Fuat Önen, posted on June 15, 2025, 10:29
The conflict between Israel and Iran, and its effects on regional balances and Kurdistan
First, for the past 30–35 years, it has not been possible to understand a conflict in even the most remote corner of the world by focusing only on that particular location. An undeclared third world war has been ongoing for over 30 years. This third world war has several characteristic features.
Due to the fear of nuclear catastrophe or the balance of nuclear power, the world’s superpowers cannot engage in direct conflict with each other. What prevents this is the nuclear balance. However, this third world war continues in almost every part of the world. It is assumed that this trend will also continue for the next 30 years.
The fundamental cause of this war is the collapse of the world order following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It is known that the key pillars of the world order established through the United Nations were the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom. When one leg of that table broke, the order itself collapsed. For thirty years, the world has been searching for a new order.
In the world, new orders can only be established through world wars. Today, we cannot speak of an Israel-Iran war per se. That is, two countries thousands of kilometers apart are attacking each other with aircraft and missiles. But Israel is not attacking Iran on its own. Israeli officials have also made statements. They said that the Americans helped neutralize the drones sent by Iran.
I believe the operation itself was carried out with the support of the United States. In such situations, a command center is established. I don’t think that this command center consists solely of Israeli generals. It likely includes Israeli, American, perhaps British and French generals. Therefore, it would be misleading to see this as merely a conflict between two states. We can say the same about the Russia-Ukraine war. There, too, it is not simply a Russia-Ukraine war. It is a war between Russia and NATO, and Russia has its allies as well.
For the past 15 years, the Middle East front of World War III has come into prominence. On one side is the Russia-Ukraine war; on the other are the Near and Middle East conflicts.
The struggle to establish hegemony over energy resources and routes is the root of these conflicts. Due to its geostrategic position, Iran is important in controlling energy routes, especially the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
For this reason, the United States and its allies are trying to neutralize Iran. In any case, the war in Gaza was not an Israel-Palestine war either. The fact that this war spread from Gaza to Lebanon and later to Syria shows this clearly.
The core area of conflict is this: Iran is a regional sub-imperial power. There are three critical sub-imperial powers in the region: one is Turkey, another is Iran, and the other is Israel.
Iran was conducting the war outside its borders. The axis they referred to as the “Axis of Resistance” consisted of six countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen.
At the end of this 12–13 year-long war, three legs of this axis were broken: Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria. What remains in Iran’s hands from this axis now are Iran, Iraq, and Yemen. As you know, Yemen is being bombed daily by the United States and Israel.
Iraq is under threat, particularly through the Popular Mobilization Forces (Hashd al-Shaabi), which is a state threatened by the United States and Israel. And then there is Iran remaining. Could this turn into a regional war? I don’t find that very likely.
Iran has only two remaining strong cards in the region: the Hashd al-Shaabi forces in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen.
A significant portion of the Arab states in the region either side with Israel in this war or take a neutral stance. Therefore, the likelihood of this becoming a regional war is low. It’s not out of the question, but the probability is low.
A ground war between Iran and Israel is already not a possibility. The United States and Israel together launched an operation against Iran. On one hand, while the U.S. tried to draw Iran into negotiations and stall it over nuclear weapons production, Israel and the U.S. jointly conducted a severe military operation. It became clear that Iran did not have control over its airspace.
According to Israeli statements, the operation was carried out with 200 warplanes, and Israel claims they all returned without losses.
The Iranian side claims they shot down two warplanes.
They deactivated all of Iran’s defense capabilities in advance. They rendered the radar systems non-functional. And they executed such a serious military operation.
Now, this is World War III. And we need to view and evaluate events through the logic of this war. In all four of its parts, Kurdistan is a vital frontline region during this third world war. Initially, the southern part — Southern Kurdistan — became the focus and subject of this war. There, it resulted in a federal structure.
In Little South as well, there is a status that we cannot fully define. Because instead of “Rojava” or “Little South,” the term “Northeast Syria” is more commonly used. But we know that local governments are there, and they govern themselves.
It now appears that the Iran-Israel war will be prolonged. Israeli officials have stated that this will last a long time. Netanyahu made a call to the Iranian people, saying: “This is the regime’s weakest moment — rise, we will support you.”
