Journalist Aykan Sever evaluated the first days of the war that began with the United States and Israel’s attacks in West Asia, stating that Washington aimed to collapse the Iranian regime through a rapid strike, while Iran has sought to resist by spreading the conflict over time. Sever emphasized that Iran has strengthened with support coming from China and Russia, while the United States has begun to consider options for a ground operation. He also noted that Turkey is aligning its regional objectives with the course of this process. According to Sever, Kurdish parties are acting cautiously due to historical experiences of betrayal, while a possible collapse of the regime could lead to chaos. Sever added that capitalism’s structure, which relies heavily on the war industry, perpetuates conflict, while the future of peoples cannot be reconciled with war and that peace remains the only way out.
The United States aimed to collapse the regime with a lightning strike
Aykan Sever evaluated the initial plan of the United States on the fifth day of the war carried out by the United States and Israel in West Asia and said: “In the first move, the United States planned to implement five different plans. The first of these, which is essentially what we are seeing now, was to collapse the regime through a kind of lightning strike and force it into negotiations. They were successful in the lightning strike phase. More than forty officials belonging to the Iranian regime were killed. However, it appears that the Iranian leadership has drawn its own lessons from the twelve-day war and is trying, both militarily and politically, to spread the conflict over time and across different arenas, effectively aiming not to be defeated. They say they have established 31 separate command centers under what they call ‘mosaic defense.’ These command centers operate independently of one another, and they have ensured that even if the central command collapses, military units will not collapse.”
Sever drew attention to Iran’s armament and external support and spoke about the role of Russia and China and said: “At the same time, we are witnessing a comprehensive process of armament. During the twelve-day war, the full extent of this armament was not entirely visible. However, even before the conflict, there were discussions about certain reinforcements from China and Russia. It appears that China, in particular, has provided missile support. Although this is not clearly visible in open sources, it represents an important reinforcement for Iran. For China, the conflict in Iran functions as a kind of front line. For this reason, the support given to Iran carries significant importance for the balance of power in the region. What we see now is that Iran has been strengthened with external support, and that this process is likely to become even more tense.”
The United States considers ground operation options
Aykan Sever stated that the United States has realized its air strikes were not enough to bring down the regime and that the option of a ground operation is now being discussed. Sever said: “The United States is debating a ground operation in order to force the regime back to negotiations while also keeping the option of overthrowing it on the table. Different alternatives are being considered for such an operation: Azerbaijan, Pakistan and some Kurdish forces. As of yesterday, Azerbaijan moved troops toward the border. This does not mean a direct occupation, but it shows that Azerbaijan could intervene if the regime collapses.”
Sever also pointed to the uncertainty surrounding Pakistan’s role and continued: “Pakistan is a much more secondary option. It has a strategic defense cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia. Under normal conditions, if Saudi Arabia were attacked, Pakistan would step in. However, Saudi Arabia cannot make a clear decision at the moment and is hesitant about directly entering the war. They are wary of Iran and know that the United States will not protect them. For this reason, what Pakistan will do remains uncertain. Still, it remains one of the options under consideration.”
United States war policy and internal contradictions
Sever said that the United States is not bound by any principle in its war policies. He also pointed out that public support for the war within the United States remains limited. He said: “The United States, as a major power, stands as the leader of this process. However, the administration is reckless and not bound by any principle. It is not accountable to its own people and does not assume responsibility in the international arena either. The experience in Rojava showed how negative maneuvers can produce long-term consequences. This picture demonstrates that the United States acts as a power that is not bound by any principle.
Data that has emerged over the past five days shows that the public is opposed to this war. The approval rate is only around 27 percent. Today, Trump’s war authority will be debated in Congress. In the twelve-day war, in the abduction of Maduro, and now in the war with Iran, the steps taken by Trump are contrary to American law. Reactions are coming from both Republicans and Democrats, even if they are not very strong. The reason is that although there are people who see that Trump is making mistakes, standing against him is not easy. Even when people speak openly, they express concern that something could happen to them. This fear shows the reality of the violence that may come from those in power.”
Sever summarized the difficulties faced by the opposition and the crisis of democracy as follows: “Opposing Trump is not easy because the threat of violence from those in power is real. Even the remnants of bourgeois democracy in the United States are gradually disappearing. The actors carrying out this war, Israel and the United States, are attacking not only externally but also their own societies. By eliminating the remaining fragments of democracy, they are narrowing the spaces of freedom within society. This situation normalizes an environment in which people’s lives are under threat.”
Kurdish parties remain cautious
Sever said that Kurdish parties are acting cautiously when evaluating the United States’ objectives in a possible ground operation, noting that this approach stems from past experiences. According to him, this cautious stance is the result of international powers repeatedly abandoning the peoples of the region. He said: “We do not know exactly what will happen regarding the ground operation. However, what the United States is seeking here is opportunities that could pave the way for the collapse of the regime. It is looking for victims, in its own way. But what I see is that both the five-party coalition of Kurdish parties and Kurdish politics in general are cautious on this matter. There have already been statements by the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK). What stands out in those statements is the idea of the ‘third way.’ By the third way they mean the defense of Eastern Kurdistan (Rojhilat) and, in particular, the goal of a democratic Iran and an autonomous structure. However, even if this exists in theory, it is unclear what they might face in practice and in which direction developments will evolve. Because of this uncertainty, both the parties in Southern Kurdistan (Başur) and the parties in Eastern Kurdistan, as far as I understand, are cautious.”
