On May 10 2018 08:59 Plansix wrote: Kwarks was similar to mine in that Dauntless’s theory excludes all outside factors.
Actually, my theory doesn't, and y'all have the much harder argument to make that Trump's taunting had a negative (or no) impact upon the current deescalation. The taunting very clearly was part of a larger strategy of highly aggressive posturing by Trump last year that also included military deployments to the region and unusually provocative training exercises. You can also bet that the first round of missile strikes on Syria last year was meant to show to Kim Jong Un (and everyone else) Trump's resolve on foreign policy issues. Trump was the bad cop to Moon Jae-in's good cop in negotiating with North Korea. We can tell that Trump's deliberate ratcheting up of tensions had the desired effect because North Korea is dealing directly with the US in a way that it previously hasn't. It's meeting directly with high level American officials outside of multilateral meetings and will meet with Trump. North Korea is also unilaterally taking steps to curry American favor, such as releasing American prisoners. While I have no doubt that South Korea and China also played a role in current diplomatic developments, Trump's contributions cannot be overlooked. For all of these reasons, Ben Rhodes' tweet was idiotic in that he either misunderstood Trump's play or grossly miscalculated its effect. But hey, he comes from the administration that recklessly drew red lines and failed to enforce them, so I doubt he understands what credible foreign policy looks like.
On May 10 2018 08:41 Jockmcplop wrote: Looks like xDaunt isn't continuing this argument. I postulate that KwarK's rude tone is responsible for this deescalation.
Whoever said we should be civil to each other in these threads looks pretty retarded now.
Why would I respond to it? It's a terrible post that is loaded with baseless presumptions and strawmanning. Plus, it has a shitty tone. Like almost everything else Kwark writes, it's not worth my time.
I think you using hindsight to down play how risky that tactic was. NK is still a nation would randomly shell parts of SK for no determinable reason. Ben Rhodes's tweet echoed the concerns of career diplomats and foreign policy experts that warned NK had rarely shown signs of being a rational actor or understanding the nuances of US domestic policy.
So the tweets may have moved NK to the table. But it we are going to accept the argument that twitter diplomacy has such power over the geopolitical actors, we must accept that it could have resulted in a lot of SK's dying for no reason other than Trump wanted to throw shit against to wall to see what happened. Luckily NK did not take the tweets as serious threats. If they take Trump seriously at all has yet to be seen.
On May 10 2018 09:43 Plansix wrote: I think you using hindsight to down play how risky that tactic was. NK is still a nation would randomly shell parts of SK for no determinable reason. Ben Rhodes's tweet echoed the concerns of career diplomats and foreign policy experts that warned NK had rarely shown signs of being a rational actor or understanding the nuances of US domestic policy.
So the tweets may have moved NK to the table. But it we are going to accept the argument that twitter diplomacy has such power over the geopolitical actors, we must accept that it could have resulted in a lot of SK's dying for no reason other than Trump wanted to throw shit against to wall to see what happened. Luckily NK did not take the tweets as serious threats. If they take Trump seriously at all has yet to be seen.
Edit: Eh, it was worth a little of your time.
It's a risk that repeatedly pays off when dealing with dictators from a position of strength. When has appeasement ever worked?
It’s idiocy. Ramping up nuclear and missile testing also happened after Trump tweeting insults but we don’t see xDaunt arguing they were caused by it. A preceding B does not mean that A caused B. I’d say that any idiot knows that, but I can’t. Most idiots know it at least.
On May 10 2018 09:43 Plansix wrote: I think you using hindsight to down play how risky that tactic was. NK is still a nation would randomly shell parts of SK for no determinable reason. Ben Rhodes's tweet echoed the concerns of career diplomats and foreign policy experts that warned NK had rarely shown signs of being a rational actor or understanding the nuances of US domestic policy.
So the tweets may have moved NK to the table. But it we are going to accept the argument that twitter diplomacy has such power over the geopolitical actors, we must accept that it could have resulted in a lot of SK's dying for no reason other than Trump wanted to throw shit against to wall to see what happened. Luckily NK did not take the tweets as serious threats. If they take Trump seriously at all has yet to be seen.
Edit: Eh, it was worth a little of your time.
It's a risk that repeatedly pays off when dealing with dictators from a position of strength. When has appeasement ever worked?
