John Bolton speaking to Rudaw on January 26, 2023. Photo: Rudaw
Restoring the credibility of the United States in the Middle East should be a priority in Washington, John Bolton told Rudaw in an interview about US foreign policy in the Middle East on January 26.
Bolton is a political commentator who has previously served as national security advisor to former US president Donald Trump and US ambassador to the United Nations.
American credibility has suffered several blows in recent years, according to Bolton who referred to the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in 2021 and from Iraq in 2011.
On Iran, Bolton described the rule of the Ayatollah as “illegitimate” and said the US should take a strong stance in support of the opposition, which he urged to unite and form a government in exile “that the people inside Iran would rally around.”
On Syria, Bolton recommended American troops remain on the ground in the northeast where they are based side-by-side Kurdish allies of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Any withdrawal or reduction of US troop numbers “creates more instability. It puts everybody else at risk,” he said.
Rudaw: Thank you so much Ambassador, and good to see you. Thanks for being here.
John Bolton: Glad to be with you.
Let's start with the question of your nomination to the presidential election. Have you made your mind up to declare your bid for the presidency?
No, I'm still considering whether to run, I've not declared as a candidate yet. I've looked at the issue very seriously in 2016. So I know what a difficult decision it is, but I think it's important to assess all the factors and particularly the importance of national security issues in the 2024 election, which I think will turn more on foreign affairs than many recent U.S. elections. So it's a very important election and I want to be sure I play the right role.
I hear that this idea came to you after the president, the former president Donald Trump, said that we should suspend the constitution. Are you going to run for the presidency because the president Donald Trump said that or there are different issues on the table that you want to fix?
No, there are many other issues on the table, but I felt then that when the president said he wanted to suspend or terminate the constitution, that's the same thing as saying he wanted to overthrow the government and it didn't surprise me that Trump would say something like that, but it did worry me that other Republican leaders did not more clearly say that's unacceptable and that the real Republicans support the constitution, they don't favor terminating it, but I wouldn't get in the race simply to be an anti-Trump candidate. I would get in the race to win the nomination.
You were at the White House as the national security adviser and also you worked at the United Nations as the US ambassador to the United Nations. I know there are many issues, especially the national issues. So, when it comes to the national security threats, what's the biggest threat to the United States?
Well, I think you have to look at what are the strategic threats and then what are perhaps more immediate threats. Certainly at the strategic level, China and Russia are the biggest threats, but threats from the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the continuing threat of international terrorism are concerns that we have right now. And in the region of the Middle East, there are both terrorist threats and threats from Iran seeking weapons and mass destruction. So, finding a way to get peace and stability in the Middle East has to remain a very high American priority.
I’ll come to Iran, but what is in President Biden’s book when it comes to the national security threats to the United States, and in dealing with China and Iran as well?
No, I think the President's policy on China is not firm enough. I think it rests more on his desire to negotiate climate change agreements with China, which doesn't deal with the threat the China poses. And I think on the Russian threat, we see that manifest itself by its unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. We see Iran conducting terrorist operations around the region, threatening its neighbors, and oppressing its own people quite apart from the nuclear threat.
One question on Ukraine, you've talked about Ukraine. Who do you blame for the Ukrainian war? Do you blame the current administration or the former administration or the Obama administration? Who's going to be blamed when it comes to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Well, I think everybody has some responsibility. This was an act of unprovoked aggression by the Russians. And they undertook it because they didn't fear what the consequences of the invasion would be. Now, remembering that they first invaded Ukraine in 2014 under the Obama administration and suffered very little in the way of sanctions, the Kremlin might well have thought they could do the same thing again. I don't think we armed the Ukrainians enough in advance. That was a problem in the Trump administration. It was also a problem in the Biden administration. And finally, I don't think President Biden really understands deterrence. And obviously, we didn't deter the Russian invasion. So, there are a lot of mistakes that were made. And I think that's one reason why this question of the international environment threats to America and its friends and allies will be so important in 2024. This war in Ukraine is the biggest land war in Europe since 1945.
Do you think there is a way out of the Ukrainian war?
Well, I think the way out is to expel the Russian troops. The Ukrainians want to be independent. They don't want to be part of Russia. They've fought bravely. We've given them a lot of assistance. But I don't think that President Zelensky sees anything to negotiate while foreign forces are still on his territory.
