“Dangerous, provocative and unhelpful” were the words a US State Department official used to describe Massoud Barzani’s recent comments, which included open threats to interfere in Turkey’s Southeast.

Barzani is not known for sparing his words or being diplomatic; however, his daring language is increasingly becoming a liability, not only for the Kurds but also for the US.

We tend to think that Barzani is obtaining good counsel as he has people in his entourage who understand Turkey well. Former Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) representative in Ankara Safeen Dizayee is one of them. He either does not listen to advice or is deliberately raising the stakes. If he aimed to raise the stakes and provoke Turkey into directly taking matters in its own hands, I can assure him that he has succeeded in doing so. However, he has not succeeded in putting the blame on Turkey. On the contrary, reactions from many Western capitals indicate that patience is running out with Barzani and his uncompromising stance on Kirkuk. I was in Washington when his comments made it to the front pages. Even the most pro-Kurdish analysts in Washington increasingly express discomfort with him.

On the Turkish domestic level, every irresponsible statement by him pushes Turkey’s moderates over to the other side. Many Turks understand that dealing with the Kurdish authorities directly is necessary in order to manage a mutually satisfactorily future for Iraq. That said, his inflammatory statements make it extremely difficult for that to happen, and I believe his controversial statements to al-Arabiya passed a critical threshold for us. Turkey’s chief of general staff made it very clear that Turkey has both the means and political will to deal with the situation in northern Iraq. If history is any indication, it might be useful to remember 1998 and what happened with Syria then.

Iraq’s Kurds fail to see that the future status of northern Iraq is not exclusively an Iraqi affair. There is a Kurdish illusion that they can get away with determining the future status of northern Iraq without bringing regional powers into the picture. In stark contrast, more and more policymakers stress that the Iraq problem needs to be internationalized and a regional solution must be found. A regional conference a la Madrid should take up the status of Kirkuk and prevent a fait accompli in the Kurdish north. Kirkuk, is not only a Kurdish affair. First, Turkmens, Shiities, Sunnis, Assyrians and regional powers -- most importantly Turkey -- have interests there. There is every indication in Washington that this is better appreciated and the likelihood of the referendum in Kirkuk of taking place is lessening. The only way out of the mess in Kirkuk is that Kirkuk obtains a special status, which is possible under the Iraqi constitution and thus does not belong to any particular ethnic group. If the Kurds think they can maintain peace in Kirkuk without a regionally acceptable solution, they not only put their peace but Iraq’s and by extension the region’s peace at stake.

Turkey no longer can tolerate the PKK’s freedom of movement and operational existence in northern Iraq. Nor can it accept the annexation of Kirkuk to the entity in the north.