When have we not been in a position of strength with NK? We have not been in direct military conflict with NK since the Korean war, which we won. SK is a prosperous, democratic nation and a close ally in the region. Up until very recently, the previous plan for dealing with NK allowed an entire generation of peace. Their recent rush to nukes rekindled by another tough talking president who decided they were part of the Axis of Evil based on some of the more questionable advice in US history.
If you consider photo-ops and a meeting that hasn't happened yet to be pay off, sure? Talk is still pretty cheap, even if it is the first time NK and SK have talked in decades. We won't know how successful Trump/Moons deal is for years to come. This is the risk of Trump's style of diplomacy, because he has made it very clear that the deal is victory for him. Or maybe just the meeting itself. Not the results of that deal, which will not be evident for years.
The only appeasement I can see in our history with NK is Trump giving them the thing they have wanted forever, a seat at the table with the US President as an equal. And it is unclear what we are getting out of it, because NK has not agreed to anything at this point.
Is this the part where we send more kids to the middle east to die for zion? or just up the money and tools of war, while the average person struggles with debt and affording basic healthcare.
- the only source for "iranians fired missiles on Golan Heights' headline comes from israeli army statements; they also said there were no casualties nor material damage(some vary here, reporting some minor damage); - twitter is full of videos showing activated defense systems in Damascus, sires, explosions(both on the ground and in the air), pictures of israeli missile debris etc. - shit is pretty fresh but if something will happen, war wise, it'll be regional but long lasting(it's more valuable that way).
Since intervening in the Syrian civil war on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad in 2015, Russia has generally turned a blind eye to Israeli attacks on suspected arms transfers and deployments by Assad’s Iranian and Lebanese Hezbollah allies.
But Moscow’s condemnation of an April 9 strike that killed seven Iranian personnel set off speculation in Israel that Russian patience might be wearing thin.
Netanyahu flew to Moscow on Wednesday to meet Putin, hours after U.S. President Donald Trump quit the Iranian nuclear deal and after Syria accused Israel of carrying out a fresh missile strike on an army base near Damascus.
“Given what is happening in Syria at this very moment, there is a need to ensure the continuation of military coordination between the Russian military and the Israel Defence Forces,” Netanyahu told reporters before departing, referring to a hotline designed to prevent the countries clashing accidentally.
After the talks with Putin, Netanyahu sounded upbeat.
On May 10 2018 09:43 Plansix wrote: I think you using hindsight to down play how risky that tactic was. NK is still a nation would randomly shell parts of SK for no determinable reason. Ben Rhodes's tweet echoed the concerns of career diplomats and foreign policy experts that warned NK had rarely shown signs of being a rational actor or understanding the nuances of US domestic policy.
So the tweets may have moved NK to the table. But it we are going to accept the argument that twitter diplomacy has such power over the geopolitical actors, we must accept that it could have resulted in a lot of SK's dying for no reason other than Trump wanted to throw shit against to wall to see what happened. Luckily NK did not take the tweets as serious threats. If they take Trump seriously at all has yet to be seen.
Edit: Eh, it was worth a little of your time.
It's a risk that repeatedly pays off when dealing with dictators from a position of strength. When has appeasement ever worked?
When have we not been in a position of strength with NK? We have not been in direct military conflict with NK since the Korean war, which we won. SK is a prosperous, democratic nation and a close ally in the region. Up until very recently, the previous plan for dealing with NK allowed an entire generation of peace. Their recent rush to nukes rekindled by another tough talking president who decided they were part of the Axis of Evil based on some of the more questionable advice in US history.
That's my point. We have always been in a position of strength relative to North Korea, particularly so after the end of the Cold War. Nonetheless, we had 16 years of presidents saying that they would stop North Korea from becoming a nuclear threat to the US and utterly failing in accomplishing that goal. Perhaps it would be more charitable to just say that Obama and Bush are guilty of kicking the can down the road, but it was failure all the same. We'll see what deal is ultimately reached with North Korea, but it looks increasingly likely that Trump (for whatever part he has played) is going to have this mess cleaned up within 18 months of entering office.
