A new war has erupted in the Middle East, and within a week there was already talk of Kurdish fighters getting involved. For some Iranian Kurdish groups, the conflict is a chance to undermine a regime that has oppressed them for decades and increase their say in the country’s future governance. The US has reportedly considered a plan to support such groups, though President Donald Trump has since walked it back. His advisers must know that doing so would complicate the political situation and carries the shadow of past betrayals.
Across the border from Iran, Iraq’s Kurdistan Region is desperately trying to avoid becoming entangled in a war involving two of its most important foreign partners (the US and Iran), who are pressing Erbil to toe diametrically opposed lines.
Whatever potential opportunities the war might bring, the consequences of Washington’s ill-defined strategy and rush to action have put Kurds on both sides of the border at great risk. It is likely Kurdish civilians will suffer either through repression from reactionary forces inside Iran, cross-border drone and rocket strikes on Iraqi Kurdish cities or the economic hardship that seems poised to descend on the region.
This situation does not sit well with many Kurds, who object both to suffering in a conflict that they had no role in starting and to the prospect of being callously treated as proxies instead of actors with their own interests. Shanaz Ibrahim Ahmed, Iraq’s first lady, spoke for many when she took to social media with a blunt message: “Leave The Kurds Alone. We Are Not Guns For Hire.”
For Iranian Kurds, the war may provide a glimmer of opportunity and comes at a time of unprecedented unity between the community’s historically fractious political parties. Many have resisted the Iranian state for decades, though most have not waged a significant armed campaign in years.
In late February, five political parties came together to form the Coalition of Political Forces of Iranian Kurdistan; a sixth joined after the war began. This diverse group would have to put aside ideological and partisan differences and work together if it wants to achieve Kurdish self-determination in the context of a democratic Iran. They have repeatedly denied that their goal is secession in response to claims by the Iranian government and opposition.
The US and Israel are heavily bombing targets in Iranian Kurdistan belonging to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), police and border force. The US Central Intelligence Agency was reportedly working to supply arms to the parties, though it is unclear whether that plan is still going ahead and if any weapons have been sent yet. Such support may help to facilitate an armed campaign by the parties, if they decide to wage one. But that will be against a regime with little to lose and little compunction about targeting civilians.
But any US assistance does not appear to come with any support for the Iranian Kurds’ political goals. This should not surprise anyone: the US record since 2005 has tilted increasingly against Kurdish attempts to increase their political distance from sovereign governments. In 2017, the Trump administration firmly opposed the Kurdistan Region’s independence referendum. Just a few weeks ago, the White House dropped Washington’s longtime Syrian Kurdish partners and threw its support behind Damascus.
While the time might seem ripe for the Iranian Kurdish parties to make a move, their newfound unity and military capabilities are untested. Moreover, their potential foreign backer comes with serious baggage and no firm commitments about Iran’s future governance. Cooler heads should prevail, and the Iranian Kurds should carefully choose their moment and strategy, rather than being rushed into one by an erratic America.
Since the start of the war, more than 100 attacks have hit on the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The IRGC is responsible for many of these attacks using missiles and drones. Pro-Iran militias in federal Iraq have also joined in by firing rockets from the disputed areas.
Both of the region’s ruling parties — the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) — have been clear that they will remain neutral in the war. Yet, the Kurdistan Region has been put in an impossible position. According to The Washington Post, Mr Trump told the PUK in a phone call in the first week of March that the Iraqi Kurdish parties “must choose a side in this battle – either with America and Israel or with Iran”. He separately called the KDP leadership around the same time and likely delivered a similar message.
In the days after news of those conversations broke, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held calls of his own with the KDP and the PUK leadership. Subsequently, the Iranian Defence Council publicly warned that economic and civilian infrastructure in the Kurdistan Region “will be extensively targeted” if the Iranian Kurdish parties continue to operate on Erbil’s side of the border.
With the Kurdistan Region’s politicians stuck between these powerful interests, its people watch as debris from intercepted rockets fall on Erbil on a daily basis, damaging homes and causing injuries. The value of the Iraqi dinar has declined and the price of food has increased. From this perspective, the war hardly feels like an opportunity. Instead, it is yet another geopolitical nightmare.
The US clearly lacks a strategy for persecuting this war and has little appreciation for the position of Kurds in both Iran and Iraq. This is not surprising, but has serious consequences, particularly for civilians. The White House should start listening to Kurds and adopt a more considered approach that takes their precarious position into account, though based on recent experience that seems too much to hope for.
