Seven US Betrayals of Kurds within a Century… Will It Fail Them Again in Syria?

A US patrol monitors a position between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Syrian opposition factions supported by Türkiye in the countryside of Hasakah, east of the Euphrates, in December 2021. (AFP)
A US patrol monitors a position between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Syrian opposition factions supported by Türkiye in the countryside of Hasakah, east of the Euphrates, in December 2021. (AFP)
TT

Seven US Betrayals of Kurds within a Century… Will It Fail Them Again in Syria?

A US patrol monitors a position between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Syrian opposition factions supported by Türkiye in the countryside of Hasakah, east of the Euphrates, in December 2021. (AFP)
A US patrol monitors a position between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Syrian opposition factions supported by Türkiye in the countryside of Hasakah, east of the Euphrates, in December 2021. (AFP)

If the reaction to Turkish incursions or continued aerial bombardment against Kurdish targets in northern Syria does not meet Kurdish expectations and demands, it wouldn’t be the first time Kurds are betrayed by the US or the West.

In the past century, the global and regional balance of power has changed. The Ottoman Empire collapsed, France and Britain retreated in the world and the Arab region, and US influence grew.

However, four issues remained “fixed,” namely:

First, 40 million Kurds continue to dream of establishing landlocked independent entities or administrations in the four countries in which they live: Türkiye, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

Second, these four countries, despite the many differences between them, have found consensus on coordinating against the Kurds.

Third, major or regional powers have long used Kurds as a tool in their struggles against each other, and to achieve certain goals. For example, the US-led International Coalition has used the Kurds as an essential component in the war against ISIS.

Fourth, US administrations changed, but the betrayals were repeated. Kurdish leaderships changed in different geographical areas, and the wounds of those betrayals remained.

Disappointments and stings

Here is a reminder of seven Kurdish disappointments and Western-American stings over a hundred years:

1 - After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and its defeat in World War I, the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 allocated space for the Kurds in Türkiye to establish autonomy over a region outside Syria, Iraq and Iran.

After Ankara's opposition, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s rise to power and with Washington’s support, the Kurds got a first taste of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which opened the door for Paris and London to share the Fertile Crescent in Syria and Iraq, and the promises of the Treaty of Sevres went unheeded.

The region promised to Kurds by the great powers in eastern Anatolia, had finally gone to the fledgling Republic of Türkiye.

As is the case with the US, Britain flirted with Ataturk by saying that it preferred the relationship with Ankara at the expense of supporting the Kurdish “Republic of Ararat.”

This led to a large exodus of Kurds from southern Türkiye to neighboring countries, especially northeastern Syria.

Later, Baathist Damascus often used the issue of immigration in its rhetoric against the Kurds and repeatedly said: “They are not Syrians.”

2 - After decades of Kurdish revolution and immigration in Türkiye, the US supported Iraqi Kurds against the regime of Abd al-Karim Qasim after he came to power in 1958, and then supported the coup that overthrew him in February 1963.

The new Baathist regime in Iraq took a tough stance on the Kurds. When Iraqi Baathists grew closer to the Soviet Union, Washington cooperated with Tehran, which was ruled at that time by the Shah, in arming and supporting the Kurds with the aim of destabilizing the situation in Iraq.

The support to the Kurds was repeated in the 70’s, not with the aim of establishing a Kurdish state, but rather to create unrest inside Iraq to impede any Syrian-Iraqi rapprochement after the signing of the Camp David Accords and Egypt’s exit from the Arab equation.

According to former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, military support for the Kurds was never aimed at championing the Kurds as much as it aimed at weakening Baghdad’s rule.

The Pike Committee’s report to the US Congress included details like Kissinger’s statement and an assertion that “this policy was not transferred to our clients (the Kurds), whom we encouraged to continue fighting.”

Later, the US sponsored an agreement between Saddam Hussein, who represented President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, and the Shah of Iran in December 1975. Tehran then abandoned its support for the Iraqi Kurds, with the blessing of the administration of the new US President Gerald Ford.

