i think that people have to understand just how vulnerable an independent kurdistan would be, with or without us backing. it serves us interests to have this kind of wildcard it can throw around that doesn't have to abide by international law, or fit any kind of regional standards; the kurds have legitimate sovereignty issues, but they are essentially a western backed terrorist group, in the context of the politics of the region. an independent kurdistan would find itself in a war with both iran and turkey (as well as iraq and syria) and possibly actually manage to unite the four countries around the euphrates into a common goal of kurdish containment and dismantlement.
it consequently serves kurdish interests to be very cautious and careful about how it seeks autonomy, with a federal arrangement clearly being in it's best interests. likewise, washington cannot allow an independent kurdistan because it would create tremendous frictions amongst it's allies and unite them with it's enemies. nor do the saudis want a partition; it's clear they want the whole thing, and to stamp out the minorities they don't like in the process - not partition, but genocide. the only actor that would want a partition is russia, as it would catalyze the collapse of the existing alignment.
yet, these journalists continue to push the point. it's a non-starter. it's not happening.