Do you support the US sending troops to expel the Russian troops?
Well, I don't think we need to. I think the Ukrainians are doing well. I think we should have a better strategy not supplying arms kind of peace meal, but to have a real strategy to win the war. I think there could have been a lot more beforehand to deter the Russians perhaps with the presence of more American troops. But right now, it's the Russians who are suffering terrible casualties. And I think potentially causing instability in Russia as a consequence.
Let's talk about the Middle East. You know that China is pushing hard to have a strong presence in the Middle East, but the US doesn't appear to have that. Do you think when it comes to the foreign policy, the current administration puts the Middle East into the back seat?
Yes, I think in many respects, the best way to understand the Biden administration is to treat it as the Obama administration's third term. Biden is following many of the same policies. The people who are staffing his administration were also in the Obama administration. The emphasis they put on Iran is typical of the Obama administration and their disinterest in the Middle East as a whole, turning away from the region in part because it produces oil and gas and they don't like oil and gas. They want wind and solar and algae to power everything. So, it's a big mistake. The Middle East is critically important to the United States. We have friends and allies there. And the world's going to run on oil and natural gas for a long time, no matter what policies are put in place now.
Another question, as you may notice as well, there are some countries, maybe there are not few, but a lot of countries in the region, they are not willing to rely on the United States anymore. And they are reluctant when it comes to partnership with the United States. Do you think this is because of the policy that was pursued by the former administration or the Obama administration or the current administration is responsible for that as well?
Well, I think in any democratic society, you're going to have fluctuations in policy. That's part of what happens in a democracy. But I also think it's important for the United States when it makes commitments to prove to its friends and allies that will carry through on those commitments. And I think in the region, they've seen Obama's withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 when we had to go back in a few years later because of the rise of al-Qaeda and the threat that it posed. They've seen Biden's catastrophic decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. It was an unmitigated mistake. And many across the region of all different locations worry about the staying power of the United States. So, I think U.S. credibility has to be restored. I think that should be a top priority of a new Republican president after the 2024 election.
You talked about Iran. And I know that you are talking about Iran in many occasions. Are you against the current Iranian government and, if yes, why? And then what's your mindset on President Biden's administration with regards to the current administration in Iran?
Well, I think the Biden administration, again, is simply repeating what the Obama administration did. They have been trying for two years to go back into the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which is a bad deal when it was made. It hasn't gotten any better over time. The Biden administration has tried to make many concessions to the Iranians, and even that hasn't been enough to satisfy them. The fact is the threat in the region, not the only threat, but the principal threat is the government of Iran. It's a threat at the nuclear level. It's a threat at the level of its support for terrorists and its own conduct of terrorist activity. It's a threat in conventional weapons terms in Iraq and other countries in the region. And it's oppressing its own people. So, changing the government in Iran allowing the people to select the government, not the supreme leader, will not end all problems in the Middle East, but until that regime goes, the biggest problem remains.
Then how should the United States deal with the recent events and the current events in Iran, like the Zhina Amini protests? You know, the Kurds have a big role in it. Do you think the U.S. is doing enough when it comes to responding to demands of the demonstrators?
Well, I think a lot is going on inside the country. I think the protest over the dressing for women is much more than about a dress code. I think it's a direct ideological challenge to the legitimacy of the regime itself. And I think the opposition is very widespread. Add it on top of enormous economic dissatisfaction. And I think the regime is in more danger than at any point since 1979. But the opposition is not well organized. The good news is it's all over the country. But the bad news is it's all over the country. And there's no top leadership. I think we could help supply communications equipment and resources. I think we'd like to hear more from the opposition itself. What would be most useful? But I think first you need a clear policy objective. And I think U.S. policy should be to overthrow the regime. Now, once that happens, there are still many issues inside Iran from minority groups in the population and so on. But for now, the opposition should try and be united because nothing is possible as long as the regime remains in power.
As we currently sit here, you know, there's a large campaign of persecution and also arrest of the Iranian people and many of them are Kurds. They are being arrested or executed just because they are demanding freedom and also women's rights. And when we look into the international response to this, we don't see any countries, even the United States, doing enough just to save lives in Iran?