Which brings us to the topic of Iran, Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal, and what's going on in Syria and Iraq. When Obama announced the nuclear deal, he promised that this deal would help bring peace to the Middle East and stop Iran's nuclear program. It's a little unclear about what's going on with the latter, but the deal has unequivocally failed to help bring peace to the Middle East. Iran has used the funds that were released to it buy weapons to arm and support proxies throughout the Middle East, including proxies who have committed terrorist actions against American troops. This has only contributed to the destabilization of the region. To the extent that Obama was trying to bring Iran back into the fold of the international community and have them be a stabilizing force in the region, his appeasement of Iran has categorically failed. Iran, by its own volition, never stopped being the enemy and has continued to harm American interests and the interests of our allies in the region. For that reason, continuing to strengthen the Iranian economy under these circumstances is insanity. Sure, the Europeans will continue to bitch, piss, moan, and whore themselves out for Iranian energy and access to the Iranian market, but it certainly isn't in the American interest to adhere to the nuclear deal, which is why Trump torpedoed it. And you can bet that Trump will show significantly more resolve in dealing with Iran from here on out than Iran is accustomed to seeing from the US.
This big stick diplomacy has no real end game with Iran. I would point out that Iran held off any aggression with Israel through several airstrikes right up until Trump pulled out of the nuclear agreement. Likely in the hopes that the US wouldn’t try to kill the agreement and leave our own coalition. But we risk being pulled into a conflict with Iran because Israel terrified of Iran having bases on their boarder.
Just think what we could have done if we had worked with our EU allies and used the agreement to pressure Iran to pull out of Syria too?
On May 10 2018 09:43 Plansix wrote: I think you using hindsight to down play how risky that tactic was. NK is still a nation would randomly shell parts of SK for no determinable reason. Ben Rhodes's tweet echoed the concerns of career diplomats and foreign policy experts that warned NK had rarely shown signs of being a rational actor or understanding the nuances of US domestic policy.
So the tweets may have moved NK to the table. But it we are going to accept the argument that twitter diplomacy has such power over the geopolitical actors, we must accept that it could have resulted in a lot of SK's dying for no reason other than Trump wanted to throw shit against to wall to see what happened. Luckily NK did not take the tweets as serious threats. If they take Trump seriously at all has yet to be seen.
Edit: Eh, it was worth a little of your time.
It's a risk that repeatedly pays off when dealing with dictators from a position of strength. When has appeasement ever worked?
When have we not been in a position of strength with NK? We have not been in direct military conflict with NK since the Korean war, which we won. SK is a prosperous, democratic nation and a close ally in the region. Up until very recently, the previous plan for dealing with NK allowed an entire generation of peace. Their recent rush to nukes rekindled by another tough talking president who decided they were part of the Axis of Evil based on some of the more questionable advice in US history.
That's my point. We have always been in a position of strength relative to North Korea, particularly so after the end of the Cold War. Nonetheless, we had 16 years of presidents saying that they would stop North Korea from becoming a nuclear threat to the US and utterly failing in accomplishing that goal. Perhaps it would be more charitable to just say that Obama and Bush are guilty of kicking the can down the road, but it was failure all the same. We'll see what deal is ultimately reached with North Korea, but it looks increasingly likely that Trump (for whatever part he has played) is going to have this mess cleaned up within 18 months of entering office.
Which brings us to the topic of Iran, Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal, and what's going on in Syria and Iraq. When Obama announced the nuclear deal, he promised that this deal would help bring peace to the Middle East and stop Iran's nuclear program. It's a little unclear about what's going on with the latter, but the deal has unequivocally failed to help bring peace to the Middle East. Iran has used the funds that were released to it buy weapons to arm and support proxies throughout the Middle East, including proxies who have committed terrorist actions against American troops. This has only contributed to the destabilization of the region. To the extent that Obama was trying to bring Iran back into the fold of the international community and have them be a stabilizing force in the region, his appeasement of Iran has categorically failed. Iran, by its own volition, never stopped being the enemy and has continued to harm American interests and the interests of our allies in the region. For that reason, continuing to strengthen the Iranian economy under these circumstances is insanity. Sure, the Europeans will continue to bitch, piss, moan, and whore themselves out for Iranian energy and access to the Iranian market, but it certainly isn't in the American interest to adhere to the nuclear deal, which is why Trump torpedoed it. And you can bet that Trump will show significantly more resolve in dealing with Iran from here on out than Iran is accustomed to seeing from the US.
And how would NK ever become a nuclear threat to the US? Its missiles can barely reach Japan, if even. You must be delusional to think it is going to be that easy to make NK become a reasonable country within months. Yes, the way Trump approached Kim is probably right, afterall they can relate on their inflated egos. But there are more factors to this than just Kim. China is playing the biggest part in all this, Kim is basically their puppet. And as long as Trump doesn't talk to China, all that's gonna happen is Kim nodding his head to everything Trump says and do nothing without orders from Beijing. How is Trump gonna strongarm China again?
