To what should we attribute ISIL’s expanding and intensifying its conflict against the Kurds? A lot of thought should be given to why an organization, which is growing in strength daily in Iraq and Syria despite withdrawing from Kobane after a long period of resistance, and an organization that is increasing its effectiveness by attacking Iranian-backed groups, has surprisingly assaulted the Kurds on all fronts.

Yesterday’s clashes alone, in and around Kirkuk, indicate that ISIL is set to expand the conflict area with Kurds.

Who has unleashed this movement, with Arab and Sunni characteristics, which was targeting the Shia, on the Sunni Kurds? While we were concerned about sectarian-based conflict via ISIL, we started seeing that the ethnic-based conflict map began expanding.

It seems like some people are laying the foundations of an Arab-Kurd war or division. While halting ISIL is of more importance to Iran, some people are also driving the Kurds to tackle ISIL. It is as if the Kurds are being used to negate the threat created by the organization. The answer to the question of whether ISIL has been unleashed on the Kurds or whether the Kurds were dragged to the frontline to stop this threat is a vital one.

We were witness to an Arab-Kurd clash in the wake of Iraq’s occupation. Resistance groups comprised of Sunni Arabs identified the northern Iraqi administration as the enemy based on the reasoning that they were complicit in the occupation.

But that crisis was confined within Iraq and didn’t become regionalized. Today, however, this state of division and conflict that we attributed as specific to Iraq, by spreading to Syria, and then even further via ISIL, has resulted in a new front being added to the existing Arab-Persian war of influence being waged across the region.

The sentence that has frightened me the most during the last 20 years is “Islam will wage war within itself.” This thesis is promoted by those who say “Islam’s borders are blood-soaked,” and exploit these borders to advance their interests in the great power struggles they are involved in, and to negate growing political protests against this in the region.

Unfortunately political problems, injustices and imprudence in the region have validated this thesis. And this thesis has become a reality. By bringing ethnic and sectarian identities to the fore, the regional fabric was separated into individual threads and extreme conflict zones and division were created on the basis of organizations.

Some people were really making the Islamic world clash among itself.

The Arab-Iranian wars, which have been taking place covertly in every corner of the Middle East for decades is the most significant pillar of this thesis. This regional power struggle, which has been marketed to the masses on the basis of Shia and Sunni identities, resulted in the creation of dozens of organizations and fronts in every corner of the region.

We will be witness to the further expansion of this Arab-Iranian arm-wrestling, which after Lebanon continued in Iraq, moved on to Syria, and most recently made itself felt in Yemen.

It is at this point that Turkey’s attempt at peace with Kurds stops being limited to just Turkey. It serves as a very valuable and the only example for a region geared for conflict. Turkey, which ended a state of conflict that existed for decades and is attempting to form a partnership, endeavors, in this manner, to render void a vital pillar of the thesis of “conflict among themselves.”

When we examine the resolution process in a “wide context,” we will see that Turkey has adopted a position that opposes the insidious calculations made to divide the region. I am of the belief that some political circles, however, have failed to comprehend this dimension of the issue.

Based on this, I can more or less say that relations between the Kurds and Iran in the years to come will lean toward conflict rather than peace. If you pay attention you will see that the foundations for a war between the Kurds and Iran is being laid as a result of all the clashes taking place between all the dominant ethnic circles in the Middle East caused by that “conflict thesis.”

One of the most important pillars of the “conflict thesis” is a Turkey-Iran conflict. Many projects were implemented over the years to cause a clash between Turkey and Iran, which are relentless rivals in the region. The existing regimes in both these countries were used for this purpose as well.

An Iranian-Kurdish and Iran-Turkey conflict would be added to the Iranian-Arab war. This would mean the idea of chaos geography would be implemented in every sense, micro mini states established, garrison states formed; and the region would be unable to recover for another century.

One reality needs to be stressed: Any political entity or power in the geographical region we are located in needs to be connected to at least one of the four ethnic elements present. Any political structure devoid of Turkish, Arab, Kurdish or Iranian influence will find it impossible to survive.

The hand of at least one or more of these four elements can be found at the core of any state or political movement established in this geographical region in the “near” past that dates back 1,000 years. The Seljuk administration represented the peak of such foundational partnerships. The Seljuks were the last political force that united, integrated and turned this geographical region into a joint power.

The thesis that seeks to split, divide and sow discord among these four elements and force them into separate blocs is the greatest trap and extensive plot being directed against the region in the 21st century.

This thesis was actually implemented in the 20th century. Looking at it just from the Turkey perspective, the attempt to create a political perception where hatred against Arabs is prominent had penetrated our minds, even in terms of idioms.

Turkey had distanced itself not just from Arabs but from all regional countries. During that period no country, or any of these four elements, was able to overcome the divide created among them and no strong partnerships were formed among these four elements as a result.

When Cold War polarizations began to weaken, political and cultural intermingling increased among these elements. The walls of old were taken down. Attempts at a regional partnership, albeit weak, took prominence. Communication between Turks, Arabs, Kurds and Iranians was strengthened.

It was at exactly this moment that the scenario in question was introduced. The region, which was accustomed to ethnic clashes in a narrow sense, realized that these clashes were being regionalized. Both ethnic and sectarian identities were transformed into pretexts for war in order to sabotage any rapprochement between these four elements. Organizations were established, states held to task, and rapprochement was sabotaged.

Now they have moved past sabotage and are paving the way for a major war. The plans are for this war to include the Arab-Iran war, the Arab-Kurd war, the Kurd-Iranian war, the Turkish-Iranian war and the Turkish-Arab war.

This is how the regionalization of the war will be achieved.

Pay attention and you will see that all roads lead to this war, and that all developments are gradually taking the region to this stage.

I don’t know what will happen 10 years from now. However, we need to support with all our strength the struggle to reverse the direction in which the wind is currently blowing. We need to oppose with all our being ethnic and sectarian division and the creation of pretexts for war on the basis of identity, just like we are doing with the resolution process.

This is because this trap has been laid for all of us. It has been laid for Kurds, Turks, Arabs and Iranians. The trap has been laid for the entire region and history. It has been laid for the masses that are preparing to rise up.

For those with prudence, the political future represents victory. It represents disaster for those with a narrow and blind perspective, just like we witnessed during World War I.