Well, I think the Biden administration still wants to try and get in back into the 2015 nuclear deal. They say it is in the sidelines, but in fact, they would love to find a way to get past these demonstrations in Iran and renegotiate with the government. I think one thing the United States could do is say unequivocally, we think the regime of the Ayatollah is illegitimate and hope that the opposition or the Iranian diaspora can come up with a government in exile, a different government that the people inside Iran would rally around and that we could help find splits within the military and the revolutionary guards in particular because it's the regime's monopoly on force at this point. That's the only thing that keeps it in power.
Let's talk about the Kurds. I know you are a good friend of Kurds. Now, the train of thoughts of Kurds is that the United States puts Kurds in the back seat when it comes to foreign policy. And related to the events that are happening in the region, the United States goes back to the countries in the region with the opposite interests of the Kurds. Do you think a weak Kurdistan is in the interest of the United States in the region?
Well, I think an independent Kurdistan is in U.S. interest. And I think particularly in the case of President Erdogan in Turkey that we are not doing enough to prevent him from going after Kurds in Syria and elsewhere. So, I think one step that would be critical ultimately to a resolution satisfactory to the Kurds and others is to make sure there's a free and fair election in Turkey this May, not to get into the specifics of who nominates what candidate, but we know that in a free and fair election, ultimately Erdogan has to get a clear majority of the vote in a run-off round, if not the first time.
I am aware that you fought with the former President Donald Trump over Kurds. Maybe you’re aware that Sari Kani and also Afrin are two main Kurdish cities in Syria. And they were invaded by Turkey. They changed the demographics. They settled Arab refugees into Kurdish houses. Now the same scenario exists in Kobane. Because of that, because of the Turkish threats to Kobane, maybe Assad regime troops will return to Kobane. Why do you think this is happening? Why is the United States letting this happen? Do you think the United States has a clear policy towards Syria and also Kurds in Syria? Or they are following the plans of Russia, Iran, Turkey and even Assad's regime?
Well at one point we had a clear policy. Much of northeastern Turkey, the triangle east of the Euphrates river, but south of the Turkish border and west of the Iraqi border was a liberated zone. And that, along with the Atanf enclave, along the Jordanian border, was held by American forces and their Kurdish allies and others. I would never have moved from that arrangement. As I say, that's not a permanent solution to the problems and the disagreements. But the withdrawal of American forces or the reduction of American forces creates more instability. It puts everybody else at risk. And at a small cost of the American and other allied presence there, I think we had created the basis after the defeat of ISIS, where there could have been some measure of autonomy. And that could have led to other things. But as American forces draw down, it gets hard to influence any events in the region.
I remember in 2017 when the Kurdish people held a referendum, just to express their desire to be an independent state or not. And I know at that time you tweeted and you showed your strong support for the Kurdistan Region. But at that time the PMF, with the backing of Iran and the acknowledgement of the Turkey, they invaded 41% of the Kurdish areas that been retaken by the Kurdish Peshmerga, who they paid thousands of lives to retake these areas after the fall of the Iraqi troops. But at that time the United States was silent. One year after that you went to the White House and became a national security adviser. And this led Kurdish region became a weak and weaker. Do you think a weak Kurdistan in the region is in the interest of the United States?
No, I think an independent Kurdistan is in the interest of the United States. It's hard to define exactly what its boundaries would be. But I think the state of Iraq has failed. I think certainly Kurdish territories in Iraq could be the basis of a new independent country. I think other arrangements have to be made for the rest of Iraq. That's a complicated pattern. We'll see what happens in Syria and Iran and Turkey.
The Kurds are about 50 million people, from different parts of Kurdistan. And they are defending the same values that the United States is fighting for - democracy, they are pro-democracy and also other values that the United States are supporting. Do you think Kurds deserve to be dealt with better by the United States? We see that when the US leaders and US officials are in office, they are not supporting Kurdistan. But when they leave the office, then they show their support and say, okay, we support Kurdish independence. But when they are in office, they are not doing this. Maybe they are doing but I am not aware of that. Do you think they are deserving a better by the United States?
