However, this Kurdish step might lead to the absence of a high level of coordination with Maliki's Shiite and Sunni adversaries in this potential front. The Kurds decision to announce an alliance comprising all Kurdish parties to negotiate with other powers was the beginning of a revival of the ethnic and sectarian alignments that the electoral competition seemed to have weakened.
In light of the Kurds coming together in a single bloc that adopts a high bar of demands, it would be difficult for any Shiite group to ally with them individually, outside the framework of the broader Shiite umbrella. Especially since this would likely lead to accusations of treason and collusion with the KRG against Baghdad.
It seems that the message sent by the Kurdish forces is that they prioritize the interests of the Kurdistan region over working to reform the Iraqi political system and offering long-term institutional visions to deal with the problems created by the previous period. This is confirmed by the threats of Kurdish officials to secede in the case that Baghdad does not respond to their demands, which can be interpreted as a sign that there is no long-term Kurdish commitment to the unity of Iraq, especially if the Kurdistan region is able to develop its resources to the point that it can independently bring in more revenue than what is provided to it by Baghdad.
Meanwhile, some believe that this stance to independently export oil could open the door to serious bargaining between Maliki and Iraqi Kurdistan, to arrange their relationship in a different way that gives the region greater autonomy. Yet, it could also lead to a crisis for the KRG if it is established that no major coalition is ready to offer the concessions the Kurds want. At that time, the KRG will have to decide whether to back down from its hard-line stance or implement its promise to secede. If the latter happened, it may free the region of Baghdad's influence, but would make it — to an even greater extent — at the mercy of Ankara.
Iraqs most precious resources are water and oil. The confict with the kurds is naive and very closed to high incompetence.
To force the kurds to submission is a very difficult and expensive game. The issue is becoming more and more an "ego/chauvinist" problem.
What could happens to the kurds when Baghdad cut the salaries of ALL public functions? A collapse of the kurdish society? Of course, when import/exports in Kurdistan decreases by 50%, all public servants do not get their salaries for more than 3 months, which alternatives do the kurds have? Total submission or fight for an alternative solution.
Imagine what happens in Europe when they had a financial crisis in Greece or the result of decreasing their GDP by 25% in one single year. Or think what happened to the USA when the Public Sector were about to be fired since there was no budget, nor money for the public functions. All those citizens in USA and Europe perceived those situations as a major crisis threatening their existence.
And the kurds by those measures have been more resilient and are getting their act together by visiting foreign countries, finding buyers for iraqi oil (from Kuristan) at higher prices that SOMO ever fixed.
Getting reassurances from France, Germany, Italy, UK and Turkey (all NATO members) that they will buy the iraqi oil from Kurdistan. And what does the central government in Baghdad? Nothing or rather looking at their navels and fat bellies?
To foment iraqi resistance against Baghdad is a very bad move for Iraq. To destroy all sorts of bridges to etnical minorities is even worse.
Is there any decent politician or reliigous leader with common sense who can save Iraq from division, split and internal war? Speak up now because the time is becoming more and more scarce.
The problem of potable, drinking water in Bagdad and Basra which is far more expensive than the finest Basra Light Oil is scaring more than the oil dispute with the kurds.
Iraq is very much depending on the good faith and goodwill from Turkey, Iran, Syria and the North of Iraq or Kurdistan for having drinking water for the population. If things continue as it seems then 30-50% of the water coming from the main rivers will decrease or consumed "up North". Why is not Baghdad building desalinitation plants in Basra, like they do in Kuwait? Are we still counting with "free lunches" for all years to come in terms of good hearted neighbors to give us our drinking water? Is that the reason why we give the neighbouring countries bad names? Just to make sure that we pissed them off?
Therefore I believe that this "ego/chauvinist" approach will cause very serious problems to Iraq or until some decent poitician with common sense appears.