Ahlulbayt News Agency: The anticipation is that the central government will not remain entirely silent regarding this Turkish action; however, ultimately, two statements are released. It could be argued that the Kurdistan region is complicit and involved in a conspiracy with America, Israel, and the Turkish government.
Recent military interventions by Turkey in neighboring countries, notably Syria and Iraq, have exacerbated tensions between Ankara and its neighbors. The Turkish newspaper "Hürriyet" has recently reported that the Turkish military is planning extensive ground operations against Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) forces in northern Iraq. According to "Hürriyet," agreements have been made with Iraqi central and local authorities for the execution of these military maneuvers.
Abdul Qadir Salafi, a columnist with close ties to the Turkish government, stated, "Initially, extensive ground operations will target al-Makhlab region." Salafi also asserted that agreements were reached with both the central Iraqi government and the Erbil government, controlled by the Barzani family, prior to the commencement of operations.
According to the newspaper, Ankara anticipates the closure of all its borders with Iraq, spanning 378 kilometers, to combat what it deems "terrorist" elements.
The analytical platform "Al-Waght News" has interviewed " Seyyed Hadi Seyyed Afghahi," an expert on West Asian affairs, to delve into Turkey's military strategies in northern Iraq.
What are Erdogan's objectives in the repeated attacks on northern Iraq? Turks claim to coordinate with the central government of Iraq. How do you evaluate this claim?
Afghahi: Turkey has never coordinated with the central government of Iraq regarding its military activities within Iraqi territory. Mr. Haider al-Abadi had reiterated on several occasions that any military agreement or treaty between us and Turkey would have been terminated and not extended. Regrettably, Turkey has aligned itself entirely with the Kurdistan region, which is purportedly influenced by Zionist interests and harbors Mossad agents. This alignment stems from the Kurdistan region's close relations with both the United States and the Zionist regime, as well as Turkey's NATO membership and strong ties with the Zionist regime. Consequently, this constitutes a conspiracy against the people of Iraq, Iraq's territorial integrity, and its strategic interests. So how can a Turkish newspaper claim that it has been done in cooperation with the Iraqi government? Such actions must have been coordinated with the Kurdistan region, rendering coordination unnecessary.
Nevertheless, Turkey has repeatedly trespassed into Iraqi territory beyond the Kurdistan region. It is perplexing that despite numerous warnings and letters from the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding terrorist and separatist groups like Komala, PJAK, and the Kurdistan Democratic Party operating from Iraqi soil and conducting terrorist activities in our country, they remain unresponsive, while Iran reserves the right to defend its territorial integrity. They assert our territorial integrity has been breached, yet Turkish and American fighter jets patrol Iraqi skies. Although they may be coordinated, it is solely with the Kurdistan region. Thus, the claim of coordination by the Turkish newspaper "Hürriyet" is entirely false. Despite repeated protests from the central Iraqi government, Turkey persists in its violations.
It is noteworthy that despite significant economic exchanges between Iraq and Turkey, Iraq does not force this economic leverage in its dealings with Turkey or exert pressure on it. Under the pretext of combating PKK and PJAK terrorists, Ankara consistently conducts aerial and ground operations in northern Iraq.
What position will the central government of Iraq take concerning the possible Turkish military intervention, and how will the execution of these operations affect the future of the bilateral relations between the two countries?
Afghahi: It is worth noting that even the central government of Iraq does not adopt an adversarial stance towards the Kurdistan region. The region is actively involved in oil exports, and the Iraqi government requires Erbil to provide daily reports on oil export statistics, prices, and the destinations of exported oil.
According to the constitution and agreements between the central government of Iraq and the Kurdistan region, the region is obligated to remit the revenue from oil exports to the central government. However, the central government of Iraq struggles to address the Kurdistan region's violations. Recently, the United States has expressed its intent to forge a defense agreement with the Kurdistan region, possibly insinuating the region's separation from Iraqi territory.
However, when issues of rights surface, the Kurdistan region asserts that the central government of Iraq has failed to meet its obligations and grant them their due rights.
It could be argued that the Kurdistan region adopts an opportunistic approach, resembling the metaphorical ostrich that when asked to lay eggs it becomes a camel and when it's time to carry the load, it transforms into an ostrich. The Iraqi government is entangled in domestic terrorism and struggles with the occupying forces of the United States, which frequently target senior commanders of the Popular Mobilization Forces. Consequently, it refrains from conflict due to its commercial dealings with the Turkish government.
Even the Iraqi government has thus far struggled to resolve its water-related challenges with Turkey. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers, spanning from north to south of Iraq, experience droughts during the summer. Despite complaints and meetings held by the Iraqi government, it has not posed a challenge to the Turkish government or Erdoğan, who have constructed numerous dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers without regard for the rights of the Iraqi people.
