Libya (Haftar, Zintan and allied factions)

In this connection, Israel stands solidly opposed to Turkey.

The US is in a curious position in all this -- fighting alongside Iran in a proxy war against its NATO ally Turkey, while at the same time taking the side of Turkey, Qatar and ISIS against both Syria-Assad and Israel. It seems that Mr. Obama, the "Peace" President, is backing war for its own sake -- as long as we do not have American "boots" on the ground (Presumably, our thousands of troops in the region go barefoot).

Now, the same West that categorized PKK as a terrorist organization for decades is getting ready to deploy weapons to Barzani's Peshmerga, PKK and PYD which is the Syrian branch of PKK.

It's pointless to speak of "the same West", seeing that Israel, Turkey and Iraq are all nominal US allies. It's obvious that these countries are not on the same page with one another. As for the Peshmerga, the last I read on the matter is that the US is sending weapons to the area, but they are not getting to the mainly PKK-allied fighters on the front lines. Until the PKK came in to stiffen up Peshmerga resistance to ISIS, the forces of Barzani's regime were fleeing from ISIS. The US airstrikes have also been half-hearted, and seem to be more of an Obama reaction to domestic pressure than genuine support of anyone.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".