The images of Iraqi and Iranian leaders seen together, amicable, almost chummy should be the basis for future hope, one would think. After all, the past war between their two countries had been the biggest thing to hit the Middle East since Rommel. The war had been fought purportedly over disputed territory and access to the sea. It is said it caused one million casualties and served as an inspiration for the issuance of those plastic keys to heaven on the part of Iran. There is no question it was also about prestige. The Baathist seculars on one hand, the fundamentalist ayatollahs on the other.

Why a so-called democratic government in Iraq would be more palatable to Iran than Saddam's is puzzling. After all we have heard much talk about Iranian sponsorship of unrest in their neighbor and considering that both countries are primarily Shiite, this would indicate their differences have been over how the country is run more so than on who runs it. The recent indications given by Iranian leadership that the nuclear issue may after all be negotiable would help reinforce the impression that they are not that inflexible and intolerant after all. Somehow it just doesn't wash. Things deserve a closer look.

For one thing it is not too clear how the Iraqi leadership could have lent itself to these public gestures in conjunction with Iran without having first consulted, or possibly also been encouraged to by the US. The whole thing smacks of a three-way arragement and for a shared benefit. Let us start with the US and its administration.

With the decline in world oil prices (was Iran co-operative in that too?), the Democrat party has been left with only one major sail to propel them into the forthcoming elections-Iraq. Were the present US leadership to anticipate and announce a major change in military strategy, deployments etc. bringing at least a portion of the servicemen home right before these elections, it would take considerable wind out of that sail. The worsening situation in Afghanistan is re-emphasizing the al-Qaida and Taliban issue. Recent 9/11 observance and publicity have help shift the emphasis as well. Also, let us not forget that the official involvement of NATO in Afghanistan makes it appear less of a unilateral effort than the one in Iraq. The impending resignation of Tony Blair and a potential redefinition of British policy in Iraq will only focus the spotlight on the de-facto singularity of American commitment. If the Iranians were to be given advance indication of a US change in strategy, they might be willing to play the new cards dealt.

What about the Civil War prospects in Iraq given additional credibility by not too-subtle statements by some major military players very recently? Add to this the Iraqi government statement that the country is more or less going down the drain on its present course? Is a Shiite/Sunni boodbath really unavoidable? Maybe not. All it needs is a scapegoat, something to efficiently re-direct all this violent tostesterone. To a point, American servicemen have served this purpose. If a new modus vivendi is arranged, the pressure will have to be taken off them somewhat in order for the American administration to get its benefit. Let's see what else the Iraqis and Iranians have in common in addition to being mainly Shiite and blessed with oil. Why, a Kurd minority of course! The terrorism in Turkey recently has been attributed to its own problem with Kurds and not to any fundamentalist or Shiite initiative. The Turks are after all Sunni, and one would assume they shouldn't be overly receptive to an impending Sunni slaughter in Iraq. The Kurds? That is another story and it is one of the things that all three Moslem players mentioned have in common as a potential enemy.

Anyone who has been paying attention will have noticed the sudden appearance of Kurdish "Thank You America" ads on TV. It is a nice gesture on their part considering all the negative feedback we have been receiving from other sources. But is it just a gesture? I cannot avoid having a slight suspicion that they may have gotten wind of an American/Iraqi/Iranian/Turkish arrangement that may potentially hang them out to dry. Again. Remember what happened after Iraqi War I? With all of our talk about democracy and freedom and self-determination, are they going to be the sacrificial lamb?

An alternative solution to the Iraqi quagmire would have been to allow it to restructure itself into three separate political entities. Allowing the civil war to fully occur would clear the air and our own soldiers would more or less get out of the way by concentrating on protecting the major oil-fields, the port(s) and some airfields. I believe the majority of Americans would shed few tears as long as the Iraqis concentrated almost exclusively on killing each other. And where would our haven be? Where would we base our co-ordinating command? Where are we possibly genuinely liked? In Iraqi Kurdistan of course! We would then be committed to its defense in conjunction with protecting our own. The non-Kurdish Sunni and Shiites in Iraq, would hardly like that, but what could they do about it? The population of the country has already been reported as resorting itself along factional lines. People tend to move out of mixed areas and relocate in places where they feel safer among their own. This is not ethnic cleansing, it is a common sense effort to increase one's chances of survival. Now both Iran and Turkey simultaneously come into play.

A fully independent American supported Kurdish state in the former Iraq would put pressure on both Iran and Turkey to allow their Kurdish minorities located in somewhat adjacent areas to become part of a new unified state. The Azerbaijani state would be encouraged to put further pressure on Iran. The Iraqis may not want to give up the oil involved, but in the case of Iran and Turkey, it may be more of a matter of principle rather than of economic greed. Being fully Macchiavellian, encouraging greater division among Moslem countries based primarily on principle, religious or otherwise, is in the American interest. As long as we are not unifying target caught in the middle, that is.

Methinks I smell a rat here and until I hear some statement from the present administration clearly defining its position on the Kurdish issue, I will remain cynical rather than hopeful. Do we stand for democracy and self-determination or not? Or is it all about the elections?