While the central government is not expected to remain entirely silent regarding Turkish actions, ultimately, only two statements are issued. It can be suggested that the Kurdistan region is involved in a conspiracy with America, Israel, and the Turkish government, despite its treacherous implications.
Could these Turkish military operations be in line with the implementation of the land corridor known as the "Dry Canal Project" from the Persian Gulf to Turkey via Iraq?
Afghahi: The outcome hinges on the advantages the Iraqi government would gain from this corridor's execution and the terms Iraq could enforce on Turkey as a consequence. Thus, reaching a conclusive determination is presently unattainable. However, it seems likely due to the close scrutiny of some Arab countries in the Persian Gulf, like the UAE, which have made substantial investments in the Kurdistan region and Turkey.
Do you believe that Turkey's security and military strategies have effectively achieved Ankara's goals in the region in recent years?
Afghahi: Turkey wields significant influence in all directions, benefiting from NATO support. It maintains robust and close ties with the Zionist regime and nations in the southern Persian Gulf. Additionally, Erdoğan's visit to Cairo has contributed to the enhancement of relations with Egypt.
Regarding the Syrian conflict, Turkish forces remain deployed, notably in cities like Afrin, signifying Turkey's official involvement in Syrian affairs. While Turkey enjoys a favorable security environment concerning its neighboring countries, domestic conditions are less than ideal. Periodic terrorist incidents and tensions with PKK factions persist.
Moreover, Turkey conducts aerial operations in its Kurdish-populated domestic areas. Internally, Erdoğan confronts numerous protesters and only narrowly prevailed over the Republican Party leader. Domestically, Turkey faces significant political and security challenges from internal rivals. However, Turkey maintains relatively positive relations with neighboring countries at the regional level.
At present, there is speculation regarding a potential Turkish ground operation in northern Iraq, coinciding with heated discussions within Iraq's political arena concerning the expulsion of American forces. What are the potential ramifications of such a move on the process of American forces' expulsion? Moreover, can America be perceived as gaining any advantage in this scenario?
Afghahi: I believe that the United States will not withdraw from Iraq. Instead, it sheds its skin, changes its rhetoric, and constantly alters the pretext for its presence in Iraq.
Initially, they entered Iraq under the pretext of fighting ISIS, but even after the defeat of ISIS, American forces remained on Iraqi soil.
Following the assassination of senior resistance commanders, Haj Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, pressure from the leaders of the resistance axis and the Popular Mobilization Forces against American positions in Iraq intensified. In these circumstances, the Iraqi government and Mr. al-Sudani raised the issue of the timetable for the withdrawal of American forces, estimated to be 3,500 or 5,000 troops, respectively. Washington has also stated that there is no obstacle to negotiations with Baghdad, but we are assigning another military mission to our military forces and demanding the continuation of our forces in Iraq.
You can see that they constantly change their rhetoric. Initially, America claimed its troops were combatants and present in Iraq for military actions. Then they announced that their forces were in Iraq for training, logistical purposes, and assisting Iraqi forces. From the time of Haider al-Abadi to Mustafa al-Kadhimi, Iraqi authorities have always demanded the complete withdrawal of American forces from their country, but the United States has consistently refused and forcibly remained in the country.
Another aspect to consider is the strategic advantage held by the United States in Iraq. Following the downfall of Saddam Hussein, and even prior to that, after Iraq's incursion into Kuwait, the nation fell under Chapter VII of the Security Council. Presently, the revenue generated from its oil exports does not directly replenish its treasury but is instead managed by the United Nations. Under US directives, oil proceeds are gradually directed to the Central Bank of Iraq. America has initiated extensive cultural and organizational investments within Iraq, potentially destabilizing the nation. The protests and civil unrest leading to the resignation of Adel Abdul-Mahdi reflect America's deep influence in the country.
After the martyrdom of Abu Taqavi, who was one of the senior commanders of Kata'ib Hezbollah, despite the fact that the Brigades had declared a ceasefire and al-Sudani had addressed the leaders of the Brigades, saying that they should not engage in military operations, and America had guaranteed no military attack on the resistance positions, we still witnessed the assassination of a senior commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces in the heart of Baghdad. Thus, America has not come to easily withdraw from Iraqi soil; it merely changes the form of its presence in the country.
On the other hand, there has
not been a consensus in the Iraqi Parliament for the withdrawal of
American forces. Currently, participation in the vote on the expulsion
law concerning American forces in Parliament only takes place with the
presence of resistance forces.
/129