1- The best description for the world at the current circumstances can be the phenomenon of “Unraveling World”, since there are some new non-state factors recently emerged and they change the direction of events, but the world order cannot deal with them. Especially, the ISIL terrorists that are widely spread around the world. Can we say that the world order has ended and a new order to deal with the current fact has not been born? According to your opinion; do you think if the current world order can deal with this fact?

The world is not unraveling. The Middle East is in turmoil for all sorts of reasons, but the rest of the world remains relatively stable. Non-state actors are not reordering international politics and do not represent a strategic threat to the international system. The trends in international conflict remain on their downward slope. The developed states show no sign of reconsidering the basic calculus that has dominated their thinking since World War II — that going to war with one another does not pay.

Having said that, it doesn’t mean that the international system is well equipped or even capable of dealing with political violence of the kind we are witnessing in the Middle East and the Ukraine. The United Nations was never designed as an international police force — it can help keep the peace in permissive enviroments. It is not really set up to actively police states not conducting themselves in accordance with the UN Charter. When one of those states, Russia — a permanent member of the Security Council decides to break the rules, there’s nothing the body can do about it.

2- Since the emerging of international system or international relations that dates back to the Westville agreement, the phenomenon of war has been defined as the war between countries and maintaining of balance amongst them. Now, the phenomenon of war has turned into a war between free world and terrorists, unfortunately; they are growing day after day by controlling more territories. That means classical armies cannot defeat them. According to your opinion; how to manage a new army structure that can defeat terrorism?

War is not a new phenomenon and is a pretty consistent feature of the international system. I do not sign onto the idea that the international system has fundamentally changed from one in which states seek to maximize their power and influence over one another. The war is Syria is a good example — it is a proxy war for regional powers like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Iran that are using the conflict for their own narrow objectives.

All war in whatever form is simply political violence undertaken by actors that cannot achieve their objectives peacefully. ISIL seeks to become a state and control territory — objectives that have been pretty constant throughout much of recorded history. A feature of the international system, however, is that the developed states have pretty much given up on the idea of total war — like World War II. Instead, they have embraced limited wars for limited objectives. There is a built in fallacy and asymmetry in this idea. Just because a country like the United States might believe in fighting limited wars doesn’t mean the adversary is signed on to the same framework. So for the North Vietnamese and for ISIL — fighting for idependence — they were and presumably are prepared to pay any price to secure victory.

3- In the war against Al-Qaeda and ISIL terrorists from Pakistan to Nigeria, except Peshmarga forces, which is the army of Kurdistan region, no other forces has been able to defeat them on the ground. That means, Peshmarga is becoming a model of a new army for defeating terrorism. According to your opinion; to what extent it is important for the world to recognize the victories of Peshmarga as the victory of Free World against terrorism and to make this army a basis for defeating terrorists?

The success of any organized military force depends most critically on the cohesion and objectives that the force is being used for. The Kurdish Peshmerga are fighting for their independence — like ISIL, and they are motivated and moved by this commitment. The Iraqi Army has no such set of ideas to hold it together — there is no real political vision that binds the Iraqi Army together.

4- Kurdish nation is the only Muslim nation around the world that has been successful in presenting an example of coexistence and tolerance in democracy system on the level of Middle East. The Kurdish experience that has been proven to be different form regional cultures, needs preservation. To what extent it is important to establish Kurdistan as an independent state on the international level so as to provide a hope for peace, stability and coexistence in Middle East?


Kurdistan is already a defacto state that controls a pretty large piece of ground in northern Iraq. It has its own military, its own political system, and a, most importantly — a people that want their freedom to raise their families in peace and security.

5- Barzani, president of Kurdistan region, has been able to defeat terrorist on the ground with the logistic aids and support of air forces of international coalition countries, that means the experience of this president and weapons of international coalition countries can both interact to defeat terrorists, so within this regard I would like to ask you; to what extent the international coalition countries have to support President Barzani in the war against terrorism?

The United States regards the Kurds as good allies. We share values and we both share the basic interest of seeing a region at peace, with families free to raise their children free to pursue growth and opportunity. I would expect that the Kurds will continue to attract international support as a bastion of peace and stability in the region — precisely because they do not embrace violent extremism.

6- Among the international coalition countries, Germany has announced to be prepared for leading the war and to deal with every outcome it might have, and it is directly supporting Peshmarga Forces of Kurdistan region, in addition, last week Germany was the first European Union country to open their door for refugees. I’m wondering if why Germany is playing this essential role?

Germany is resuming its position of global leadership that is a natural product of its strength and position in Europe. This is a welcome development in the international system and it’s a good thing to have a responsible, mature democracy like Germany assuming a global leadership role on various issues.