Therefore, the intention is either to force Iran into an agreement under the conditions desired by the United States or, if that is not possible, to attempt a regime change in Iran.
This is the most critical aspect for us. At this point, even more important than Eastern Kurdistan is the situation of Southern Kurdistan. That is, if the U.S. and Israel try to collapse Iran’s position in Iraq, what will be the stance of the Kurdistan Federal Region?
This needs to be assessed first, and an explanation should be provided to the public. The Kurdish nation needs to be prepared in some way for this war. The next 10, 20, maybe 30 years will continue in a state of war.
When we evaluate these facts, we can speak of the existence of such a plan, both in Southern Kurdistan and in “Little South.” In Syria and the Little South, France has taken the initiative, and as you know, when Nechirvan Barzani went to Paris, Macron waited for him at the door, standing for 10 minutes.
They did this deliberately to send a message. French officials are in continuous contact with Mazloum Kobani and the local administrators in Little South.
The other day, the French Foreign Minister said, “We are mediating between the Turks and the Kurds.”
Looking at these developments, we understand that the Western powers have such a project. What matters is how Kurdistan’s political actors will respond to this. Will Kurdish politics have a shared political strategy?
First, will a unifying political intellect exist at the level of individual regions and then beyond that? Or will there not?
Eight months ago, an election was held in Southern Kurdistan; a national government has not been formed. In Little South, a conference was held about a month and a half ago, involving 43 parties, independent cadres, and intellectuals. They announced they had formed a joint committee two or three days ago.
But so far, there is no statement about what this joint committee will represent. With what kind of program will they hold talks with HTŞ (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) and Gulani? There has been no clarification.
Now, I keep insisting on this: our enemies need time. Perhaps for the first time in the last hundred years, all four occupying states are in a difficult position and playing for time. They are trying to stall Kurdish politics.
That is, in Syria, there is no state — only a gang. The head of that gang is Gulani. They need time. Turkey is also playing for time there, trying to ensure the consolidation of the Damascus regime by stalling the Kurds. Turkey is already in a difficult situation.
Strategic Goals and Alliances That Kurdish Politics Should Pursue in the Context of World War III
In this third world war, Turkey is a neutral and identity-less state. It is a NATO member and a candidate for membership in the European Union. However, its core perspective is more aligned with the Eurasian axis.
They constantly engage in propaganda against the West. By claiming that the U.S. and Israel are trying to establish a Kurdish state, they are preparing Turkish public opinion for this narrative. Turkey is a state that is dancing between two camps in a difficult position.
Iraq has not achieved significant internal stability and is under the threat and pressure of Israel and the U.S. It is in a difficult situation. After Israel’s attack, Iran will also struggle to maintain internal stability. Iran will have difficulty ensuring domestic stability as long as this conflict continues.
Turkey is also under pressure. Political polarization in Turkey is proceeding with intense tension. We witnessed the four occupying states in very weak conditions for the first time. They are the ones who need time. We are the ones who need to hurry.
Through this recent Bahçeli–Öcalan initiative, Turkey is trying to buy time by stalling three parts of Kurdistan at the start.
This is another reason why we must oppose this project. It is the enemy states that need time. It is Kurdistani politics that needs to hurry.
We must quickly form political unities, coalitions, and alliances — first within each part, and then across all of Kurdistan — around national political goals and declare our political strategy.
So, what should Kurdish politics’ goal be in this Third World War? Öcalan has a response to this. Öcalan says: “We have held our meeting with the Turkish state, and we will formulate our program. This is how it had to be, and this is how it will be.” He adds that this will not only happen in Turkey but also Iran, Iraq, and Syria. That is, all Kurds in all four parts will either reconcile with their occupying states or submit — though not truly reconcile — but rather submit and integrate with them.
What we need to do is the exact opposite: it is time to separate. It is time to build a state. It is time to declare this.
In both the South and the Little South, relations with the United States and European states have not risen to a political level. That’s why, when Serekaniye and Gresipi were occupied, Trump said: “Yes, they fought alongside us against Daesh, but we also gave them money and weapons.”
The United States still defines its relationship with the political structure in the Little South within the framework of the fight against Daesh (ISIS).
Yet now we must enter the field with our political objectives.
Especially in Southern Kurdistan and Little South, the relationships established with Western states should no longer be framed solely as military alliances against Daesh — they should be built as political representatives of a nation.