Well, I think the US has to have a better strategic plan for the region as a whole. And I think thinking through exactly how to handle the Kurds demands for an independent state needs more clarity. In the Trump administration, we did not do that. We did not have strategic clarity. And I don't think other administrations have as well. So this is a legitimate issue to discuss inside the United States. And I think people who have been working to help the Kurds for many years should make sure people in the US know this is a real issue.
If you run for the presidential election and you win the White House, are you going to support a Kurdish independent state when you are a president in office?
Well, I think the state that I could see immediately would be an independent state based on the territory the Kurds hold in Iraq. Now, how to deal with Kurdish populations in other countries nearby is a harder question. I think we all understand that. Certainly in Syria, that's a country that looks like its falling apart. We don't know what will happen in Iran. And Turkey is the biggest problem and the biggest issue that needs to be resolved. I think this is something that Kurds in Turkey will be in a better position to discuss with their fellow Turkish citizens if Erdogan is removed in this election.
And do you think any U.S. administration in the near future will change their policy towards the Kurds even working to create a country for the Kurds? Not in Turkey or Iran, but in Iraq, they have a region and they have their government. They are ready to be an independent state
Well, I think it would benefit the Kurds if there were more discussion of the question in the United States. Right now, in the state department, for example, I would be willing to bet if you asked the Foreign Service, they would vote 99 to 1 against Kurdish independence. So the important thing for Kurdish Americans to do and others who support Kurdish aspirations is to have the general public discuss it more in the United States because I think most Americans would say, we want our independence, we understand why the Kurds want theirs.
What would you suggest for the Kurdish diaspora, Kurdish Americans and also the Kurdish government because they have their representative in the United States? I know there is some lobbying, maybe they are small. What else they can do to have backing from the US administration?
Well, I think doing what they can to make more of an issue, for example, of whether Erdogan treats the Kurds fairly in the upcoming campaign and election in Turkey. I think people will watch that election closely and if he prevents the Kurds from casting their votes for the candidate they want; I think that will get people's attention. So, I would put a lot of emphasis, I can't give you a 20-year game plan, but I can give you a four-month game plan focused on making sure those elections in Turkey are free and fair.
Thank you so much Ambassador, it's so good to have you here at Rudaw.
Glad to be with you, thanks for having me.
Bolton is a political commentator who has previously served as national security advisor to former US president Donald Trump and US ambassador to the United Nations.
American credibility has suffered several blows in recent years, according to Bolton who referred to the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in 2021 and from Iraq in 2011.
On Iran, Bolton described the rule of the Ayatollah as “illegitimate” and said the US should take a strong stance in support of the opposition, which he urged to unite and form a government in exile “that the people inside Iran would rally around.”
On Syria, Bolton recommended American troops remain on the ground in the northeast where they are based side-by-side Kurdish allies of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Any withdrawal or reduction of US troop numbers “creates more instability. It puts everybody else at risk,” he said.
Rudaw: Thank you so much Ambassador, and good to see you. Thanks for being here.
John Bolton: Glad to be with you.
Let's start with the question of your nomination to the presidential election. Have you made your mind up to declare your bid for the presidency?
No, I'm still considering whether to run, I've not declared as a candidate yet. I've looked at the issue very seriously in 2016. So I know what a difficult decision it is, but I think it's important to assess all the factors and particularly the importance of national security issues in the 2024 election, which I think will turn more on foreign affairs than many recent U.S. elections. So it's a very important election and I want to be sure I play the right role.
I hear that this idea came to you after the president, the former president Donald Trump, said that we should suspend the constitution. Are you going to run for the presidency because the president Donald Trump said that or there are different issues on the table that you want to fix?
No, there are many other issues on the table, but I felt then that when the president said he wanted to suspend or terminate the constitution, that's the same thing as saying he wanted to overthrow the government and it didn't surprise me that Trump would say something like that, but it did worry me that other Republican leaders did not more clearly say that's unacceptable and that the real Republicans support the constitution, they don't favor terminating it, but I wouldn't get in the race simply to be an anti-Trump candidate. I would get in the race to win the nomination.
You were at the White House as the national security adviser and also you worked at the United Nations as the US ambassador to the United Nations. I know there are many issues, especially the national issues. So, when it comes to the national security threats, what's the biggest threat to the United States?
