by Christos Konstantinidis
May 12, 2026
EDITOR’S NOTE (Nick Stamatakis). Helleniscope has evidence that these weapons ended up in the hands of the Turkmens of Iraq and not in the hands of Kurds…
The U.S. president is not attacking the Kurds because they “kept weapons,” but because he needs a scapegoat for a strategy that failed to overthrow the Iranian regime.
In an effort to manage the political and strategic cost of the failed operation to destabilize Iran, Donald Trump now appears to be shifting responsibility onto the Kurds, accusing them of misappropriating weapons and ammunition that — according to him — were intended for anti-regime protesters inside Iran.
The accusation, first made in early April and repeatedly echoed by the American president, comes during a period of intense behind-the-scenes friction between Washington and Tel Aviv over who is responsible for the failure of the regime-change strategy in Tehran.
An analysis by The National Context notes that Trump’s statements are not simply about a “lost shipment of weapons,” but rather represent a political effort to transform a major geopolitical failure into a case of “mismanagement” by Kurdish organizations, which are in the weakest position to respond.
The Plan for Iran’s Collapse
The issue is directly linked to two critical developments: the large anti-government protests that erupted in Iran in late 2025 and the war that began on February 28, 2026, when the U.S. and Israel launched attacks against the Islamic Republic.
As part of this strategy, Israeli and American intelligence services reportedly developed a plan to activate Kurdish armed organizations based in Iraqi Kurdistan in order to open an internal front in western Iran.
The plan included airstrikes, decapitation operations against Iran’s security leadership, attacks on Revolutionary Guard infrastructure, and an attempt to spark an internal uprising that would lead to the collapse of Tehran’s political system.
According to the analysis, the “Kurdish corridor” was considered the most mature and operationally prepared component of the plan.
Turkish Intervention and Trump’s Veto
However, there were serious disagreements within the American government. Senior Pentagon officials reportedly questioned from the beginning both the Iranian opposition’s ability to mobilize a mass uprising under wartime conditions and the actual operational value of Iranian Kurdish organizations.
Turkey also appears to have played a decisive role.
According to information cited in the analysis, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan personally contacted Trump and persuaded him to “freeze” the Kurdish ground involvement operation. At the same time, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan warned Marco Rubio against using Kurdish armed organizations in cross-border operations against Iran.
This development reportedly caused significant dissatisfaction in Israel, where the plan had been viewed as a key pressure mechanism against Tehran.
“No Weapons Were Lost — The Plan Collapsed”
Kurdish sources cited by The National Context acknowledge that weapons shipments did occur, but clarify that they were not intended for protesters; rather, they were meant for armed operations by Kurdish organizations inside Iran.
The distinction is crucial.
If the weapons had been sent for a “political uprising,” then the claim of misappropriation could be supported. But if they were intended to equip paramilitary groups preparing to enter Iranian territory, then — as noted — Trump is effectively distorting the true nature of the operation.
According to the analysis, the deeper problem was that the plan was built on exaggerated assessments of Kurdish organizations’ strength.
PAK could mobilize only 200–300 fighters, Komala fewer than 500, while even the strongest group, KDPI, had well under 1,000 combat-ready men.
Most importantly, PJAK — the Iranian branch of the PKK with the greatest guerrilla experience — refused to participate.
Without it, the plan lacked a genuine military core.
Fears of Retaliation and Collapse of the Operation
At the same time, Tehran openly warned the leaderships of the KDP and PUK in northern Iraq that any use of Iraqi Kurdistan as a base for attacks would lead to immediate Iranian retaliation.
Meanwhile, Iraqi Kurdish leaders themselves reportedly began to fear that the operation could trigger an existential crisis in their region and are said to have requested Turkish intervention to stop it.
Although there was military activity in the Haji Omran area, force concentrations, and preparations of infiltration routes toward Piranshahr and Oshnavieh, the plan ultimately collapsed before it could be executed.
The Real Failure
The National Context concludes that Trump is not attacking the Kurds because they “kept weapons,” but because he needs a scapegoat for a strategy that failed to overthrow the Iranian regime.
According to the analysis, the failure was not caused by “stolen equipment,” but by the fact that the plan relied on flawed assumptions, fragmented armed groups, questionable supply networks, and geopolitical realities that ultimately could not be controlled by either Washington or Tel Aviv.
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.