As far as I can see, France, Italy, the United States, and Israel are not openly opposed to such a call. The United Kingdom’s position is ambiguous. As you know, the UK supports continuing the current status quo in the Middle East, because Britain established this status quo.
Therefore, first of all, we must ask all Kurdish political actors the following:
What should be the primary goal of Kurdish politics in World War III? With whom should we seek alliances? Against whom should we stand? And whom should we try to render neutral?
This should be the agenda of Kurdish politics. Unfortunately, we are unable to establish our agenda. We cannot impose our agenda on our counterparts. Instead, we are forced to follow and discuss the agenda of the occupying states.
Yet if we are to be a political subject, we must have our agenda and strive to get other parties to accept it. And the most critical risk areas are Little South, South, and Eastern Kurdistan. The role that political organizations in Eastern Kurdistan have taken in the Israel-Iran conflict is quite positive. I support this stance.
Both the Kurdistan Freedom Party and the Kurdistan Democratic Party held Iran primarily responsible for this conflict.
However, it is extremely mistaken at this stage for the leaders of Southern Kurdistan and certain political parties in Northern Kurdistan to adopt an anti-Israel stance.
I’m not saying we should applaud or support Israel’s attacks. But as I said at the beginning of the speech, the region has three sub-imperial powers. Iran has suffered a significant blow in the area. Who will fill that vacuum? There are two candidates: Israel and Turkey, and to some extent, Saudi Arabia is also making efforts in the south.
Turkey is trying to fill that vacuum by developing relations with these states. Israel says it will not allow this. Now, our true imperialists are Turkey and Iran.
No one should call upon Kurdish politics to abandon the struggle against Turkey and Iran in favor of fighting against U.S., British, French, or Israeli imperialism.
All over the world, revolutionaries and national forces first settle accounts with their rulers.
If you cannot end the occupation in your own country, you cannot carry out anti-imperialism anywhere in the world.
In Kurdistan, anti-imperialism begins with the struggle against Turkish and Iranian imperialism.
Suppose some Turkish leftist organizations, the DEM Party, or Öcalan want us to abandon our imperialists and instead struggle against the U.S. and Israel. In that case, that means they wish to perpetuate the occupation.
That is not anti-imperialism. That is not internationalism. The essence of internationalism is to attempt revolution in your own country.
You are abandoning the idea of making a revolution in your own country. You are calling for integration with the occupying, capitalist, genocidal state. Then you turn around and say: “I’m doing this for anti-imperialism, for regional peace.” This is a politically irrational way of thinking. It is an attempt to disarm Kurdish thought — the people of Kurdistan — intellectually. We must reject this.
No one, not even the great powers fighting the war, can know in advance where the war will end or how it will conclude.
War has its dynamics, its logic. For example, those who started the wars were ultimately defeated in World War I and World War II. In the First World War, Prussia, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire began the war and were defeated. In the Second World War, Germany, Italy, and later Japan started it, and they were defeated.
We cannot know who will be defeated at the end of this war or what kind of world order will be established. We must know that we must seize the opportunities that World War III presents us and strive for statehood. A nation must become a state if it wants to survive and transform into a political subject.
This is the reality of the world. It does not stem from some blind love of the state. This is simply the reality of this world. To exist as a nation, you must establish a state. Otherwise, there will be no guarantee for your language, culture, land, honor, or wealth. You will be doomed to remain in limbo in every situation.
Now, take Israel. It has changed its war strategy and the character of its warfare. It showed this first in Gaza, then in its war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and now in Iran. In today’s wars, population size no longer matters as much. In the end, the people will still determine the outcome. But we must also recognize that the character of war has changed.
Iran is a somewhat complex country, including its political regime. It has a system resembling provinces or states. For instance, there is a Kurdistan province, two Azerbaijani provinces, and Khuzestan (also called Kuzistan). So Iran is a uniquely structured state. Its national and ethnic composition is highly complex.
What we must focus on here is this: In addition to the region called Western Azerbaijan (which includes parts of Kurdistan), Baluchistan is in the south, and Khuzestan is on this side.
Now, the relations between these nationalities — or these peoples—are not without problems either.
