A followup an my recent Kurdistan post. There might be geopolitics behind the U.S. support for Turkey to bomb north Iraq.

The very next day after those bombings and Turkish incursions, the north Iraq (kurdistan?) ‘premier’ Barzani agreed to move the constitutional demanded referendum over Kirkuk and its oil riches to some never-date.

Even though that very significant bow to U.S. demands was in an AFP release, no U.S. media I read (and I do read a lot of these) reported that point. This was some peace offer by Barzani to the U.S., but it was totally ignored. Why?

Barzani later didn’t show up for a meeting with Rice who suddenly and unannounced dropped into Kirkuk, two days after the Turkish bombing and a day after Barzani’s move.

I am not sure what really happened, but Juan Cole’s crude conspiracy theory on this is definitely  wrong. He somewhat assumes that Cheney told the Turks to bomb because the shooter wanted to sabotage Rice’s visit. Cole still desperately wants to see Rice as a ‘realist’ conned by the neos. Dear Juan, realists don’t confuse birth pangs with cluster bombs – end of that discussion.

Here is my speculation.

Talabani, the current president of Iraq and also a Kurdish clan and party leader, did meet with Rice despite the U.S. supported bombing by the Turks.

Back in 1996 Barzani cooperated with Saddam Hussein to fight Talabani and his party. In 2001 Talabani worked with Turkey against the anti-Turkish Kurd PKK guerilla Barzani supported.

Still, after Saddam was gone, the U.S. somewhat liked Barzan:

PRESIDENT BUSH: It’s my honor to welcome President Barzani of the Kurdistan regional government of Iraq to the Oval Office. He’s a man of courage; he’s a man who has stood up to a tyrant.

He did? Well, that’s over with. Suddenly there is war on Barzani. Today at the National Review’s corner – neocon central – Michael Rubin laments over Barzani’s censorship laws:

Iraqi Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani rejects
a new press law on the grounds that any criticism should be
constructive. That which he decides is not constructive, for example,
articles that question the opacity of Barzani’s financial practices,
may saddle newspapers, editors, and journalists with large fines.

Rubin’s real issue is not some censorship laws, (I don’t remember him writing about censorship or corruption in Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or elsewhere), but to make an attack on Barzani.

Hmm – Turkey bombs Barzani’s state with U.S. help. He bows towards the U.S., but gets rejected. The neocons campaign against him.

Could this be the reason?

On May 15, chairman of the
Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) Massoud Barzani met the Chinese
Ambassador to Iraq and the Embassy’s economic and trade counselor. On
behalf of his government, the ambassador invited Barzani to visit
China.

It’s a two years old piece, but just imagine Brazani getting into business with the Chinese. They have supported an independent Kurdistan and the (pseudo-)marxist PKK since 1975 or so – just like the Barzani clan. The Chinese want oil-contracts whereever they can get them.

There is much money to be made in contracts over resources in and around the Kurd semi-state. The Chinese want as many projects as possible and are friendly with the PKK and Barzani. The U.S. wants all contracts it can get and is friendly with Talabani and the Turks.

Talabani is (temporarily) orientated towards the U.S. His son is the official lobbyist for Kurdistan in Washington D.C., spreading the dough wherever he feels he needs to.

Talabani offers a deal on the condition that he gets an exclusive to rule north Iraq? Maybe. His son ‘seeds’ think tank opinons in Washington DC. Rubin workes for the American Enterprise Institute and writes against Barzani.

Geopolitic resource fights established as local proxy wars through manipulation of local rivalties?

It’s quite a guess I am making here, but it certainly wouldn’t be the first of such proxy fights.