3 - Iraqi Kurds were subjected to more than one blow by the US in the 1980s and 90s. The administration of President Roland Reagan was silent on Baghdad's use of chemical weapons in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Blows of the 1990s

As for the George H. W. Bush administration, it encouraged the Iraqis to move against Baghdad after the Gulf War in 1991, and then abandoned them.

Bush himself called on the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands, to force the Saddam Hussein to step down, but he did not do much when the Shiites in southern Iraq and the Kurds near the borders of Syria rose up.

However, the US imposed an air embargo that allowed the Kurds to flourish in the second half of the 90s.

This rise of Kurds was met with Syrian-Turkish-Iranian coordination to prevent its transformation into a Kurdish “microstate” on the borders that would inspire fellow Kurdish countrymen in Syria, Türkiye and Iran.

4 - After the events of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. There was coordination with the Kurds and their political leaders, and they became among the main winners from the change of the Iraqi regime. Their gains were further reinforced when the US relied on them in the war against ISIS.

In 2017, the former president of the Kurdistan region, Masoud Barzani, wanted to benefit from the support of the US-led International Coalition by taking a step in establishing a Kurdish entity, so he wanted to organize a referendum for self-determination and independence for the region.

The shock or betrayal came when the US clearly declared its reservations about this step.

5 - After the change in Iraq in 2003 and the emergence of the Kurds, the aspirations of the Syrian Kurds revived and they rose up in March 2004, but their movement did not receive any Western backing.

Years earlier, when Türkiye mobilized its army on the borders of Syria in 1998 and demanded the expulsion of the leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), Abdullah Ocalan, from Damascus. Washington and its allies supported Ankara’s position, knowing that the PKK is on Western terrorist lists.

Ocalan left Syria, and the PKK were subjected to strikes by security coordination between Damascus and Ankara. This was until the eruption of protests in Syria in 2011, when Damascus decided to facilitate the emergence of the role of the Kurds against other Syrian opposition.

Plan backfires

6 - Damascus’ plan to use the Kurds backfired. The Kurds became strong and Damascus weakened.

The US joined the Kurds in the fight against ISIS, which expanded after 2014, and provided them with military support and air cover. The US relied mainly on the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), which Ankara considers an extension of the PKK.

After ISIS was defeated by the Kurds and the International Coalition, an umbrella was formed that allowed the Kurds to establish a self-administration and a military force that would soon control a quarter of Syria and most of strategic resources found in the country’s northeast.

The emergence of this entity called “Rojava” worried Ankara, Damascus and Tehran.

Türkiye shifted its priorities in Syria, from “toppling the regime” to expanding in Syrian territory.

It concluded settlements with Russia in 2016, 2018 and 2019 that focused on taking apart the Kurdish entity in northern Syria and preventing its access to Mediterranean waters.

This happened with Russian support and under US silence. But the new betrayal happened later.

7 - At the end of 2019, former US President Donald Trump suddenly decided to withdraw his forces from the borders of Syria and Türkiye.

The Kurds considered this decision a betrayal by the US as it allowed a rapid Turkish incursion and shook the pillars of the Rojava, its forces, and its war against ISIS.

After marathon negotiations, US-Turkish and Russian-Turkish agreements were concluded. Ankara obtained commitments from the two major powers to have the YPG withdraw 30 km from borders.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is currently saying that Washington and Moscow did not abide by the 2019 agreements. Consequently, he escalated drone strikes against “Kurdish targets.”

Erdogan is currently betting on the strength of his position due to the Ukraine war and Washington and Moscow’s need for him. This will help him launch a new operation against Syrian Kurds.

Features of a new US “betrayal” are looming on the horizon. The US did not stop Türkiye from launching drone strikes, nor did it stop the heavy aerial bombardment.

The Kurds are betting on ISIS, or on the West’s interest in preventing the terror organization’s resurgence. The Kurds say that a war against them will make them give up fighting ISIS.