For example, there is a territorial dispute between Kurdistan and Azerbaijan. The region that we refer to as Azerbaijan essentially claims eastern Kurdistan as “Western Azerbaijan.” You may remember that three or four years ago, Kurdish representatives in the Iranian Parliament demanded the creation of a second Kurdistan province. Even before the Persians, it was the Azeris who opposed this. And for this reason, the second Kurdistan province was not established.
Khuzestan is an Arab-majority region. As you know, during the Iran-Iraq war, one of the central issues was this region, Khuzestan, or the so-called “Iran-Iraq” region. However, that region chose to remain under the Iranian administration. The population of Azerbaijan in Iran is predominantly Shiite.
Because of that, they are integrated into Iran’s regime. On the other hand, there are significant interventions and operations by two states — the Republic of Azerbaijan and Turkey — among the Iranian Azeris. The fundamental motive behind both states’ activities in Iranian Azerbaijan is opposition to Kurdistan. We must recognize this in advance and shape our political strategies accordingly.
As far as I can see, the most likely alliance in that region would be between Balochistan and Kurdistan.
During the Jina Amini uprising, the ones who carried the rebellion through to the end were precisely these two nations — the Baloch and the Kurds. A serious alliance between them is highly probable.
The segment we call the Iranian opposition — even though they have some criticisms of the regime in Iran — are not truly against Iran’s presence in Kurdistan or Balochistan. There doesn’t appear to be any real, serious opposition. It is said that the West is preparing the son of Reza Shah. But in any case, a civil war in Iran like the one in Syria will not be so easy.
On the other hand, this regime might also fall more quickly. Or it might respond even more barbarically, launching fierce repression against all these nations.
What we need to do now is to define our alliances and determine our roadmap based on the core strategy of the national liberation struggle in Kurdistan.
Sooner or later, this regime will collapse. Sooner or later, Turkey will also collapse.
If a new order is desired in the Near East or the Middle East, it will not be possible to bring peace, harmony, or a new order to the region as long as these two states continue. This has been the case for 600 years. These are two states formed from the remnants of two empires that have long plagued the region: the Safavid and the Ottoman Empires. Iran and Turkey are the products of those legacies.
These two states are the leaders of reaction in the region. And as long as they remain, a new Near East, a new Middle East — peace and stability — will not be possible.
These states must be downsized. And the primary dynamic that can shrink these states is Kurdistan.
Kurdish politics must recognize this massive power and act accordingly. We are in the midst of a great war that will last for many years. One cannot become a political actor with small-minded calculations within a great war. It is those who think big who prevail in great wars. Kurdistan’s potential and dynamics are enough to enable us to think big. And now, the whole world is not our enemy anymore.
Until around 1990, it was said that the whole world was against the Kurds, and there was some truth in that. Because the four occupying states were divided between two global blocs: Iraq and Syria were in the Soviet camp, while Turkey and Iran were in the NATO–U.S.–Western bloc. But that world no longer exists. Kurdistan’s path is open, its dynamics are in motion, and its potential is powerful. Kurdish politics must see this and prepare for this war with great objectives.
Therefore, calls for peace today are calls for slavery. The war is ongoing and will deepen. Under these conditions, to disarm the Kurds or to turn to peace and brotherhood rhetoric means nothing other than leaving the Kurdish nation in servitude.
I’m not someone who loves war or wishes for people to die. But this is the reality of the world. We are experiencing a great war. Kurdistan’s division, fragmentation, and occupation occurred after the First World War. During the Second World War, this statelessness continued. Now we are in the period of the third war. Either we move forward to destroy this order, or we accept slavery. It’s either revolution, or barbarism, or slavery. From where I stand, no other path is visible.
In my opinion, the Bahçeli–Öcalan process began in May 2023. At that time, Bahçeli made a statement:
“The world is changing. Our region is changing. We hope our country does not change.” This indicates a perceived threat that has been present since May 2023.
Then, at the opening of Parliament in late 2023 or early 2024, Erdoğan made a statement at a time when the Assad regime in Syria had not yet collapsed. Erdoğan said: “After Lebanon, Israel’s next target is our country.” Two days ago, Bahçeli repeated the same thing: “Israel’s target is Turkey.”
Now we must read these messages correctly. There is no direct threat from Israel to Turkey. Turkey is a NATO state. Israel is essentially the NATO of the Middle East. There is no direct threat from Israel to Turkey.
So, what is the real threat? The real threat is the establishment of a Kurdish state.
The existential issue that Turkish politics refers to when they say, “We have a survival problem,” is precisely this: the statehood of Kurdistan. All that talk of terrorism, violence, etc. — it’s all a distraction. The idea that Israel will attack Turkey — that’s also a fantasy.
However, if the war in the region deepens, the possibility that Kurdistan will emerge on the historical stage as a state increases, and it depends mainly on the stance of the Kurdish political class and the Kurdish nation. The conditions between states and the regional circumstances are favorable for the statehood of Kurdistan.
Bahçeli and Erdoğan analyze this reality better than our political class.And they are saying:
“If this war deepens, a semi-state is already in the south. There is a proto-state structure in Little South. Eventually, these will unite.”
If the Iran–Israel war deepens, Eastern Kurdistan will also align with them. And in that case, they [the Turkish state] think: “We will no longer be able to govern Northwestern Kurdistan the way we used to.”
And this way of thinking is correct — a state-level strategic mind backs it. They are accurately sensing the danger and threat. And that is why they have launched the Bahçeli–Öcalan initiative.
Now look — between 1919 and 1923, the remaining state structure from the Ottoman Empire was extremely fragile. Whether it could survive as a state was in doubt. So what did Mustafa Kemal do?
During 1919–1923, there wasn’t a single sheikh or tribal leader in Kurdistan whose hand he did not kiss. They tried to avert this existential threat by gaining Kurdish support — and to a certain extent, they succeeded.
Nearly all the sheikhs, tribal leaders, and Kurdish notables whose hands Mustafa Kemal kissed during 1919–1923 were either hanged or exiled.
In 1923, a republic was declared through the Treaty of Lausanne, and military campaigns against Kurdistan began. First, the Koçgiri campaign in 1920–21, then the 1925 uprising, the Ağrı campaign, and finally the Dersim campaign of the Turkish state.
Today, they are trying to reintroduce the same strategy through Öcalan.
The Turkish state, Iran, Iraq, and Syria — these four occupying states — are in a difficult situation.
And they are trying to overcome this crisis by rallying the Kurds behind them.
Look — one of the reasons the Syrian regime tried to get the Kurds on their side when the war began in 2011 was precisely this.
You know, between 2011 and 14, the PYD secured ground by making agreements with the Assad regime. Today, Turkey is trying to repeat the same thing. They want to be seen as the protectors of the Kurds.
Our enemies cannot be our protectors. The relationship between the Republic of Turkey and the Islamic Republic of Iran with Kurdistan is one of enmity. In the law of enmity, there is no protection.
There is only destruction, exploitation, and assimilation. That is what the law of enmity brings.
This is not unusual — it is the standard political style.
First and foremost, the Kurdish nation is ancient and incomparable to the Turkish nation.
It is a nation that has carried out a national liberation struggle for over 150 years.
I’m not saying, “Why is Turkey behaving this way?” Turkey is condemned to behave this way. Turkey is condemned to be a genocidal state. Because when the Republic was declared, no Turkish nation was behind it. This state chose to create a nation for itself as its primary goal.
Now, if you try to create a nation-state and its nation in a multi-ethnic and multinational geography, you must eliminate all national entities outside of yourself. There is no other option. The Armenians, Assyrians, Laz, and Greeks were eliminated through short-term genocides, and the rest were integrated into the Turkish nation.
The only remaining obstacles to this nation-building project are the Kurdish nation and the truth of Kurdistan. And now, the Turkish state has launched a new nation-building project — this time not under the name “Turk,” but as “Turkey’s nation” — and is doing so through Öcalan.
This is a severe attack on the reality of the Kurdish nation and Kurdistan. This is not a peace process, not a democratic reconciliation process. Only one thing they say is partially true: “We want a Turkey without terrorism.” But no one is asking the Turkish state: Who is the terrorist? You, who carry out brutal occupation in three parts of Kurdistan, are you not the terrorists? Is it the PKK, which has carried out three minor actions in eight years, that is the terrorist? If the PKK lays down its arms and dissolves itself, will violence come to an end in Turkey, in Northwestern Kurdistan, in Little South, and in Southern Kurdistan?
The source of violence is the occupation. Occupation is a generator of violence. If you have occupied the land of another nation, you cannot exist without violence. Occupation itself is a significant form of violence.
Now, by covering up this violence, you look at the weapons of PKK fighters in the Qandil Mountains and say:
“If they lay down their arms, Turkey will become a terror-free country.” And the PKK accepts this.
That means accepting being labeled as a terrorist. I’m not saying the PKK shouldn’t lay down its arms.
But the Turkish state has no real issue with the armed presence of the PKK in Qandil. There is no armed threat to Turkey from the PKK in Qandil, and it doesn’t have such a strategic goal anyway.
If your declared core strategy is a democratic nation, a democratic Turkey, then why even carry arms in the first place?
In today’s world, the only thing that legitimizes armed struggle is the national liberation struggle and its objectives. If you don’t have such goals, your violence is blind violence.
Unfortunately, many Kurdish political parties — in both the south and the north — interpret this Bahçeli–Öcalan process as a disarmament of the PKK. But that is not the reality. The actual target of disarmament is Little South.
In Southern Kurdistan today, there are dozens of Turkish military bases. Currently, Erbil (Hewlêr) is effectively targeted by Turkish military deployments. The goal is to disarm a nation. If they had truly wanted to disarm the PKK, they could have done so in 1999.
The real target is Little South. In the medium term, the targets are Southern Kurdistan and Eastern Kurdistan, And as always, Northwestern Kurdistan remains a target.
We must interpret this process accordingly. This is a state mind, a state project. All political parties in all four parts of Kurdistan must reject this process.
For Kurdish politics to engage in legitimate relations with the Turkish state, the precondition must be that the Turkish state recognizes the existence of the Kurdish nation and Kurdistan, and that the rights of the Kurdish nation on that basis are acknowledged.
But you don’t recognize this nation. You don’t recognize the land of this nation. So, what will you negotiate with the representatives of a nation you don’t recognize?
Accepting these negotiations is accepting slavery. This is Hegel’s definition — let me repeat it. Hegel speaks of mutual recognition. He says, “The master does not recognize the slave. Because for the master, the slave is merely a tool, an instrument. Whatever task he has, he assigns a suitable slave to it. The identity, name, or gender of the slave does not matter. But the slave recognizes the master.”
Therefore, genuine freedom, peace, or brotherhood can only arise from mutual recognition.
But for 100 years, the Turkish state has followed a policy of denial, rejection, and destruction of the Kurdish nation’s reality.
Even today, do representatives of the Turkish state speak of the Kurdish nation or the truth of Kurdistan? They do not. What do they talk about? They say there is terror. But when DAESH (ISIS) captured the entire border strip between Turkey and Syria, you had no problem with it.
Only when Kurdish fighters began defending their lands did you start speaking of terror.
So, the Turkish state is not actually against terrorism. The Turkish state is a power that trains and directs terrorist organizations in many parts of the world, especially in this region.
We must not fall into this trap. We must expose this process. We must persistently call upon the youth of Kurdistan, the women of Kurdistan, and the political parties of Kurdistan. Now is the time to bring forward the truth of the Kurdish nation and land — to unite around it, to reconcile around it, and to struggle for it.
Nations exist through their languages, their cultures, and their histories. My call to the youth of Kurdistan is this:
Defend your language, protect your culture. Do not trust the nonsense about “culturalism not being suitable for our society” that Öcalan promotes. Most importantly, we should approach events with a sense of history and historical consciousness.
Behind us stands 150 years of national liberation struggle. The lessons from that struggle are a remendous treasure. We can move forward into the future with firm steps by embracing them.
I am hopeful for the future.
Greetings, respect, and success to all who support an independent Kurdistan. I have faith in the parties of Eastern Kurdistan and the Kurdistani parties. They carry a strong spirit of Kurdistan and avoid internal conflict. Let us hope that PJAK does not play a disruptive role there.
In their statement yesterday, PJAK blamed Iran for the Israeli attack and called on Kurdish parties for unity. How sincere is this? How much is it influenced by the Bahçeli–Öcalan process?
Let us hope that it is not influenced at all.
Let there not be internal conflict in Eastern Kurdistan via PJAK.
Greetings, love, and respect.
Comments are closed.