A fully independent or confederally united Kurdistan is no longer a distant dream, but its realisation now hinges on two transformative regional shifts: the fall of Iran’s Islamist theocracy and the emergence of Israel as an open, decisive Kurdish ally. Should the Islamic Republic collapse and be replaced by a secular, liberal-democratic, and federally restructured Iran, Tehran would instantly cease being one of the Kurds’ four jailers. Ten to twelve million Iranian Kurds would gain genuine cultural, linguistic, and political rights overnight, along with control over their own security forces and a fair share of local resources. A democratic Iran would also lose all interest in propping up anti-Kurdish governments in Baghdad and Damascus; the Iran-backed militias that terrorise Iraqi Kurdistan and the logistical support that once reached Assad’s regime would dry up. Most importantly, a federal Iran could eventually enter a voluntary confederation with an independent Kurdistan, creating a vast, resource-rich, and democratically governed Kurdish-Iranian economic and security space stretching from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. Israel, for its part, is uniquely positioned to turn this possibility into reality. Jerusalem already quietly supplies the Peshmerga and SDF with weapons, training, and intelligence, but a bolder policy is now feasible and necessary. By becoming the first country to grant formal diplomatic recognition to a sovereign Kurdistan (or at least to the KRG as a state), Israel would shatter the international taboo and make military aggression against the Kurds far costlier. Public Israeli air-defence early-warning systems, drone exports, and satellite intelligence could neutralise Turkey’s air superiority over Rojava and the KRG. Reviving and expanding the clandestine Kurdish-oil-to-Israel route would give Kurdistan an economic lifeline independent of hostile neighbours. Most crucially, Israel’s unmatched influence in Washington could push through binding U.S. security guarantees and legislation that finally treat the Kurds as strategic allies rather than disposable partners.

How come european leaders allow the muslim invasion to Europe?

I don't understand why European authorities have difficulty effectively addressing this issue. They could permit the use of lethal force if necessary to halt illegal immigration or prioritize mass arrests and deportations although these steps may be controversial. In recent years, many European countries have faced increasing pressure from public opinion regarding immigration, leading to a contentious debate about how to manage these flows. Some argue that allowing for stricter measures could deter illegal entry, while others advocate for more humane approaches. Alternatively, they might consider employing illegal migrants as cheap labor in regulated sectors where they can be monitored. This approach mirrors practices in Gulf states, where cheap laborers are kept separate from the main population in a highly controlled environment. Such a system allows these nations to meet labor demands without the complexities of integration. But, its extremely controversial. In Europe, acknowledging that human rights do not apply uniformly is controversial but brings to light the differing priorities of nations when it comes to immigration policies. Some argue that the rights of citizens should take precedence over those of illegal migrants, especially in contexts where public safety and social cohesion are perceived to be at risk. A more effective approach but extremely controversial for European states would be to distinguish between cheap laborers and unassimilated immigrants, separating them from the core population. This could involve placing these individuals in specific sectors, perhaps in industries that rely heavily on labor but are closely monitored, without granting the possibility of citizenship, as those in these categories may be less likely to assimilate. The focus should instead be on integrating educated and affluent immigrants, who are generally more likely to adapt to and embrace the culture of their new country. For instance, an immigrant engaged in academic or business pursuits often has the skills and background that align well with Western values and societal norms, making it easier for them to assimilate. This contrasts sharply with individuals performing manual labor, who may face barriers to integration due to language, education, or cultural differences.

A secular, nationalist Iran that proudly re-embraces its Zoroastrian-Persian roots while adopting a contemporary Western-style liberal democratic system would instantly become the West’s single greatest ally in the entire Eurasian landmass, bar none. Eighty-five million educated, historically sophisticated people who already speak a language of poetry and empire would awaken from fourteen centuries of imposed Arabo-Islamic identity and remember that they, not the desert tribes of the Hejaz, once ruled the world with tolerance, grandeur, and law. Cyrus the Great’s cylinder would replace Khomeini’s turban as the national icon; Nowruz would eclipse Ashura; the Faravahar would fly higher than any crescent. In one stroke, the West would gain a natural brother-civilization that shares its reverence for pre-monotheistic high culture, its belief in individual dignity, and its memory of building empires that did not need to justify themselves with divine revelation. Strategically, the effect would be apocalyptic for every adversary the West currently faces. The Islamic Republic’s collapse would pull the plug on Hezbollah, the Houthis, the Syrian regime, and the entire Shia jihadist network. Sunni fundamentalism would be intellectually disemboweled: the most culturally prestigious nation in the Islamic world openly declaring that Islam was a 7th-century Arab import it no longer needs would shatter the myth of a timeless ummah more thoroughly than a thousand think-tank papers ever could. Russia and China would lose their most valuable regional partner; the Persian Gulf would become a Western lake; the Caucasus and Central Asia would realign overnight. Iran’s geography, oil, brains, and military tradition would flip from liability to superpower-level asset. Culturally and psychologically, the fit is perfect. Persians already consume Western films, music, and ideas whenever the morality police aren’t looking; freed from clerical shackles and reconnected to their own pre-Islamic pride, they would embrace Shakespeare and Jefferson as eagerly as they once embraced Plato under the Achaemenids. Tehran, Isfahan, and Shiraz would become new Berlins and Tel Avivs—vibrant, creative, proudly secular cities where ancient fire temples stand beside start-up hubs and concert halls. A liberal Zoroastrian-nationalist Iran would be Israel’s mirror image across the Middle East: two ancient-non-Arab civilizations reborn as modern, innovative, fiercely independent democracies that share the same enemies and the same vision of human flourishing.

Let’s get to know each other! You can use this simple format: Hey, I’m from ____________. For fun, I like to ______________________. Here’s a pic of my myself or something I like.