There are those who are threatening to open up the Al-Hol camp, which is often referred to as ISIS’ mini-state, to push the US to move in favor of the Kurds.

As for the Russians, they are conveying demands from Ankara to the Kurds in Qamishli.

These demands include the withdrawal of the YPG from the main cities and border areas in northern Syria and welcoming the deployment of Syrian state institutions and border guards.

Damascus, for its part, is relieved by the US betrayals, Russian stabs, and the Turkish strikes.

Although Damascus cannot openly welcome all this and is most likely to issue a statement condemning “Turkish aggression,” the Syrian capital is pleased at heart with what the Kurds are facing.

The least that could happen from these aggressions and betrayals is that Kurds will be forced to the “bitter” negotiating table from a weak position.

The Kurds’ road to Damascus is paved with disappointments and setbacks.



Iran Leaders Join Crowds on Tehran’s Streets to Project Control in Wartime

An Iranian flag is seen on a residential building that was damaged by recent strikes at Vahdat town in Karaj, southwest of Tehran on April 3, 2026. (AFP)
An Iranian flag is seen on a residential building that was damaged by recent strikes at Vahdat town in Karaj, southwest of Tehran on April 3, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Iran Leaders Join Crowds on Tehran’s Streets to Project Control in Wartime

An Iranian flag is seen on a residential building that was damaged by recent strikes at Vahdat town in Karaj, southwest of Tehran on April 3, 2026. (AFP)
An Iranian flag is seen on a residential building that was damaged by recent strikes at Vahdat town in Karaj, southwest of Tehran on April 3, 2026. (AFP)

After more than a month of being stalked by targeted assassinations, Iran's leadership has adopted a new tactic to show it is still in control - with senior officials walking openly in the streets among small crowds who have gathered in support of the regime.

In recent days, Iran's president and foreign minister have separately mixed with groups of several hundred people in central Tehran. On Tuesday, state television aired footage of the two posing for selfies, talking to members of the public and shaking hands with supporters who had gathered in public areas.

According to insiders and analysts, the appearances are part of a calculated effort by Iran's theocratic leadership to project resilience and authority — not only over the vital Strait of Hormuz but also over the population — despite a sustained US-Israeli campaign aimed at "obliterating" it.

One insider close to the hardline establishment said such public outings are intended to show that the regime is "unshaken by strikes and that it remains in control and vigilant" as the war grinds on.

The US-Israeli war ‌on Iran began on ‌February 28 with the killing of veteran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several senior military ‌commanders ⁠in waves of ⁠strikes that have since continued to target top officials.

Iran's new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has not been seen in public since taking over on March 8 from his father. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, meanwhile, was removed from Israel's hit list amid mediation efforts last month, including by Pakistan, to bring Tehran and Washington together for talks to end the war.

Talks aimed at ending the war have since appeared to have petered out, as Tehran brands US peace proposals "unrealistic". Against that backdrop, recent public appearances by President Masoud Pezeshkian and Araqchi appear designed to project defiance, if not a convincing display of public support.

A senior Iranian source said officials' public presence demonstrates that "the establishment is not intimidated by Israel's targeted killing of top Iranian ⁠figures".

Asked whether Iran's foreign minister or president were on any sort of kill list, an Israeli ‌military spokesperson, Nadav Shoshani, said on Friday he would not "speak about specific personnel."

NIGHTLY RALLIES TO ‌SHOW RESILIENCE

Despite widespread destruction, Tehran appears emboldened by surviving weeks of intense US-Israeli attacks, firing on Gulf countries hosting US troops and demonstrating its ability ‌to effectively block the Strait of Hormuz.

On Wednesday, US President Donald Trump vowed more aggressive strikes on Iran, without offering a timeline ‌for ending hostilities. Tehran responded by warning the United States and Israel that "more crushing, broader and more destructive" attacks were in store.

Encouraged by clerical rulers, supporters of the regime take to the streets each night, filling public squares to show loyalty even as bombs rain down across the country.