Well, I think you have to look at what are the strategic threats and then what are perhaps more immediate threats. Certainly at the strategic level, China and Russia are the biggest threats, but threats from the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the continuing threat of international terrorism are concerns that we have right now. And in the region of the Middle East, there are both terrorist threats and threats from Iran seeking weapons and mass destruction. So, finding a way to get peace and stability in the Middle East has to remain a very high American priority.
I’ll come to Iran, but what is in President Biden’s book when it comes to the national security threats to the United States, and in dealing with China and Iran as well?
No, I think the President's policy on China is not firm enough. I think it rests more on his desire to negotiate climate change agreements with China, which doesn't deal with the threat the China poses. And I think on the Russian threat, we see that manifest itself by its unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. We see Iran conducting terrorist operations around the region, threatening its neighbors, and oppressing its own people quite apart from the nuclear threat.
One question on Ukraine, you've talked about Ukraine. Who do you blame for the Ukrainian war? Do you blame the current administration or the former administration or the Obama administration? Who's going to be blamed when it comes to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Well, I think everybody has some responsibility. This was an act of unprovoked aggression by the Russians. And they undertook it because they didn't fear what the consequences of the invasion would be. Now, remembering that they first invaded Ukraine in 2014 under the Obama administration and suffered very little in the way of sanctions, the Kremlin might well have thought they could do the same thing again. I don't think we armed the Ukrainians enough in advance. That was a problem in the Trump administration. It was also a problem in the Biden administration. And finally, I don't think President Biden really understands deterrence. And obviously, we didn't deter the Russian invasion. So, there are a lot of mistakes that were made. And I think that's one reason why this question of the international environment threats to America and its friends and allies will be so important in 2024. This war in Ukraine is the biggest land war in Europe since 1945.
Do you think there is a way out of the Ukrainian war?
Well, I think the way out is to expel the Russian troops. The Ukrainians want to be independent. They don't want to be part of Russia. They've fought bravely. We've given them a lot of assistance. But I don't think that President Zelensky sees anything to negotiate while foreign forces are still on his territory.
Do you support the US sending troops to expel the Russian troops?
Well, I don't think we need to. I think the Ukrainians are doing well. I think we should have a better strategy not supplying arms kind of peace meal, but to have a real strategy to win the war. I think there could have been a lot more beforehand to deter the Russians perhaps with the presence of more American troops. But right now, it's the Russians who are suffering terrible casualties. And I think potentially causing instability in Russia as a consequence.
Let's talk about the Middle East. You know that China is pushing hard to have a strong presence in the Middle East, but the US doesn't appear to have that. Do you think when it comes to the foreign policy, the current administration puts the Middle East into the back seat?
Yes, I think in many respects, the best way to understand the Biden administration is to treat it as the Obama administration's third term. Biden is following many of the same policies. The people who are staffing his administration were also in the Obama administration. The emphasis they put on Iran is typical of the Obama administration and their disinterest in the Middle East as a whole, turning away from the region in part because it produces oil and gas and they don't like oil and gas. They want wind and solar and algae to power everything. So, it's a big mistake. The Middle East is critically important to the United States. We have friends and allies there. And the world's going to run on oil and natural gas for a long time, no matter what policies are put in place now.
Another question, as you may notice as well, there are some countries, maybe there are not few, but a lot of countries in the region, they are not willing to rely on the United States anymore. And they are reluctant when it comes to partnership with the United States. Do you think this is because of the policy that was pursued by the former administration or the Obama administration or the current administration is responsible for that as well?
Well, I think in any democratic society, you're going to have fluctuations in policy. That's part of what happens in a democracy. But I also think it's important for the United States when it makes commitments to prove to its friends and allies that will carry through on those commitments. And I think in the region, they've seen Obama's withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 when we had to go back in a few years later because of the rise of al-Qaeda and the threat that it posed. They've seen Biden's catastrophic decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. It was an unmitigated mistake. And many across the region of all different locations worry about the staying power of the United States. So, I think U.S. credibility has to be restored. I think that should be a top priority of a new Republican president after the 2024 election.