All he does is hop from issue to issue, saying he will solve this, solve that. What did the guy actually do in his presidency so far, other than pissing off allies and talk shit about irrelevant countries? Just accept him for what he is, a showboater who picks the hottest topics, says a few tough lines and then? Nothing. It's all just a popularity contest for him. Where's the wall btw?
But finally, it seems there is no place for diplomacy anymore, so all the xDaunts in the US can jack off to the few months, where Trump is allowed to play big man on the big stage, until the pressure will make him take a different approach. Luckily for him, his average sympathizer will only remember the moments when "they" were all man on the international stage. Ridiculous.
On May 10 2018 09:43 Plansix wrote: I think you using hindsight to down play how risky that tactic was. NK is still a nation would randomly shell parts of SK for no determinable reason. Ben Rhodes's tweet echoed the concerns of career diplomats and foreign policy experts that warned NK had rarely shown signs of being a rational actor or understanding the nuances of US domestic policy.
So the tweets may have moved NK to the table. But it we are going to accept the argument that twitter diplomacy has such power over the geopolitical actors, we must accept that it could have resulted in a lot of SK's dying for no reason other than Trump wanted to throw shit against to wall to see what happened. Luckily NK did not take the tweets as serious threats. If they take Trump seriously at all has yet to be seen.
Edit: Eh, it was worth a little of your time.
It's a risk that repeatedly pays off when dealing with dictators from a position of strength. When has appeasement ever worked?
When have we not been in a position of strength with NK? We have not been in direct military conflict with NK since the Korean war, which we won. SK is a prosperous, democratic nation and a close ally in the region. Up until very recently, the previous plan for dealing with NK allowed an entire generation of peace. Their recent rush to nukes rekindled by another tough talking president who decided they were part of the Axis of Evil based on some of the more questionable advice in US history.
That's my point. We have always been in a position of strength relative to North Korea, particularly so after the end of the Cold War. Nonetheless, we had 16 years of presidents saying that they would stop North Korea from becoming a nuclear threat to the US and utterly failing in accomplishing that goal. Perhaps it would be more charitable to just say that Obama and Bush are guilty of kicking the can down the road, but it was failure all the same. We'll see what deal is ultimately reached with North Korea, but it looks increasingly likely that Trump (for whatever part he has played) is going to have this mess cleaned up within 18 months of entering office.
Which brings us to the topic of Iran, Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal, and what's going on in Syria and Iraq. When Obama announced the nuclear deal, he promised that this deal would help bring peace to the Middle East and stop Iran's nuclear program. It's a little unclear about what's going on with the latter, but the deal has unequivocally failed to help bring peace to the Middle East. Iran has used the funds that were released to it buy weapons to arm and support proxies throughout the Middle East, including proxies who have committed terrorist actions against American troops. This has only contributed to the destabilization of the region. To the extent that Obama was trying to bring Iran back into the fold of the international community and have them be a stabilizing force in the region, his appeasement of Iran has categorically failed. Iran, by its own volition, never stopped being the enemy and has continued to harm American interests and the interests of our allies in the region. For that reason, continuing to strengthen the Iranian economy under these circumstances is insanity. Sure, the Europeans will continue to bitch, piss, moan, and whore themselves out for Iranian energy and access to the Iranian market, but it certainly isn't in the American interest to adhere to the nuclear deal, which is why Trump torpedoed it. And you can bet that Trump will show significantly more resolve in dealing with Iran from here on out than Iran is accustomed to seeing from the US.
And how would NK ever become a nuclear threat to the US? Its missiles can barely reach Japan, if even.
I'm not entirely sure where you're getting this from considering that North Korea was actively testing missiles that could hit a third of the US. Just as with their nuclear testing, they were on a path towards figuring out. It was only a matter of time.
You must be delusional to think it is going to be that easy to make NK become a reasonable country within months.
That was never the goal. The goal was to stop North Korean nuclear armament.
Yes, the way Trump approached Kim is probably right, afterall they can relate on their inflated egos. But there are more factors to this than just Kim. China is playing the biggest part in all this, Kim is basically their puppet. And as long as Trump doesn't talk to China, all that's gonna happen is Kim nodding his head to everything Trump says and do nothing without orders from Beijing. How is Trump gonna strongarm China again?
You're greatly overstating China's influence. Here's all you need to know about the limits of China's influence: China signed onto the multilateral trade embargoes in 2017 against North Korea. They did this because they weren't otherwise able to control North Korea. If China was able to get North Korea to heel on its own, things would have unfolded very differently than they have.