Analysts say the establishment is also seeking to raise the "political and reputational" cost of the strikes at a time when civilian casualties are deeply disturbing for Iranians.

Omid Memarian, ‌a senior Iran analyst at DAWN, a Washington-based think tank, said the decision to send officials into gatherings reflects a layered strategy, including an effort to sustain the morale of core supporters ⁠at a moment of acute pressure.

"The system ⁠relies heavily on this base; if its supporters withdraw from public space, its ability to project control and authority weakens significantly," Memarian said.

Speaking to state television, some in the crowds voice unwavering loyalty to Iran's leadership; others oppose the bombing of their country regardless of politics; and some have a stake in the system, including government employees, students and others whose livelihoods are tied to it.

Hadi Ghaemi, head of the New York-based Center for Human Rights in Iran, said the establishment is using such loyal crowds as human shields to raise the cost of any assassination attempts.

"By being in the middle of large crowds they have protections that would make Israeli-American attacks against them very bloody and generate sympathy worldwide," he said.

POTENTIAL PROTESTERS STAY OFF STREETS AT NIGHT

The Islamic republic emerged from a 1979 revolution backed by millions of Iranians. But decades of rule marked by corruption, repression and mismanagement have thinned that support, alienating many ordinary people.

While there has been little sign so far of anti-government protests that erupted in January and abated after a deadly crackdown, the establishment has adopted harsh measures, such as arrests, executions and large-scale deployment of security forces, to prevent any sparks of dissent.

Rights groups have warned about "rushed executions" during wartime after Iran hanged at least seven political prisoners during the war.

"Many potential protesters are frightened by the continuing presence of armed men and violent crowds in the streets and largely stay at home once darkness falls," Ghaemi said.


'Metals of the Future': Copper and Silver Flow Beneath Poland's Surface

Smelter workers process copper at the Glogow plant in southwestern Poland, owned by KGHM. Wojtek RADWANSKI / AFP
Smelter workers process copper at the Glogow plant in southwestern Poland, owned by KGHM. Wojtek RADWANSKI / AFP
TT

'Metals of the Future': Copper and Silver Flow Beneath Poland's Surface

Smelter workers process copper at the Glogow plant in southwestern Poland, owned by KGHM. Wojtek RADWANSKI / AFP
Smelter workers process copper at the Glogow plant in southwestern Poland, owned by KGHM. Wojtek RADWANSKI / AFP

Thousands of meters beneath the ground, amid suffocating heat, lies one of the keys to Poland's rumbling mining sector -- and the world economy.

Whitish ore, rich in copper and silver, is extracted from the country's depths and exported around the world to fuel technological and energy transitions.

"These are the metals of the future," Ariel Wojciuszkiewicz, a geologist at the Polkowice-Sieroszowice mine in the west of the country, tells AFP, noting that copper and silver are "indispensable for electronic equipment, electric cars, and renewable energy installations".

Driven by the rise of artificial intelligence, renewable energies, and global defense needs, demand for these metals is expected to keep increasing in the future, with copper even being referred to as "red gold" and a "barometer" for world economic development.

Poland, responsible for as much as half of Europe's supply, is one of the industry's key players.

Equipped with a helmet and an emergency breathing device, Wojciuszkiewicz leads AFP journalists through the Polkowice-Sieroszowice mine -- one of three sites operated by KGHM, the Polish metals giant, which also owns local smelters and companies in the Americas.

The 24-hour operation runs at a constant roar as machines grind rock at deafening volumes, its tunnels stretching for hundreds of kilometers beneath Poland's surface.

The world's second-largest silver producer, the KGHM group also supplies between 40 percent and 50 percent of the copper produced in Europe.

Last year, it ranked eighth worldwide in terms of copper extraction volume, behind global giants such as BHP Group, Glencore Plc and Rio Tinto, according to industry statistics.

Global copper demand, already high, is expected to climb by over 40 percent by 2040, according to a 2025 UN Report.