You talked about Iran. And I know that you are talking about Iran in many occasions. Are you against the current Iranian government and, if yes, why? And then what's your mindset on President Biden's administration with regards to the current administration in Iran?
Well, I think the Biden administration, again, is simply repeating what the Obama administration did. They have been trying for two years to go back into the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which is a bad deal when it was made. It hasn't gotten any better over time. The Biden administration has tried to make many concessions to the Iranians, and even that hasn't been enough to satisfy them. The fact is the threat in the region, not the only threat, but the principal threat is the government of Iran. It's a threat at the nuclear level. It's a threat at the level of its support for terrorists and its own conduct of terrorist activity. It's a threat in conventional weapons terms in Iraq and other countries in the region. And it's oppressing its own people. So, changing the government in Iran allowing the people to select the government, not the supreme leader, will not end all problems in the Middle East, but until that regime goes, the biggest problem remains.
Then how should the United States deal with the recent events and the current events in Iran, like the Zhina Amini protests? You know, the Kurds have a big role in it. Do you think the U.S. is doing enough when it comes to responding to demands of the demonstrators?
Well, I think a lot is going on inside the country. I think the protest over the dressing for women is much more than about a dress code. I think it's a direct ideological challenge to the legitimacy of the regime itself. And I think the opposition is very widespread. Add it on top of enormous economic dissatisfaction. And I think the regime is in more danger than at any point since 1979. But the opposition is not well organized. The good news is it's all over the country. But the bad news is it's all over the country. And there's no top leadership. I think we could help supply communications equipment and resources. I think we'd like to hear more from the opposition itself. What would be most useful? But I think first you need a clear policy objective. And I think U.S. policy should be to overthrow the regime. Now, once that happens, there are still many issues inside Iran from minority groups in the population and so on. But for now, the opposition should try and be united because nothing is possible as long as the regime remains in power.
As we currently sit here, you know, there's a large campaign of persecution and also arrest of the Iranian people and many of them are Kurds. They are being arrested or executed just because they are demanding freedom and also women's rights. And when we look into the international response to this, we don't see any countries, even the United States, doing enough just to save lives in Iran?
Well, I think the Biden administration still wants to try and get in back into the 2015 nuclear deal. They say it is in the sidelines, but in fact, they would love to find a way to get past these demonstrations in Iran and renegotiate with the government. I think one thing the United States could do is say unequivocally, we think the regime of the Ayatollah is illegitimate and hope that the opposition or the Iranian diaspora can come up with a government in exile, a different government that the people inside Iran would rally around and that we could help find splits within the military and the revolutionary guards in particular because it's the regime's monopoly on force at this point. That's the only thing that keeps it in power.
Let's talk about the Kurds. I know you are a good friend of Kurds. Now, the train of thoughts of Kurds is that the United States puts Kurds in the back seat when it comes to foreign policy. And related to the events that are happening in the region, the United States goes back to the countries in the region with the opposite interests of the Kurds. Do you think a weak Kurdistan is in the interest of the United States in the region?
Well, I think an independent Kurdistan is in U.S. interest. And I think particularly in the case of President Erdogan in Turkey that we are not doing enough to prevent him from going after Kurds in Syria and elsewhere. So, I think one step that would be critical ultimately to a resolution satisfactory to the Kurds and others is to make sure there's a free and fair election in Turkey this May, not to get into the specifics of who nominates what candidate, but we know that in a free and fair election, ultimately Erdogan has to get a clear majority of the vote in a run-off round, if not the first time.
I am aware that you fought with the former President Donald Trump over Kurds. Maybe you’re aware that Sari Kani and also Afrin are two main Kurdish cities in Syria. And they were invaded by Turkey. They changed the demographics. They settled Arab refugees into Kurdish houses. Now the same scenario exists in Kobane. Because of that, because of the Turkish threats to Kobane, maybe Assad regime troops will return to Kobane. Why do you think this is happening? Why is the United States letting this happen? Do you think the United States has a clear policy towards Syria and also Kurds in Syria? Or they are following the plans of Russia, Iran, Turkey and even Assad's regime?
