GULAN: In 2006 you proposed a plan to redrawn the Middle East map, right now this new Middle East is about to become reality, so what is your reflection about your proposed map after passing nearly 10 years? Also we know the Sykes- picot agreement was signed 100 years ago, and through the previous century this agreement only created chaos and misery for the peoples of the region, and this agreement has denied Kurds to fulfill their national aspiration for a century, so what is your viewpoint about this agreement?
Ralph Peters: The map I drew in 2006 to give Americans a rough sense of how a better Middle East might look wasn't a work of brilliance. It was just common sense. Anyone who studied the region even superficially knew that the borders drawn by European imperial powers could not endure. The injustices those borders inflicted (particularly on the Kurds) guaranteed continuing conflict. It was not a question of whether borders would change, but only of when they would change. Now we see them changing.
The borders I drew were not meant to be perfect or definitive. I only hoped to alert my fellow Americans to the folly of fighting to preserve dysfunctional borders drawn by craven diplomats for selfish reasons.
To me, it remains a tragedy that the USA did not recognize the injustice of striving to keep Iraq together in 2003. But diplomats in the West are always enchanted by the status quo, when it comes to national borders. So they insist on preserving borders where, in truth, there's no real nation.
The Middle East is suffering through a series of inevitable upheavals, the final results of which may not be known for decades or even generations. There have been, and will be, surprises both good and bad. Powers that seemed permanent have fractured or dissolved. New forces have arisen, while old forces, such as Islamist extremism, have come back from the graveyard of history. We are witnesses to multiple, colossal struggles, including a struggle over the soul of Islam, the survival of minorities (ethnic and religious), the nature of government, the viability of democracy, the temptations of dictatorship, the role of the media, social values...and even the very nature of freedom, what it means. This is a massive transformation and, regrettably, one that costs many lives.
And then, of course, there is the question of the role of external powers. The United States means well, but lacks clarity of purpose. Russia has clarity of purpose, but does not mean well. As the Erdogan regime falters in Turkey, Ankara makes one bad decision after another. And the Europeans, at present, see only the refugees and migrants flooding across their own borders.
When the French and British left the Middle East, they left behind the "poison pill" of bad borders. My simple map was merely an attempt to alert people to the inevitability of change.
GULAN:The American policy in Iraq has failed, after all scarifies in blood and treasure for toppling down Saddam’ Regime, it allowed Iran to practically take over Iraq, right now Iran is influential and predominant in this country, and also after defeating ISIS Iran can be even more powerful in Iraq, how do you see this situation?
Ralph Peters:Far too many American actions in Iraq were based on ignorance and false assumptions. The United States means well, but, at times, we behave like a blind elephant in a crockery shop--even when we don't mean to do damage, we break things just by shifting a hind leg.
I still believe that deposing Saddam Hussein was a noble deed. But it was a noble deed done badly. For domestic political reasons, the U.S. military was prevented from planning sensibly for an occupation (Ahmed Chalabi had convinced naïve US leaders that, as soon as Saddam went, all things would be wonderful). So...when our troops reached Baghdad, they were too few and they did too little. Much of Iraq--including Anbar Province, for example--hadn't really felt the war and did not have a sense of defeat. And, initially, they didn't feel the occupation. Anarchy resulted, and a power vacuum.
But not all of the mistakes were American mistakes. Kurdish leaders pushed hard for the Iraqi military to be disbanded. Their desire was understandable. But no one stopped to think about what would happen when thousands of officers and hundreds of thousands of young soldiers were suddenly dumped on a society undergoing a delicate transition. The correct response would have been to disarm key units, but to keep the soldiers in the barracks and keep paying them and to give them "busy work"...until the problem could be solved step by step. Instead, we took away jobs even of non-Baathists. And we--the USA and the Kurds--essentially drove them into the insurgency. We did not weigh the consequences of our desires--but, then, humans rarely do.
I do understand the Kurdish desire for revenge...but revenge is more happily digested one bite at a time. Ideally, your enemy should not realize what you've done to him until it's too late for him to respond. "Instant gratification" is the enemy of wise policy.
Then came the Surge, which is misunderstood in the West. The Surge, overseen by David Petraeus, was not a strategic victory that decided anything. It was an operational measure that bought time for Iraq to return to political health. But President Obama naively abandoned Iraq for domestic political advantage, and the Baghdad government failed its own people terribly.
I once wrote that an artificial country such as Iraq can only be held together by a strongman. I did not mean that I like dictators. On the contrary, I despise them. I was only making the point that such an unnatural combination of ethnicities, religions and desires cannot function when contained within such disastrously bad borders. To me, the stark choice was either to break up Iraq (and recognize a Free Kurdistan), or to face the ugly fact that only force could hold Iraq together.
President Obama's hasty retreat from Iraq made Iranian domination of the Baghdad government inevitable. When you are weak and a neighbor is very strong, you must reach an accommodation with that neighbor.