To meet this demand, "it might take 80 new mines and 250 billion dollars in investments by 2030," the organization estimates.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), however, predicts that supply will lag 30 percent behind demand by as early as 2035.

- 1,200 degrees Celsius -

Dependence on copper is growing exponentially across the world economy's most innovative sectors.

"We don't realize how much we are surrounded by copper on all sides," Piotr Krzyzewski, KGHM vice president in charge of finance, explains to AFP.

"An electric car contains 80 kg of copper, compared with 20 kg in a conventional one," he notes, while "a wind turbine contains between four and ten tons of copper per megawatt."

Farther away, at the Glogow smelter, two workers in protective suits, armed with long lances, open huge furnaces where the ore is melted.

They work diligently as sparks fly from metal heated to 1,200C.

Several processing stages later, 99.99 percent pure copper plates, each weighing more than a hundred kilos, are shipped all over the world.

Last year, the KGHM group as a whole generated more than 36 billion zlotys ($9.7 billion) in revenue. Copper production reached 710,000 tons and silver production 1,347 tons, according to the group's annual report, published at the end of March.

No less than half of the silver is used in industry, mainly for electronics, solar panels, and medical applications. The rest goes to jewelery or serves as a safety net and financial asset.

But it is copper, now an irreplaceable metal for the economy, that has become the object of global strategic contention.

"Copper is on the strategic list of critical metals in Europe, the United States, and China," Krzyzewski tells AFP.

The metal's impact on geopolitics is already being noted in real time.

In July, US President Donald Trump announced a 50 percent tariff on copper, eventually limiting the measure to products made with the metal.

To justify his decision, he invoked the need to "defend national security".

"Copper is the second most used material by the Department of Defense!" he said.

- Record prices -

In 2025, copper prices jumped 41.7 percent, before hitting a record high of $14,527.50 a ton in January of this year.

Even in the face of the war in the Middle East and the slowdown of the global economy, the price remains high at about 12,000 dollars per ton.

In this uncertain context, Poland's subsoil appears to be a major asset for the energy sovereignty of the Old Continent.

"It's no longer about the security of our country alone, but the security of all of Europe," Krzyzewski says, adding that KGHM's resources "are still estimated to last for at least 40 years," not counting new exploration and concessions.

But mining consumes enormous amounts of water, making it subject to the effects of global warming and drought.


Trump’s Anger Over Iran Thrusts NATO into Fresh Crisis

A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. (Reuters)
A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. (Reuters)
TT

Trump’s Anger Over Iran Thrusts NATO into Fresh Crisis

A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. (Reuters)
A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. (Reuters)

The NATO alliance has in recent years survived existential challenges - ranging from the war in Ukraine to multiple bouts of pressure and insults from US President Donald Trump, who has questioned its core mission and threatened to seize Greenland.

But it is the US-Israeli war with Iran, thousands of miles from Europe, that has nearly broken the 76-year-old bloc and threatens to leave it in its weakest state since its creation, say analysts and diplomats.

Trump, enraged that European countries have declined to send their navies to open up the Strait of Hormuz to global shipping following the start of the air war on Feb 28, has declared he is considering withdrawing from the alliance.

"Wouldn't you if you were me?" Trump asked Reuters in a Wednesday interview.

In a speech on Wednesday night, Trump criticized US allies but stopped short of condemning NATO, as many experts thought he might.

But combined with other barbs aimed at Europeans in recent weeks, Trump's comments have provoked unprecedented concern that the US will not come to the aid of European allies should they be attacked, whether or not Washington formally walks away.

The result, say analysts and diplomats, is that the alliance created in the Cold War that has long served as the basic fabric of European security is fraying and the mutual defense agreement at its core is no longer taken as a given.

"This is the worst place (NATO) has been since it was founded," said Max Bergmann, a former State Department official who now leads the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"It's really hard to ‌think of anything that ‌even comes close."

That reality is sinking in for Europeans, who have counted on NATO as a bulwark against an increasingly assertive Russia.