Well at one point we had a clear policy. Much of northeastern Turkey, the triangle east of the Euphrates river, but south of the Turkish border and west of the Iraqi border was a liberated zone. And that, along with the Atanf enclave, along the Jordanian border, was held by American forces and their Kurdish allies and others. I would never have moved from that arrangement. As I say, that's not a permanent solution to the problems and the disagreements. But the withdrawal of American forces or the reduction of American forces creates more instability. It puts everybody else at risk. And at a small cost of the American and other allied presence there, I think we had created the basis after the defeat of ISIS, where there could have been some measure of autonomy. And that could have led to other things. But as American forces draw down, it gets hard to influence any events in the region.
I remember in 2017 when the Kurdish people held a referendum, just to express their desire to be an independent state or not. And I know at that time you tweeted and you showed your strong support for the Kurdistan Region. But at that time the PMF, with the backing of Iran and the acknowledgement of the Turkey, they invaded 41% of the Kurdish areas that been retaken by the Kurdish Peshmerga, who they paid thousands of lives to retake these areas after the fall of the Iraqi troops. But at that time the United States was silent. One year after that you went to the White House and became a national security adviser. And this led Kurdish region became a weak and weaker. Do you think a weak Kurdistan in the region is in the interest of the United States?
No, I think an independent Kurdistan is in the interest of the United States. It's hard to define exactly what its boundaries would be. But I think the state of Iraq has failed. I think certainly Kurdish territories in Iraq could be the basis of a new independent country. I think other arrangements have to be made for the rest of Iraq. That's a complicated pattern. We'll see what happens in Syria and Iran and Turkey.
The Kurds are about 50 million people, from different parts of Kurdistan. And they are defending the same values that the United States is fighting for - democracy, they are pro-democracy and also other values that the United States are supporting. Do you think Kurds deserve to be dealt with better by the United States? We see that when the US leaders and US officials are in office, they are not supporting Kurdistan. But when they leave the office, then they show their support and say, okay, we support Kurdish independence. But when they are in office, they are not doing this. Maybe they are doing but I am not aware of that. Do you think they are deserving a better by the United States?
Well, I think the US has to have a better strategic plan for the region as a whole. And I think thinking through exactly how to handle the Kurds demands for an independent state needs more clarity. In the Trump administration, we did not do that. We did not have strategic clarity. And I don't think other administrations have as well. So this is a legitimate issue to discuss inside the United States. And I think people who have been working to help the Kurds for many years should make sure people in the US know this is a real issue.
If you run for the presidential election and you win the White House, are you going to support a Kurdish independent state when you are a president in office?
Well, I think the state that I could see immediately would be an independent state based on the territory the Kurds hold in Iraq. Now, how to deal with Kurdish populations in other countries nearby is a harder question. I think we all understand that. Certainly in Syria, that's a country that looks like its falling apart. We don't know what will happen in Iran. And Turkey is the biggest problem and the biggest issue that needs to be resolved. I think this is something that Kurds in Turkey will be in a better position to discuss with their fellow Turkish citizens if Erdogan is removed in this election.
And do you think any U.S. administration in the near future will change their policy towards the Kurds even working to create a country for the Kurds? Not in Turkey or Iran, but in Iraq, they have a region and they have their government. They are ready to be an independent state
Well, I think it would benefit the Kurds if there were more discussion of the question in the United States. Right now, in the state department, for example, I would be willing to bet if you asked the Foreign Service, they would vote 99 to 1 against Kurdish independence. So the important thing for Kurdish Americans to do and others who support Kurdish aspirations is to have the general public discuss it more in the United States because I think most Americans would say, we want our independence, we understand why the Kurds want theirs.
What would you suggest for the Kurdish diaspora, Kurdish Americans and also the Kurdish government because they have their representative in the United States? I know there is some lobbying, maybe they are small. What else they can do to have backing from the US administration?
Well, I think doing what they can to make more of an issue, for example, of whether Erdogan treats the Kurds fairly in the upcoming campaign and election in Turkey. I think people will watch that election closely and if he prevents the Kurds from casting their votes for the candidate they want; I think that will get people's attention. So, I would put a lot of emphasis, I can't give you a 20-year game plan, but I can give you a four-month game plan focused on making sure those elections in Turkey are free and fair.
Thank you so much Ambassador, it's so good to have you here at Rudaw.
Glad to be with you, thanks for having me.
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment