Ranj Alaaldin also wants the U.S. to make things in Iraq worse:

The Kurdish defeat in Kirkuk was also defeat for the United States — but Washington can recover and regain its foothold in Iraq. It needs to establish red lines in the region that Tehran is not allowed to cross, under the threat of U.S. intervention against its proxies and interests, and under the threat that it may provide Kurdish forces with the weapons and training to act as an effective counterweight to Iranian power.

There is no compelling reason for the U.S. to do any of these things. Whatever else might be said about it, the Iraqi government’s capture of Kirkuk was not a “defeat” for the U.S., and there is no need for Washington to “recover” anything. The U.S. shouldn’t want and doesn’t need to have a “foothold” in Iraq, and trying to maintain one will be very costly while offering little or nothing in the way of benefits. The U.S. certainly doesn’t need to plunge into a new conflict against Iran and its proxies, and it definitely shouldn’t use the Kurds as a pawn as part of an anti-Iranian campaign. Doing this would expose U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria to attack, and it doesn’t serve any discernible American security interest. Instead, the U.S. should be trying to extricate itself from Iraq as quickly as it can, and Washington should give up on the idea that it has the first clue how to succeed in that country. U.S. intervention since 2003 has done a great deal to create the current situation, and we shouldn’t kid ourselves that more intervention will produce better results.