So the USA is, indeed, in a "no-win" situation. When our combat aircraft fly missions against Daesh (ISIS), we're really serving as the air force for Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Yet, we have to fight ISIS. The last seven years have been disastrous for US foreign policy.
GULAN:Recently we have seen an escalation of rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia, how do you see the implications of deepening this regional contention? And to what extent Iran has been playing a destabilizing and disruptive role in this region?
Ralph Peters: Iran is unified and strong. Saudi Arabia is rich, but hollow. Saudis are smug, bloated, corrupt and lazy. They've purchased a great deal of fine military equipment, but they're terrible soldiers. In a fight between Iran and Saudi Arabia without US backing, Iran would win easily.
To me, it's a tragedy that religious rule continues to prevail in Iran. The Persians have a real civilization (which the Saudis do not) and, if the theocracy were removed, Iran could be a positive, dynamic force in the region.
Instead, Iran is aggressive, repressive and dangerous. The Iranians--Persians--have visions of building a new Persian Empire. If they do manage to dominate Iraq and a reconquered Syria, they will be on their way to possessing the greatest Persian Empire in 2,500 years. I do not think they will reach that goal, but there will be much savagery along the way.
The paradox is that the USA and Iran, who are now fierce enemies, are natural allies geo-strategically. The mistakes made on both sides in the relationship have had nothing but bad consequences for both Iran and America. And, sadly, change is unlikely to come soon.
But I always warn my colleagues in Washington: Nations do not have friends, only allies. And allies aren't permanent. We fought two wars against the British, and now the British are our closest allies. We fought two wars against Germany, and now we are allies. We dropped two atomic bombs on Japan--and now we are close allies. Wise leaders recognize that change is inherent in relations between nations--and it must be managed, not resisted. For a small (but great) people like the Kurds, this means leaders must always be thinking several steps ahead and they must be masters of skillful, ruthless diplomacy.

GULAN:Right now popular mobilization forces are operating under direct Iranian guidance, and as EX-US to Iraq Mr. Ryan Crocker said in a panel: Iran wants to revenge from Iraq, and destroy Sunnis in this country, so can we say a possibility of peaceful co-existence between Shia and Sunnis no longer exists?
Ralph Peters:Of all hatreds in the world, religious hatreds go deepest, are the most unreasonable, and are the cruelest. We see it in Daesh and al Qaeda, for example, but history is full of such examples. Right now, the Shia, backed by Russia, are on the ascendant. In the long run, though, the Sunnis have the numbers. Meanwhile, the carcasses of Iraq and Syria are torn apart by mad dogs.
The only advice I would dare to give to my Kurdish brothers is this: Beware of any man who tells you that he knows what his god wants you to do. And concentrate on freedom for the Kurds, while doing all things possible to avoid religious conflict.
GULAN:The peshmargs forces have demonstrated their commitment and capability in fighting ISIS terrorists, and they have been able with the help of coalition forces, especially USA, to defeat these terrorists, and right now peshmarga has become an army that can protect a territory of a state, so how do you see the bravery of peshmarga?
Ralph Peters: The bravery, commitment and performance of the peshmerga have been amazing. These men and women are true heroes. With limited resources, they have done great things. I only wish that the USA would support them even more generously.
GULAN:In early 2000’s you expected the emergence of a Kurdish state, and right know we see a de facto Kurdish state has emerged, so to what extent establishing a Kurdish state has become a real possibility?
Ralph Peters: The core state of Free Kurdistan is real, but not recognized (by contrast, the Afghan government is recognized, but not quite real). And the reality is more important than the formalities. Gaining population and power is more important right now than a seat at the UN. Once you establish a clear reality on the ground, recognition will follow eventually.
GULAN: The president of Kurdistan region, Mr. MasoudBarzani, demanded a referendum to be held as a “non-binding” one, so to what extent this referendum can be a document for conducting negotiations and designing a road map for Kurdistan to be independent?
Ralph Peters: Mr.Barzani is far wiser than I am. I would not presume to advise him.
GULAN:On the domestic level Kurdistan region is going through a difficult financial situation, and there is also a worrisome political situation, so what are you recommendations for Kurdish leaders to overcome these challenges? And how the international community can be helpful in this regard?
Ralph Peters:Again, I believe that Kurdish leaders are doing their best. The only general advice I would give them is to avoid internal dissension. Fellow Kurds are not the enemy. During these difficult, dangerous times, political parties must display a unified front to the world. And they must do so voluntarily, of their own free will, of course.
Twenty years ago, frustrated by the fratricide I saw among Kurds, I called the Kurds "geniuses of discord." Since then, Kurds, especially in former Iraq, have made great progress. But there is still a long way to go.
During the American Revolution against Britain, one of our Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, made the pun to his fellow revolutionaries, "Gentlemen, we must all hang together--or we shall most assuredly all hang separately." Meaning that, if they did not stand shoulder to shoulder against the British, the British would hang them one by one. That would be my key message to my Kurdish friends.