First of all, I write the last thing I will say first.
What I wrote is not for you. But here I will sarcastic those who boast about their nationalism and pursue reckless dreams.
For some reason, citizens who say this do not hesitate to dream of going to war with Iran or liberating Southern Azerbaijan. Those who complain about 5 million refugees coming from Syria or Afghanistan are not thinking about the 10 million people likely to come from Iran. If you complain so much about refugees, why do you see going to war with Iran as child's play?
Do not dream of Southern Azerbaijan in vain, people. You cannot get out of that bottomless pit alive.
Although I have my premonitions that long-term planning in international affairs is neither practical nor sustainable, hence not believing in the efficacy or, in any chance, the seriousness and unity of will with which the "Great middle-east project" is being pursued, still the current situation in northern Iraq and Syria and the way the west has planned and conducted the invasion of Gaza and the long-term encroachment on the West Bank, bears some resemblance to the project being implemented, albeit in a haphazard and unsatisfactorily choppy manner. Given that reality, one must ask "what would have been the optimal response by Turkey to the incitement of a civil war in Syria?" if the goal of establishment of a part of "the great Kurdistan" could be anticipated? Could we block it?
We can repeat the same question for Iran. Iran is even more of a powederkeg than Syria. Its disintegration in the coming decade (or two, give or take) is, in my view, inevitable; which translates to "the advancement of the "great middle-east project in its next phase, aka Iran, is inevitable". Another Kurdish front will be formed. What is the optimal response to this inevitability? When this disintegration happens, the alternatives on the ground are several kurdish militias, who already have their eyes on Iran's western border with Turkey. Iran's internal pan-Iranists have helped them change the demographics of the region (which is called "Western Azerbaijan") from 90% Turkish thirty years ago, to 60% kurdish now; they have achieved this within the confines of the "Islamic" republic, that is presumably devoid of those Pan-Iranist sentiments. You have to have plan b about when shit hits the fan and the kurdish militias, attack and displace Azerbaijanis from South Azerbaijan. You have to have plans to be able to influence this process, even if you think it will not happen.
Your repsonse can be the passive, "no we don't want another Kurdish front to the east; we are opposed to disintegration of Iran, we support Iran's territorial integrity". I don't need to remind you of AKP's early policy towards disintegration of Syria. Then when the facts on the ground (YPG and U.S. support for it) hit them in the face, they changed that policy to "we support the territorial integrity of Syria". That posturing has no effect on the reality of a "northern authonomous Kurdistan region of Syria". In Iran's case as well, your moral outrage and moralistic support for territorial integrity will not amount to anything, when there's a fact of "Autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iran" under the auspices of U.S.
When you develop policy, you look at the stuff you can control, and the stuff you can't. Then you control the things you can, and develop reactions to influence the stuff you can't control.
Another alternative is dreaming about controlling the stuff you can't, and then when the reality of the fact that you can't control it hits you in the face, bury your head in the sand and repeat the same chorus as you were singing before that fact had become reality.
I do not have the perfect answers as to what kind of policy could have been drawn up in the face of the reality of YPG on the ground, and the ways to control it, diminish its influence and spread and dissuade the powers from collaborating and strengthening it. But one thing is for certain; if you didn't dream about a territorially intact Syria with an Islamic Brotherhood admin at the top, you could have devised realistic policy towards what was inevitable and outside your control.
"The great middle-east project" and its goals are not all out of control and inevitable. But the disintegration of the "Islamic Republic" regime is. Ask any Iran expert, who knows Persian and has lived in that country for some time and is familiar with the cultural outlook and the state apparatus. Hence you devise policy about "South Azerbaijan" and "East Kurdistan", given this reality, not given your dreams about the territorial integrity of Iran. Unlike in Syria and Iraq, there's a huge number of Turks in that region. If you pursue your dreams, you will not be able to influence the process, giving up the ground for Kurdish militias to completely occupy "West Azerbaijan" and beyond, as your government is singing the chorus about "territorial integrity of Iran". If instead of pursuing dreams however, you look at it realistically, you will try to plan ahead, the way Iran plans ahead for disintegration of Turkey, having back-channel communication with PKK and its offshoots, along with Hizbullah and its political offshoots. They have trump cards when dealing with you. What you got? Your country has banned the only South Azerbaijani T.V. channel, has had made zero efforts to prop up and support political parties there, and bans their major activists from entering the country.