All he does is hop from issue to issue, saying he will solve this, solve that. What did the guy actually do in his presidency so far, other than pissing off allies and talk shit about irrelevant countries? Just accept him for what he is, a showboater who picks the hottest topics, says a few tough lines and then? Nothing. It's all just a popularity contest for him. Where's the wall btw?
But finally, it seems there is no place for diplomacy anymore, so all the xDaunts in the US can jack off to the few months, where Trump is allowed to play big man on the big stage, until the pressure will make him take a different approach. Luckily for him, his average sympathizer will only remember the moments when "they" were all man on the international stage. Ridiculous.
I don't even know where to begin here. You really have no clue what Trump has actually been doing and what he has accomplished so far. You should educate yourself before posting something like this.
@xDaunt - you're off base on most of the things you're saying here:
Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano told the Agency’s 35-member Board of Governors on Monday. ... “Our inspection work has doubled since 2013. IAEA inspectors now spend 3,000 calendar days per year on the ground in Iran,” he said. “We have installed some 2,000 tamper-proof seals on nuclear material and equipment. We collect and analyse hundreds of thousands of images captured daily by our sophisticated surveillance cameras in Iran — about half of the total number of such images that we collect throughout the world.”
so there's no doubt Iran is sticking to the plan.
Netanyahu’s bullshit was of a different matter:
Netanyahu, at his press conference, claimed to expose “something that the world has never seen before,” Iranian documents—“fifty-five thousand pages, another fifty-five thousand files on one hundred-and eighty-three CDs”—secured by Israeli intelligence. The cache showed that Iran had operated a secret nuclear-weapons program from 1999 to 2003, the so-called “Project Amad.” The J.C.P.O.A., Netanyahu said, presumed that Iran would “come clean” about its past nuclear program, but, he claimed, after signing the deal, in 2015, Iran “intensified its efforts to hide its secret nuclear files.” The inference was clear: “Iran lied, big time”; the regime hid its nuclear files, cataloguing its nuclear knowledge, because it intended “to use them at a later date.” On Tuesday, as if on cue, Trump mirrored Netanyahu’s concern. “At the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction: that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program,” Trump said. ... For Israelis, word of covert Iranian work on nuclear weapons could hardly have been shocking. Indeed, Netanyahu’s big reveal was something that the signatories to the J.C.P.O.A. took for granted—that’s why it was negotiated. Netanyahu was showing that Iran could not be trusted, but the deal, as Susan Rice wrote in the Times, “was never about trust.” It was designed to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor the very sites that Netanyahu’s show-and-tell focussed on; the I.A.E.A. has certified Iranian compliance as recently as March.
the same article touches on a possible reason for Trump's decision viavis Iran:
If the U.S. imposes sanctions on its own, these will inhibit Western and Chinese companies aiming to invest there, heightening tensions with allies as well as with Iran. And, if Iran were accused of renewed nuclear advance—by, say, Israeli intelligence sources—the only option left to the U.S. would be, if not a military one, at least a renewed posture of brinkmanship. Who other than the national-security adviser, John Bolton—who brags that he does not “do carrots,” and has advocated regime change in Iran—would wish to adopt a posture of military intimidation?
The Trump administration is examining a new plan to help Iranians fighting the hardline regime in Iran following America's exit from the landmark nuclear deal and reimposition of harsh economic sanctions that could topple a regime already beset by protests and a crashing economy, according to a copy of the plan obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
The three-page white paper being circulated among National Security Council officials in the White House offers a strategy by which the Trump administration can actively work to assist an already aggravated Iranian public topple the hardline ruling regime through a democratization strategy that focuses on driving a deeper wedge between the Iranian people and the ruling regime.
The plan, authored by the Security Studies Group, or SSG, a national security think-tank that has close ties to senior White House national security officials, including National Security Adviser John Bolton, seeks to reshape longstanding American foreign policy toward Iran by emphasizing an explicit policy of regime change, something the Obama administration opposed when popular protests gripped Iran in 2009.
and that looks like what's happening now.
with this from the previous article,
With the Iranian currency in free-fall—the rial lost half its value against the dollar from a year ago
and this from the later,
It deemphasizes U.S military intervention, instead focusing on a series of moves to embolden an Iranian population that has increasingly grown angry at the ruling regime for its heavy investments in military adventurism across the region.
it looks like shit is on.
