The Pattern of American Betrayal: From the Kurds to Iran

The United States has a long history of encouraging uprisings against authoritarian regimes, only to withdraw support when it matters most. A notable example occurred in 1991 when Shiite rebels and Kurdish fighters in Iraq rose against Saddam Hussein. Despite initial encouragement from President George H.W. Bush, the U.S. administration provided no support, allowing the Iraqi military to crush the uprising, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands and the displacement of over 1.5 million Kurds.

Foreign Policy

This pattern of betrayal can be traced back even further to the 1970s when Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon orchestrated a covert operation to support the Kurdish rebellion against the Baathist regime in Iraq. Although the U.S. provided military aid, it was insufficient for a decisive victory. When Iran's Shah cut off support in 1975, the Kurds were left vulnerable, leading to significant casualties and displacement. Kissinger’s dismissive remark, “Covert action should not be confused with missionary work,” encapsulates the cynical approach of U.S. foreign policy toward those it encourages to resist tyranny.

Foreign Policy

In the context of recent protests in Iran, President Donald Trump has adopted aggressive rhetoric, promising support for demonstrators if the regime responds violently. This marks a departure from former President Barack Obama’s more cautious approach during the 2009 Green Movement, which he later deemed a mistake. Trump's statements suggest a merging of rhetoric and strategy, but analysts caution that any military action may focus on Iran's nuclear capabilities rather than directly aiding protesters.

Foreign Policy

Critics argue that American foreign policy operates on two disconnected tracks: one that emphasizes freedom and self-determination for oppressed peoples, and another that prioritizes strategic interests. This disconnect often leads to a lack of genuine support for uprisings, as seen in both the Kurdish experience and current events in Iran. The historical pattern suggests that American promises may serve more to undermine adversaries than to genuinely support democratic movements.

Foreign Policy

Trump's rhetoric has raised questions about the reliability of U.S. support for protest movements. While he has expressed readiness to intervene, the implications of such actions remain unclear. Observers note that the U.S. may prioritize its strategic interests over the aspirations of those fighting for freedom.

Foreign Policy

There is a notable discrepancy in how different administrations have approached support for uprisings. While some, like Obama, opted for restraint, others, including Trump, appear more willing to engage militarily. However, the effectiveness of such interventions in genuinely aiding protest movements remains uncertain.

Foreign Policy

The Kurds, having experienced betrayal multiple times over the past century, serve as a poignant reminder of the risks associated with American promises. As the Iranian people listen to Trump's declarations, they are left to ponder whether his approach signifies a genuine shift in U.S. policy or merely the latest iteration of a long-standing pattern of encouragement followed by abandonment.

Foreign Policy