Sever also recalled how historical experiences shape this cautious approach today, stating that betrayals experienced from Halabja to Rojava and from Afghanistan to the Shiite uprising of 1991 have reinforced this sense of distrust. He said: “In the end, they also have their own experiences. When we look at history, especially since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, there are many examples of outside powers intervening in the region. For instance, from the 1920s onward the British encouraged various groups in the region to rebel or to enter into conflict, only to abandon or betray them later. More recently we saw what happened in Rojava, and we should also remember Halabja in the 1990s. The chemical weapons used by Saddam in Halabja were provided by Western powers. In 1991, George Bush called on the Shiites to rise up. The Shiites did rebel, but when they faced massacres, the United States administration abandoned them. There are very clear examples. What happened in Afghanistan is also evident.”
Sever also drew attention to the possibility that a collapse of the regime could create chaos. He said that the lack of organized social forces in Iran poses a major risk and that such a scenario could serve the interests of the United States and Israel and added: “What would happen if the regime collapses in Iran? Apart from the organized Kurdish movement, almost no other social groups are organized. Iran is a vast country with a population of nearly ninety million. If the regime collapses, there are no communities or initiatives capable of taking power or shaping a democratic order. Therefore, what emerges is chaos. This would not disturb the United States or Israel; on the contrary, creating communities that fight and kill each other is part of their policy. Because in the end, they themselves would remain untouched.”
What happens if the regime survives?
Aykan Sever stated that if the regime survives, the state is likely to shift toward a more nationalist and repressive line, which could reproduce violence even if the war temporarily pauses through ceasefires. Sever said: “If the regime survives, a state that is more violent, more nationalist and more oppressive toward other communities demanding democracy will emerge. However, we do not know how this war will develop at this stage. The likely scenarios appear to move in this direction. Once the United States exhausts its power, it will become clear that the current rulers of the regime do not want to lose their authority. Will this satisfy both sides? No. It will not prevent the war, but it could still lead to a ceasefire, as happened after the twelve-day war. Because this war is not a local conflict, it is a world war. Even if it stops here today, as long as the balance of power does not fundamentally change, we will again face a ground that is prone to renewed violence.”
Sever also recalled that capitalism is built on a war industry and said this is why those in power in the United States continuously need conflict and said: “The authorities in the United States need war. Sections of capital tend to move in this direction. Today, one of the most important dynamics of capitalism is the war industry. If this industry continues in this way, meaning as long as it remains one of the most important dynamics, they will continue to create wars somewhere or another.”
Turkey’s ground operation options
Sever also recalled Turkey’s objectives in the region within this framework and said: “Turkey has its own agenda. Over the past 15 years, these objectives have included establishing influence in Syria, leaving Rojava without status and toppling the Assad regime, as well as increasing its influence over Armenia. However, it lost this claim to the United States following the agreement made with Azerbaijan. It has partially succeeded in some of these goals. The second major objective was the occupation of Mosul and Kirkuk, in other words Southern Kurdistan. For a long time, there have been 139 military points and outposts in the region. Recently, these have been reinforced with helicopter landing pads. This preparation is not only directed against the Kurdish Freedom Movement; it also represents planning for the seizure of Mosul and Kirkuk and the occupation of Eastern Kurdistan in the event of possible developments.”
Sever also drew attention to the strategic partnership between Turkey and the United States and noted that Turkish public opinion appears prepared for such scenarios in the event of a possible operation. He said: “Turkey’s objectives, particularly in the context of the war with Iran, overlap with those of the United States. Although there are certain reservations regarding Israel, they ultimately act together strategically. In the event of an expanding process, Turkey’s stance is not entirely clear. Statements by Hakan Fidan and recent meetings between Donald Trump and the administration of Southern Kurdistan indicate that Turkey is closely monitoring this situation. Turkey intends to use every possible opportunity to turn developments to its advantage.
Unfortunately, public opinion in Turkey appears receptive to such an intervention. Possible movements by Kurds could be used both to expand the occupation of Southern Kurdistan and to justify an operation toward Eastern Kurdistan. Turkey may attempt to emerge from this process by shifting responsibility onto the Kurds, blaming them and portraying them as the cause of events.”
The future of peoples contradicts war
Aykan Sever said that certain groups are trying to push the peoples of the region into war and noted that it is striking how the ideological violence they spread is sometimes accepted voluntarily. Sever said: “There are certain circles trying to push the Kurds, and more broadly the peoples of the region, toward war. Most of them are commissioned figures, in other words they are simply trying to earn their salaries. However, it is remarkable that people voluntarily submit to the ideological violence they spread and place them in the position of intellectuals. The future of the Kurdish people, the peoples of the region and the peoples of the world is absolutely incompatible with war. If we cannot stop this war and cannot organize a global front, what we call the third way, against it, we are condemned to failure.”
Sever also stated that war propaganda fundamentally undermines the future of peoples and that a clear stance must be taken against it. He said: “Something is being imposed: Are you defending the United States, Israel or Iran? We are not obliged to defend any of them. We defend life, the future of peoples and peace. Those who advocate this war are fundamentally undermining the future of peoples and encouraging others to die. This is something we must oppose. These circles should not even be greeted, because this is a betrayal of humanity. Far from serving the interests of any people, this stance is directly against humanity.”
Leave a Reply