U.S. President Donald J. Trump is open to supporting groups in Iran willing to take up arms to dislodge the Islamic Regime, including Kurdish factions in Northwestern Iran, U.S. officials told the Wall Street Journal, an idea that could turn Iranian factions into ground forces at least rhetorically backed by Washington.

Officials said Trump hasn’t made a final decision on the matter, including whether he would provide arms, training or intelligence support to anti-regime groups, though the President has urged the Iranian people to rise up several times, telling those in Iran to “take over your government,” adding “America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force.”

Bashur Kurdistan continues to be targeted.

As of now, Mount Korek in the Erbil region has been targeted by drones.

Journalist Lindsey Snell reacted critically to reports that U.S. President Donald Trump held a phone call with Kurdish political leaders regarding developments related to Iran. In response, she wrote:

“Send your people to die for us in our new regime change war, so that we can betray you yet again once we install one of our puppets,” expressing skepticism about U.S. intentions and referencing past tensions in U.S.–Kurdish relations.

@KurdishFrontNews

Lebanon is being bombed with Iranian missiles.

The most pressing issue for the Kurds is the US wishes for the Kurds to become active participants in the war against the Iranian regime and its proxies in Iraq.

What must be said first: the Kurdish factions shall make their decisions; they know the regime and its capabilities. We as the Kurdish community should not pressure our forces to partake in a war that we can’t win.

The Kurds are being offered what the USA has always offered the Kurds: A transactional alliance.
Kurdish forces will be armed, *trained* and they will be given the opportunity to call in air support when possible/needed.
It is very similar to the war against the Islamic State - this similarity however may become the reason for why the Kurdish factions will not partake in this war like the USA wishes - even as we will inevitably become part of this war.

1. The war against the Islamic State taught us that the partners in the war will seek to work with a different partner as soon as a different partner becomes feasible.
In Iraq, the USA prioritised arming the PMF over arming the Peshmerga - in Syria they prioritised arming the *FSA* over arming the YPG

Especially in regards to arming military factions it must be highlighted that both the SDF/YPG and the Peshmerga received less arms and less modern equipment as the other factions in the conflict-region - even as the other factions declared their hostility towards the USA/EU before forging the alliance.

2. As conditions on the ground change, so do the conditions of the alliance.
Guarantees become non-binding agreements only under ideal conditions.

3. Blame will be sought within the Kurdish factions to not uphold pre-agreed upon terms.
The Kurds received extraordinary backlash for liberating Raqqah and Deirezzor from the Islamic state or for defending Kirkuk against the Islamic State - as soon as another potential partner emerged or more valuable regional powers interfered, Kurds were dropped without a second thought.

In short: It will not matter what the USA promises or guarantees to the Kurds every transactional alliance with them has proven to be binding for us but non-binding for them.

Or as US envoy Tom Barrack has said *The Kurds served their purpose, it was a transactional alliance and the USA didn’t promise the Kurds anything*

The big miscalculation of the USA and other actors was to believe that the events involving Kurds in the KRG and Rojava will not have direct consequences on how the Kurds perceive the USA in other parts of Kurdistan, such as Rojhelat.

However, every Kurd must acknowledge the reality that the war - in which we sit right in the middle of - will inevitably pull us in; even if we were to stay neutral.

So the question should move away from “should we enter the war” and instead we must raise the question of “when would the conditions be ideal to enter the war”

Kurds are faced with the choices
A) Fight the Iranian regime now while its military capabilities are evidently still intact
B) Fight the Iranian regime at its weakest point in the future

In both cases we will end up with the same outcome - and the USA has proven to us that there will be no *rewards* for being overly committed to aiding the USA in achieving their objectives.

URGENT

Iran attacked the US Consulate in Erbil with a drone, the defense system intervened and foiled the attack...

US President Donald Trump spoke by phone with Mr. Mustafa Hejri, the Secretary General of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran, one of the parties of the "Coalition of Political Forces of Iran Kurdistan".

A senior source in Hadaka described the conversation as "positive" in an interview.

A very positive phone call between the leader of the KDPI, Hijri and US president Trump - but positivity will not lead to success nor tangible results.

For the Kurdish people, the issue remains: Guarantees were broken and Kurds were discarded after Kurds outlasted their usefulness.