Isis Essay

Aided by European conflicts and growing nationalism, imperialized people won their autonomy in the 1900s. While this feat represented the will of determined ethnicities, the minimal presence of European powers allowed the uprisings to succeed. Unlike the 1900s, many powerful nations are heavily invested in the state of the Middle East, resulting in a fragile system of alliances that can easily crumble with increasing conflicts. Therefore, although the Iraqi Kurdish people overwhelmingly desire independence, the deterioration of the global ecosystem justifies the need for the United States to support a unified Iraq.

President Obama’s strategic plan in Iraq and Syria is to continue Airstrikes to slow the forward progression of ISIS, while utilizing deployed U.S. service members to work with coalition partners to assist with partner building capacities. These partners include “Iraqi Security Forces, Kurdish Peshmerga forces, and moderate Syrian fighters, and both Sunni and Shia militia groups.”3 To be successful in this endear as mentioned by Sec Carter, “the only way to have a lasting defeat of ISIL is to have someone who can govern and secure territory once ISIL is defeated, a local force on the ground. That 's why the strategy calls for the United States to help train and equip, and then help enable local ground forces.”4 Without basic security the Government of Iraq (GOI)

US support and agendas within the Middle East have been extremely complicated in the last century. Starting with the backing of the Shah of Iran in the early 1950s to the present-day conflict in Syria, there appears to be no decision without adverse secondary and tertiary effects. Since the Persian Gulf War, US policy has been fully supportive of the Arabs and Turks while limiting official support for the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, and Syria. Nevertheless, unofficially, the US has fully supported the Kurds militarily through the establishment of long-term partnerships between military forces. While always a point of contention with Turkey and the Government of Iraq (GOI), the recent increase in support for Kurdish forces in Syria to oppose the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) brought the issue to the forefront. The time for US policy to withhold support for the Kurds is past due to their critical role in the campaign against ISIL. The US attempted to establish a coalition amongst the Turks and the Arabs but this has largely failed to turn the tide of ISIL’s advance. However, following the consistent successes of the Kurds advance wresting control of northeastern Syria away from ISIL, it is a foregone conclusion that the US requires an alliance with the Kurds if they wish to establish some semblance of stability in the Middle East. In the end, can the US ethically and morally provide support to the Kurds, ignoring requests from US allies in the region?

reasons Saddam attacked Iran to begin with is that Iran was calling for Iraqi Shiites to overthrow

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving

Baghdad's proclaimed reason for invading Iran, in fact, had been to rectify the border; Iraq claimed that the international border should be along the low water of the Iranian shore, as it had been prior to 1975. In international forums, Iran generally failed to win many supporters to its position.

To add on, the Kurdish forces, ISIS, the Assad regime, other oppositions are the main factions fighting in this war. CNN states the clans fighting in the war are becoming

In the middle east, there is a country in the middle of a civil war. Syria is trying to solve a fight between three different sides. Bashar al-Assad, the president and dictator, and the government are trying to suppress the rebellion of the Free Syrian Army. As those two sides fight against each other, they also have to worry about the ISIS terrorists who have pushed into the country and are trying to spread their beliefs. In the midst of their turmoil, other countries have been taking sides either for their own benefit or for the side they chose to take. I believe that the U.S.A. should stay out of the conflict and let things work themselves out. With the possibility of WW3, we don’t need to risk getting involved. Although it may have decreased

On 22 September 1980, Iraq conducted an unforeseen attack on Iran, starting a war that would continue for eight years, only coming to an end when both countries agreed to the terms of the United Nations cease-fire treaty. (“Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa, 2004”) Iraq’s reasoning for starting the war was that the politicians of Baghdad stated that the Iranians were preparing forces for raids across the borders between the two countries. Iraq and Iran had issues in the past over the borders, especially when Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi provided secretive assistance for a rebellion among Iraq’s Kurdish minority.

They lack the backups from other international institutions. The U.S. has helped the ISIL before because in order to use it to fight against the Syrian government and let Assad step down. But due to the Russian involvement, who strongly supports the Assad government, which gave the U.S. a period of frustration. Once the Kurds founded the state, they are bound to divide the territory of Syria. This is why the Kurds are the enemies of the Syrian government. If the U.S. supports the Kurds, the U.S. can make use of the Kurds to tie up another enemy of the U.S., Iran. The reason is the same with the Syria, the Kurds will divide the Iranian territory. By alliancing with the Kurds, the U.S. can manipulate the local situation via Kurdish militants. Meanwhile, it will be easier for the U.S. to control the Kurds, which seems better than previously supporting the al-Qaeda and the ISIS. In addition, the Kurds are the only true allies Americans have in

The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on September 22, 1980, following a long history of border disputes. The conflict saw early successes by the Iraqis, but before long they were repulsed and the conflict stabilized into a long war of attrition. The United Nations Security Council called upon both parties to end the conflict on multiple occasions, but a ceasefire was not agreed to until August 20, 1988, and the last prisoners of war were not exchanged until 2003. The war irrevocably altered politics in the area, playing into wider global politics and leading to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Iran saw the war as an opportunity to export its Islamic revolution to Iraq, where the majority of the population share their version of Shi'a Islam,

If the Yazidi genocide in Iraq and Syria perpetrated by Islamic State or Saddam Hussein's chemichal attacks in 1988 or other abuses by neighboring "brotherly" powers over hundreds of years has taught the Kurds anything it is that they must have their own state. Right now is as good time to go about it as they ever going to have while Trump administration is in the White House.

had succeeded in driving the Iranians off it. The fighting now subsided for a brief interval, while the Iranians continued moving fresh troops into the "liberated zone," and the Iraqis consolidated their defense line along the Jasim. On January 27, the Iranians played their last card-they tried to ford the Jasim and were briefly successful in doing so.

The Iraqi Kurds have just announced that they're freezing the results of their independence referendum, which is bureaucratese for saying that they don't intend to act on it. Which, in turn, is another way of offering a ceasefire to the government troops that have displaced them from Kirkuk and environs. The Kurds gambled and lost. It seems they'd hoped that their western allies would come to their aid, but none did. This, despite loud protestations by sympathetic commentators in the West that the Kurds' loss was a victory for Iranian hegemony over Iraq—in particular, a victory for Iran's IRGC commander in the region, Qasim Suleimani. And even though the State Department denied any Iranian participation, it's unlikely that without Tehran's

On 25 September 2017, an independence referendum was held for Iraqi Kurdistan. The results were overwhelming with 93 percent of votes in favor of independence. This referendum raised tensions between the Kurdistan Regional Government and the Government of Iraq and Iraqi Federal Forces which launched attacks on Kurdish territories (Peçanha, 2017). In mid-October, the disputed city of Kirkuk was retaken from the Kurds (Dubin, 2017). Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has threatened to shut down their border with the Kurdistan Regional Government and Iraqi and Turkish forces held military exercises on their border. Iran is planning their own military exercises with the Iraqi military and closed its airspace to Iraqi