As recently ‌as February, ⁠NATO Secretary-General Mark ⁠Rutte had dismissed the idea of Europe defending itself without the US as a "silly thought." Now, many officials and diplomats consider it the default expectation.

"NATO remains necessary, but we must be capable of thinking of NATO without the Americans," said General Francois Lecointre, who served as France's armed forces chief from 2017 to 2021.

"Whether it should even continue to be called NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization - is a valid question."

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said: “President Trump has made his disappointment with NATO and other allies clear, and as the President emphasized, ‘the United States will remember.’”

A NATO representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT

NATO has been challenged before, not least during Trump's first term from 2017 to 2021, when he also considered withdrawing from the alliance.

But while many European officials until recently believed that Trump could be kept on board with pomp and flattery, fewer now hold that belief, according to conversations with dozens of former and current US and European officials.

Trump and his officials have expressed frustration over what they see as NATO's unwillingness to help the United ⁠States in a time of need, including by not directly assisting with the Strait of Hormuz and by restricting US use of some airfields and ‌airspace. US officials have declared NATO cannot be a "one-way street".

European officials counter that they have not received US requests for specific ‌assets for a mission to open the strait and complain that Washington has been inconsistent about whether such a mission would operate during or after the war.

"It's a terrible situation for NATO to be in," said ‌Jamie Shea, a former senior NATO official who is now a senior fellow at the Friends of Europe think tank.

"It is a blow to the allies who, since Trump returned to ‌the White House, have worked hard to show that they are willing and able to take more responsibility (for their own defense)."

Trump's latest comments follow other signs of an increasingly unsteady alliance.

Those include his stepped-up threats in January to wrest Greenland away from Denmark and recent moves by the US that Europeans see as particularly accommodating toward Russia, which NATO defines as its principal security threat.

The administration has remained essentially mum amid reports that Moscow has provided targeting data for Iran to attack US assets in the Middle East and has lifted sanctions on Russian oil in a bid to ease global energy prices that have spiked during the war.

At a meeting of G7 foreign ministers ‌near Paris last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Kaja Kallas, the foreign policy chief of the European Union, had a tense exchange, according to five people familiar with the matter, underlining the increasingly fraught transatlantic relationship.

Kallas asked when US patience with Russian President Vladimir ⁠Putin would run out over Ukraine peace negotiations, prompting Rubio ⁠to respond with irritation that the US was trying to end the war while also providing support to Ukraine, but the EU was welcome to mediate if it wanted to.

NO GOING BACK

Legally, Trump may lack the authority to withdraw from NATO. Under a law passed in 2023, a US president cannot exit the alliance without the consent of two-thirds of the US Senate, a nearly impossible threshold.

But analysts say that, as commander-in-chief, Trump can decide whether the US military will defend NATO members. Declining to do so could imperil the alliance without a formal withdrawal.

To be sure, not everyone sees the current crisis as existential. One French diplomat described the president's rhetoric as a passing temper tantrum.

Trump has changed his position on NATO before.

In 2024, he said on the campaign trail that he would encourage Putin to attack NATO members that do not pay their fair share on defense. By the last annual NATO summit, in June 2025, the alliance was in his good graces, with Trump delivering a speech effusively praising European leaders as people who "love their countries."

Next week, Rutte, the NATO secretary-general, who has a strong relationship with Trump, is set to visit Washington in an effort to change Trump's view once again.

Analysts say European nations have good reason to keep the US engaged in NATO despite doubts over whether Trump would come to their defense. Among other reasons, the US military provides a range of capabilities NATO can't easily replace, such as satellite intelligence.

Even if Trump and the Europeans find a way to stay together in NATO, diplomats, analysts and officials say, the transatlantic alliance that has been central to the global order since World War Two may never be the same.

"I do think we're turning the page of 80 years of working together," said Julianne Smith, the US ambassador to NATO under Democratic President Joe Biden.

"I don't think it means the end of the transatlantic relationship, but we're on the cusp of something that's going to have a different look and feel to it."