Edit: if one starts juggling ideas - US+Fethullah Gülen to control Turkey, US in Iraq and Syria with the kurds, arming and trying to unite their cantons, US trying to destabilize Iran(it hosts a large kurdish minority as Turkey does), the Kurdistan idea seems really plausible or at least want-able.
I thought this moderate rebel (an actual moderate rebel, one who avoided violence and turned to journalism, not the terrorists that the US supported in that fucking horror show) gives a very reasonable view on Syria:
On May 12 2018 05:05 a_flayer wrote: I thought this moderate rebel (an actual moderate rebel, one who avoided violence and turned to journalism, not the terrorists that the US supported in that fucking horror show) gives a very reasonable view on Syria:
fyi, these rebels are considered as bad as the terrorists by lots of folks in the ME and played a large role in destabilizing the region, including Syria.
Yeah, I know. I'm saying that dude avoided joining a militant faction, which is why I am willing to label him as an actual moderate rebel: protest against oppression, but don't get needlessly violent. He talks about how one of the rebel leaders lost their brother to the regime which led him to join an Islamist faction because he wasn't looking too closely at ideologies other than the idea of bringing down Assad.
I also think it is quite noteworthy to see how this journalist compares the actions of the US in Raqqa with the liberation of Aleppo by the Russians. Am I allowed to compare the US to Russia yet? Or do you still insist on living in delusion? Remember that Trump basically just reinstated the policies of Bush. I can think of another few (potential) leaders who were at the level of hawkishness of Bush, or you know, Nazi Fucking Germany.
They enforced what they called—what they called, I think, annihilation tactics, or something like that, which is basically—its effect on the ground was seen like clearly. They started to bomb indiscriminately, destroying whole neighborhoods and killing tens of thousands of people in the city of Raqqa. And by the time it was, quote-unquote, “liberated,” there was no city—I mean, just, you know, piles and piles of rubble and the smell of dead bodies.
This is also a frightening notion in light of recent developments:
This is if we do not enter a new phase, when Israelis and the Iranians fighting on Syria’s ground and causing more devastation and more destruction to cities and death to people.
Incidentally, I heard from another journalist in Syria that people she spoke to said that part of the reason for the early conservative/rural/religious/salafist/Islamist opposition was the notion that Assad had, in 2006, instituted a policy to ensure all girls would receive at minimum a high-school education. Throw in a couple of millions of dollars of support by US/Israeli/Saudi/Egypt for NRA/CambridgeAnalytica-style propaganda that targets and exploits these kind of sectarian divisions and and you've got a good recipe for disaster.
PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE: There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis. Though often exaggerated, such fears reflect an element of the Sunni community in Syria that is increasingly upset by and focused on the spread of Iranian influence in their country through activities ranging from mosque construction to business. Both the local Egyptian and Saudi missions here, (as well as prominent Syrian Sunni religious leaders), are giving increasing attention to the matter and we should coordinate more closely with their governments on ways to better publicize and focus regional attention on the issue.
Edit: if one starts juggling ideas - US+Fethullah Gülen to control Turkey, US in Iraq and Syria with the kurds, arming and trying to unite their cantons, US trying to destabilize Iran(it hosts a large kurdish minority as Turkey does), the Kurdistan idea seems really plausible or at least want-able.
speaking of that, isn't that cute an allied nation holds the most wanted guy in its soil, aka turkish osama bin laden, and doesnt give it back because, they don't believe he wasn't behind the coup, despite all the facts and his terrorist attacks including assassination of russian ambassador. it's an act of war but who cares, it is the US, they can do whatever they want and people will still defend them.
Extradiction isn't something that automatically happens between countries. There are treaties for that, and usually they involve that the extraditing country believes that the extradited person gets a fair trial, that the reason for that extradiction is a crime in both countries, and that the punishment is seen as reasonable.
For example, Germany wouldn't extradite people into the US if there was a threat of them receiving the death penalty, because german law does not see the death penalty as a reasonable punishment.
And i find it hard to believe that an enemy of the erdogan regime would get a fair trial in turkey at the moment.
do you believe bin laden would get a fair trial in the US, it's pointless to discuss from that point of view imo. I really think american judicial system is corrupt but I would give Osama without thinking it twice / or any criminal like him. you can postpone returning criminals to turkey forever because turkish judicial system was never good and will never be, even after erdogan. so how we gonna sort that out?
EPT
