This is an important point that often gets lost in the oversimplified or, at times, prejudiced debate on the Kurds’ relationship with the U.S. Yes, the Kurds have received a few blows throughout the history of their relationship with the U.S., but whatever gains Kurds have achieved have also come because of their relationship with the U.S. (and the West more broadly). And here is what essentially drives the U.S. relationship with the Kurds: the regional states and elites ruling them in the name of Arab, Turkish, and Iranian (actually ethnic Persian) nationalism have been too inflexible to make genuine concessions that would satisfy Kurdish political demands for dignified living conditions on their historical land. Hence, they have essentially pushed Kurds to seek partnerships and alliances elsewhere (particularly with the U.S. and the West) to break this historical state and cycle of oppression and injustice. The creation of modern “nation-states” in the region and the granting of power and sovereignty to certain ethnic communities over others has largely been the outcome of Western designs or these communities partnering with the West. The continuation of this arrangement is also an outcome of the intersection of the interests of global powers and regional states dominated by these ethnicities. The abysmal treatment of Kurds (and other groups) by dominant regional ethnic communities and their elites and states fundamentally justifies and legitimates Kurds seeking relations with powers from beyond the region to overcome the curse they have been placed under, at least since WWI. Unfortunately, most states are the product of massive violence, sustained by it, and will only be rearranged domestically or broken apart by violence. One would wish that were not true and that space for meaningful and genuine coexistence and tolerance could be carved out in these states, but so far that is not really happening on a scale that would bring about fundamental change. Without understanding this crucial insight, analysts looking at the region and Kurdish behavior will not be able to grasp the underlying dynamics and drivers behind it. Hence, they will end up reducing a highly complex and nuanced story to silly takes on the CIA doing this or Mossad doing that, producing caricatured understandings of the region that portray Kurds as some sort of mercenary security company waiting to be hired by the West for the next adventure in the region. That misses the mark by a mile. I understand that journalists forced by their media organizations to parachute into every conflict on the planet several times a year may not be able to specialize in these histories or understand them in a profound sense. But they can at least try to give space and airtime to people who do understand and can explain this complex story.