the idea that the kurds are being asked to fight america's wars and being drawn into a conflict that isn't theirs, and of which they have a high likelihood of being abandoned, is a false narrative. closer to the truth is that america (with israel) is fighting kurdistan's war for it. the uprisings over the last several decades have all been fundamentally kurdish uprisings. the kurds have been targeted by successive regimes in tehran, and other iranian centres, for centuries. they have immense self-interest in toppling this regime, which is the point. i would not have proposed the idea if it were not in their interest.

there are some things to take note of in the analysis.

the kurds are often presented in western media as a stateless people seeking a state and that is not correct. the kurdish culture is one of a few remaining cultures where statelessness is a way of life, which is the reason they keep generating the interests of anarchists. western (or eastern) anarchist theorists grappling with ways to get out of capitalism should avoid applying their ideas to what is a largely agrarian tribal population. the kurds are not anarchists in a western theoretic or academic sense, but they do live an indigenous way of life that closely approximates the ideas expounded on in academic anarchist literature. the academics try to get empirical studies from the kurds to see if their ideas are usable or not. but the point i'm making is that the idea that the kurds actually want a westphalian nation-state is a misconception. the kurds are stateless and want to remain stateless, and for that reason they seek arrangements with the surrounding countries to allow them to maintain their stateless autonomy. for obvious reasons, none of the states in the surrounding areas can quite deal with them or know what to do with them; they will neither secede nor assimilate. they want to remain in the country, without participating in it. the turks and iranians see them as a threat to turkish and iranian identity (although they are iranians and not turks) while the religious arab states see them as a threat to islam, because they at best follow a syncretic version of islam and in truth are really no muslims at all, as most iranians are not. iranians are on average not any more religious than any other white european people, which is what they largely actually are.

to that end, it's worth pointing out that the ethnic divisions in iran are something that the kurds are aware of. the kurds are not likely to try to conquer the arab or indian parts of the iranian geopolitical space but rather to restrict themselves to the iranian plateau and the areas of iran that are inhabited by iranian speakers, which is the north and central parts. there is a slice of iran that is arab and a slice of iran that is indian or pakistani. the kurds will not want anything to do with conquering or governing these regions.

in the end, the kurdish goal will not be to conquer territory, to establish a state or to take over tehran, but to retreat back to the mountains. their goal will be a constitutional framework that allows for kurdish sovereignty in iran, not a kurdish state separate from iran. they value their statelessness. they don't want a state. thus, some commentators will argue that the kurds have been betrayed or taken advantage of, but the question before them is whether they can get the agreements they want, and not whether they can capture territory or build industry. in that sense, they are happy to be "betrayed" and they want to be "abandoned". they want the centralized states to fuck off and leave them alone.

it is consequently true that the kurds are an incomplete solution to regime change in iran, but that's not important in supporting it. as the kurds do not want to govern iran, the collapse of the iranian state in the kurdish regions, and the regions close to the kurdish regions, has no real or direct relevance on the iranian regime, except to act as a catalyst for a further uprising. the point is for the kurds to act as inspiration and perhaps as allies for the other ethnic iranian groups to tear down a government that is largely seen as enforcing arabic colonization on them. 

conversely, the regime is likely to find itself with a lingering support base in the arabic provinces of the southwest of the country, and the kurds are likely to seek avoiding getting into that fight. if iran collapses altogether, those areas may even find themselves governed by baghdad.

so, there's certain subtleties with the kurds that our media doesn't seem to understand well. the idea that we're taking advantage of them or abandoning them is not quite right, as what they actually want is isolation and stateless sovereignty. it is true that america has had some leaders that don't quite respect them, but it has really never been true that the americans have turned against them, in a way that is important to them, which is why they keep coming back. they are not naive about shifting alliances. they live in a reality where friendship is always tenuous and alliances are always shifting. western analysts may see something wrong with america's shifting priorities, but that is just real life to indigenous peoples, and has been for thousands of years.

if the kurds do launch an offensive, be rest assured that they will be seeking their own objectives and acting out of their own agency and in their own self-interest. they are not a pawn to be moved around on the board but a queen parked in the middle of it, controlling movement in every direction.