Mahmoud Al-Adam

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - About 2,000 US troops supporting Syria's democratic forces in northern Syria drew a shock to the Kurds, whose leaders saw them as "betrayal and stab in the back."

This was not a precedent in the history of the Kurds. "Every time they are betrayed by their allies, it is not the first time they have been let down by the Americans," says Kurdish analyst at the Institute for International and Strategic Relations in Paris Didier Pelion.

The United States and other Kurds have long considered the United States as a "changeable element" and "what they consider their supreme interests is more important than supporting the Kurds."

Every time material, logistical and military support evaporates when the major powers that support the Kurds see the central authorities regaining control, they are always considered a threat to the territorial integrity of the countries where they live when their self-rule expands.

International powers consider the Kurds a tactical ally that can be dispensed with at any moment (Reuters)

Establishment of the State
The history of this homogenous population, which is currently scattered mainly in four countries, records that it has never been able to establish its own state, even though the area - which constitutes a demographic majority in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and finally Syria - exceeds Iraq's population of more than 30 million.

The word "Kurdistan" appeared as a geographical term for the first time in the 12th century AD during the Seljuk era, when Sultan Sinjar separated the western section of the mountain region and made it a state under the rule of his relative Suleiman Shah and was called Kurdistan.

The Kurdish problem began in the modern era when the two Safavid and Ottoman countries collided in 1514 in the Battle of Jaldiran, which was large and inconclusive, and resulted in the division of Kurdistan practically between the two countries.

The oppression of the Safavids - in addition to the efforts of the mark Mullah Idris al-Badelisi, who played a major role in the Kurdish seduction alongside the Ottoman Empire - to join the most Kurdish emirates along with the Ottoman Empire.

In 1555, however, the Zionists and the Ottomans held a bilateral agreement known as Amasia, the first formal treaty between the two countries. Under which the division of Kurdistan was officially established according to an official document that stipulated the demarcation of the border between them.

Since then - even the 1917 Astana Protocol - all treaties and conventions have devoted the unjust division of Kurdistan and its people, and because of this the Kurdish problem has been complicated by the day.

Kurds consider withdrawal of US troops from Syria a stab in the back (Reuters)

Sykes Pico
After the Ottoman defeat of the end of the first global war in 1919, the Kurdish problem emerged from its regional character to the international, and entered the line of the victorious countries in the war.

The Sykes-Picot agreement, signed in 1916, formed a platform for dividing the legacy of the Ottoman Empire, which included Kurdistan and contributed to complicating its problem.

But the Kurds moved to invest international conditions for their legitimate rights and made strenuous efforts to take advantage of the principles of the 14th President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, for the right of peoples to self-determination.

Based on the principles of the Paris Peace Conference held after the war, the Kurdish diplomat Sharif Pasha exerted great effort to demand the rights of the Kurds. He presented several memos to the organizers of the conference to form an international committee to plan the borders according to the principle of nationalities.

Sharif Pasha also called on the president of the conference, George Clemenceau, to exercise his influence with Astana to prevent "persecution of the Kurdish people."

Turkish forces consider their Kurdish counterpart in Syria terrorist organizations (Anatolia)

Institutes Sever and first treachery
Sharif Pasha succeeded in introducing clauses relating to the Kurdish issue in the Treaty of Sevres concluded by the Allies in Paris in August 1920.

The most important thing was the obligation of the Ottoman state to abandon all the lands inhabited by non-Turkish speakers, and provided for the solution of the Kurdish problem in stages that ends with independence.

But the treaty did not come to light with the rise of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's star, the West's retreat from its promises to the Kurds and the adoption of Turkey's view, and the superpowers failed the people and its cause.

In the few years after the Treaty of Sevres, the London Conference of 1921 was an additional blow to the hopes of Kurdish nationalism, as was done in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which stipulated that Ankara undertook to grant full and complete protection to the majority of Turkey's population and to grant freedoms without discrimination, For the Kurds, and no reference to the Treaty of Sevres.

Dream of statehood remains obsessed with Kurds (Reuters)

The Algiers Agreement and its Priorities
After treachery at the London Conference and the Treaty of Lausanne, Britain returned and used the Kurds' paper to achieve its interests in the region and worked to incite them against the Iraqi government to force it to sign the 1922 agreement.

This agreement gave Iraqis a local self-government while Britain took over foreign and military affairs, and the Kingdom gained what it wanted to return and gave up the Kurds, allowing the Iraqi government to contain them.

With the passage of time, the military and political work of the Kurds matured, and their parties were formed and opened new horizons of freedom and tolerance after the fall of the monarchy in Iraq and the establishment of the Republic in July 1958.

The Kurds continued their quest for self-rule and organized an armed rebellion in 1961 against Republican rule in Iraq, which was supported by Turkey, Iran and even Israel, according to Baghdad University political science professor Saad Naji Jawad in an article posted on Al Jazeera Net.

The article cited justifications for each country to support the insurgency, but in the end he pointed out that everyone gave up the Kurds and stopped supporting them after the signing of the Algiers agreement between Iraq and Iran in 1975.

Washington considered the referendum on secession from Iraq suspiciously and did not support it (Anatolia)

Iraq invasion
During the US invasion of Iraq, the Kurds provided great services to the United States, especially as the Turks did not cooperate in the campaign against Iraq. In return for these services, the US military rearranged the Peshmerga forces, and gained political gains culminating in the election of Jalal Talabani as president.

After that, deepening the differences between the Kurds and the Iraqi central administration - the privileges of oil rights - to invite the President of the Kurdistan region of Iraq Massoud Barzani to a referendum on secession last year.

But Washington has met that call with suspicion and suspicion. The Kurds - one of the key elements of the war on the organization of the Islamic state - have found themselves alone in the face of the anger of the central Iraqi authority, which the Kurds have made a new failure for their cause.

Finally, in Syria, the Kurds have managed to establish self-rule in the north of the country since 2011, taking advantage of the chaos caused by the war.

But at the time the battle against the state organization came to an end, Trump decided to withdraw troops that were supposed to guarantee the security and stability of the Kurdish areas.

"According to the logic of the United States and the international powers, the Kurds are an unimportant group because they are poorly organized and have no experience in managing countries," says the researcher at the French Institute for the Middle East, Boris James.