What does the Turkish-Kurdish dialogue mean to the US?
WASHINGTON DC, USA (North Press) – President Trump’s promise to achieve peace between the Kurds and Turks was not an empty promise, especially to the current US president.
The regional changes which have occurred in Iraq and Syria, and the fluctuating US-Turkish relationship have proven that the Kurds, with all political components, became an integral ally of American presence in the region.
Although hostile political groups work strenuously to stand against enabling a Kurdish role in the Middle East, Kurds and their political and military issues have been friends and defenders of Washington and see a US interest in sustaining the relationship with the Kurds.
Despite the historical and important US alliance with Turkey, the US proceeded with its support of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
Donald Trump, who initially aimed to withdraw from northeast Syria, reversed his decision, followed by a Turkish invasion of northeast Syria, all of which indicate an American unwillingness to leave the area.
The last indicator was to strengthen the American front in northeast Syria with more equipment, according to a statement on the CJTF-OIR website.
Some American experts and decision makers see that the best way to overcome the big obstacle facing the US and its campaign to fight terrorism and reinforce its presence in the Middle East is to achieve peace between Turkey and Kurds.
North Press interviewed many American experts and researchers who have made their opinion on the Turkish-Kurdish dialogue known, although they have different points of view toward the possibility of implementing such a deal.
All of them agree on the importance of the peace between the Kurds and the Turks for Washington.
Daniel Pipes, an American author and historian and chair of the Middle East Research Forum, told North Press that theoretically the Turkish-Kurdish peace should be viewed as as important as the American aim to achieve peace between Israel and Palestine.
He added that just as the Palestinian Authority accepts no less than the complete elimination of Israel, the Turkish Republic wants to completely eliminate Kurdish political aspirations.
“These are both unacceptable goals; peace can only emerge when they are dropped in favor of something more modest and practical.” Daniel Pipes said.
He also said he doubts that a Turkey-PKK peace deal can reduce tensions between Ankara and Washington.
“If the PKK pulls back from Syria, this creates an opening for Turkish forces to attack Rojava,” he stated, adding that “the alliance with Turkish nationalists has become central to [Erdogan’s] political identity and program.”
Ryan Bohl, a researcher at the American geopolitical intelligence platform and publisher Stratfor, told North Press that the success of the United States in striking a peace deal between the Kurds and Turkey would be a major diplomatic and security victory for US and the interests of US national security.
As the US is constrained today by the fact that it needs both parties, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and Turkey, and it cannot sever the relationship with either of them, it will fix this reality through a comprehensive peace that will enable the US to obtain the two allies it needs to avoid complications, especially with regard to the goals of combating terrorism and Iran’s influence in the region.
Bohl added that the least that can be said about this solution in relation to the interests of the United States is that it is a “perfect solution.”
He stated, “what we have are rumors of potential contacts between the US and the PKK about the Turkish operations in Iraq, and Jim Jeffrey floating the notion that the YPG might come to the latest peace talks for Syria.”
He added that US does not have the full influence and tools to force both Turkey and PKK to abandon their causes.
Bohl believes that the United States’ ability to conclude such a deal would constitute a positive qualitative leap in favor of America’s goals in the Middle East.
Although Erdogan has not shown much interest in the peace process now in light of his alliance with extremist Turkish nationalists, it is a matter of insistence on diplomacy.
Howard Shatz, chief expert at the Rand Corporation Research Center, told North Press that the US, which is an official ally of Turkey and an important partner on the ground for the Kurds in Syria, is communicating and needs both parties.
Shatz says that he believes that the Kurds are ready to enter peace negotiations and submit their commitments to establishing security and stability.
“Both Turkey and the Syrian Kurds have an interest in seeing the Syrian war end and in seeing Syria not return to its former political system, so that provides a small basis for talks,” he added.
Shatz declared that the US has many tools and means that enable it to persuade the two parties to go into negotiations, but it also has priorities. One of its priorities is that it does not wish to completely abandon its relationship with the Turkish ally, despite turbulent relations as of late.
He added the other priority is that US has good reason to support the Syrian Kurds, especially because of fight against ISIS, but also because there is a lot of support for the Syrian Kurds in Congress and the Department of Defense.
Shatz believes that what remains is the form and formulation of the plan that the United States may present to the negotiating table to persuade the two parties to advance in serious negotiations.
In Shatz’s opinion, a large part of the recent Turkish-American dispute is caused by America’s support for the Kurds and Turkey’s view of the Kurds, who were supported by the United States. As is clear, Turkey views the Syrian Kurds, or at least the YPG and the PYD, as the PKK.
Shatz asserts that peace between Turkey and the Kurds will be very beneficial for the United States in regards to combating terrorism, the Syrian crisis, and combating Iranian influence, which complicates the scene in the region.
Theodore Karasik, senior advisor to the Gulf State Analytics Center in the US, told North Press that given the current trajectory in the region and also given that Turkey is being exceptionally aggressive in both Syria and Iraq, there is every reason to believe that there will not be any kind of an agreement at this time.
“The Kurds just set up an air defense capability so this means that there is going to be some more engagement,” Karasik added.
The results of these changes in the next few months will show what will happen, and perhaps they will carry some opportunities for the Kurds, given the complexity of the scene of the US-Turkish relationship, according to Karasik.