Gulan: For great powers the Middle East, and Syria especially, has become a stage for expand their influence at the expense of the peoples of region, and this only makes the matters worse, and when they try to find a way for working out the problems of this region, they can’t reach to an agreement or a road-map, don’t you agree that will lead to more complications and chaos, and don’t you think that these powers have to act more responsibly?

Carpenter: That is a very insightful observation. The Middle East has been the geopolitical playground of great powers for far too long—at the sorrow of the various populations of the region. The best thing that the United States, Russia, and other external powers could do is to let the peoples of the Middle East work out their own problems with minimal interference.

Gulan: Right now the fight against Islamic State entered a new phase; this organization has proved that it constitutes a serious global threat that requires a global response. So, how the strategy for weakening and destroying the Islamic state should be developed in order to be up to the task?

Carpenter: ISIS would not have posed a global threat if the United States and its allies hadn’t decided to intrude into a regional struggle. ISIS’s agenda originally was confined to the region. The more that the U.S. and its allies meddle, the more ISIS will make their homelands a target.

Gulan: There is consensus among scholars that ISIS the manifestation of deeper structural problems in this region, and the peoples of regions are stuck between a deeply dysfunctional states and sectarian violent and radical religious movements, what are the possibilities of emerging different types and colors of radical religious trends in the future in the case of failure of addressing the root causes of the problems?

Carpenter: ISIS is merely one manifestation of a Sunni-Shia regional power struggle. The broader structural problems is that the current political boundaries in the Middle East were largely imposed by the European colonial powers and make little sense from a religious or ethnic standpoint. A more stable outcome probably means the breakup of Syria and Iraq into new entities that are more aligned with ethnic and religious realities. That will likely include a Greater Kurdistan, a new Sunni Arab entity in eastern Syria and western Iraq, a smaller, largely Shia remaining Iraq, and a small Alawite-Christian-Druze state in western Syria. Such a change would offer some prospect for long-term stability.

Gulan: Some propose that in order to persuade the Sunnis to rise against ISIS and the Sunni states to actively engage in combating ISIS, they have to have a greater stake of the outcome of the fight, meaning that a Sunni state has to be crated for Sunnis in the ISIS controlled territories in both Iraq and Syria, to what extent this is a realistic, and viable option?

Carpenter: See my answer to the previous question. Also, even if such an entity were created, it is uncertain whether it is possible to trust that Turkey and Saudi Arabia (and its Gulf allies) will truly confront ISIS.

Gulan: Liberating Sinjar marked a significant development in the fight against ISIS, it showed that the aura of invincibility of this organization can be punctured, how do you see the implications of this victory and do you agree that international strategy against ISIS gained momentum after this battle?

Carpenter: That battle confirmed two things. One is that Kurdish fighters are probably the most capable and motivated of the anti-ISIS forces in the region. The other point is that the defeat of ISIS needs to come at the hands of such regional players, not outside powers.

Gulan: The Kurds in Iraq claim that the process for gaining independent state has already started, because, they no longer want to be attached to this dysfunctional state, and pay the price for the failure of Iraqi government. On the other side the Kurds have demonstrated that they are committed and capable actor for fighting terrorism and to govern themselves effectively. So what should the Kurds do to gain international support and recognition in case of declaring an independent state?

Carpenter: The Kurdish community’s reluctance to remain part of an increasingly dysfunctional Iraq is quite understandable. The main obstacle to change is Turkey’s continuing opposition to an independent Kurdish state in Iraq and/or Syria. Given Ankara’s cynical flirtation with ISIS, it may be time for the United States and its NATO allies to make clear to Ankara that the alliance no longer opposes the creation of an independent Kurdistan, and that if Turkey wants to remain a NATO member (with the important security benefits that membership entails), it must stop being an obstacle to change.

Gulan: The president Massoud Barzani paid a high-profile visit to Saudi Arabia, and warmly welcomed by the King Salman, according to the media reports they discussed issues of mutual concern. How do you see the significance of this visit and the prospects of enhancing future bilateral relations, and what is the important of Gulf States and Saudi Arabia particularly, for Kurdistan region?

Carpenter: It may be the basis for closer cooperation, but given Saudi Arabia’s long record of perfidious behavior, President Barzani should exercise great caution regarding cooperation with the Saudis.