The leader of the largest Iraqi Shiite sect (in Iraq the Shiites are Arabs and are the majority), but anti-Iranian, Sadr, expresses the spirit of Iraqi national independence, against both Iran and the West. Although the ruling establishment is moderate towards the West and the USA (it cooperates with them, accepting the presence of American forces that are not there only "symbolically"), it is at the same time slavishly submissive towards Iran.
Now see a mess:
Sadr is the most open towards the Kurds, both those of Barzani and those of the PKK.
Shiites of establishment following Tehran's orders are pressuring the PKK Kurds via tolerating the invading Turks who are now waging an open war against the PKK in northern Iraq, in the Qandil mountain range where its hard-line leadership and military core is based.
At the same time, next door, in Syria, the forces of the Alawite-Shia as well as the Baathist regime of Assad, come to an agreement and cooperation with the Syrian PKK to face the Turkish invasion threat. Both Moscow and Tehran object to the Turkish invasion, and will probably come into direct confrontation with their ally, Turkey, so they have given approval to Assad to ally with the PKK.
Of course, the attitude of Russia and Iran is influenced by the anti-Turkish position, over time, of the regime of the Assad family*. Neither Iran nor Russia want Turkey to expand further in northern Syria, but they also have to consider the position of the Assad regime.
Tell me now:
In the field, in practice, who can solve this tangle?
The "anti-capitalist" movement? Don't make me laugh.
Those who see things from a distance, usually from the Western screen, whether they are anti-capitalist or not, do not say anything concrete.
* Εxcept for a short time, where there was a restoration of their relations.
Ιωάννης Τζανάκος
