When the Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Region declared that “We (Kurds) have no business in the USA–Iran war,” it was not merely a diplomatic soundbite. It was a carefully calculated geopolitical stance shaped by more than a century of history, broken treaties, regional betrayals, and existential struggle.
For the Kurdish people—one of the largest stateless nations in the world—every regional conflict carries the risk of erasure. From the collapse of the Ottoman Empire to modern power rivalries between Washington and Tehran, Kurdish political survival has always required strategic caution.
This article explores why Kurdish leadership insists on neutrality in a potential U.S.–Iran war, how history shaped this doctrine, and why the Kurdish question remains one of the most unresolved geopolitical issues in the Middle East.
The Aftermath of the Ottoman Collapse: How the Kurds Lost a State
The Kurds were arguably among the biggest geopolitical losers after the fall of the Ottoman Empire following World War I.
In 1920, the Treaty of Sèvres briefly proposed the possibility of a Kurdish state. However, that promise never materialized. The subsequent Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 erased the prospect of Kurdish independence altogether. Instead, European colonial powers—primarily United Kingdom and France—redrew the Middle East according to imperial interests rather than ethnic realities.
Through agreements such as the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the region was divided into new political entities that later evolved into modern states such as Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon.
The result? The Kurds—along with Assyrian Christians and Druze communities—were transformed from regional actors into minorities scattered across multiple states. Kurdish-inhabited territories were divided among Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.
Where Arab political elites emerged in newly formed states, Kurds found themselves subordinated. Where Arabs were not dominant, Turks and Persians asserted control. In each case, Kurdish aspirations for autonomy or independence were viewed as threats to territorial integrity.
Ethnicity Over Brotherhood: Why Religion Was Not Enough
It is often noted that Kurds, Arabs, Turks, and Persians share religious commonalities—most Kurds are Sunni Muslims, though there are significant Shi’a, Yazidi, and Christian Kurdish communities. Yet shared religion did not translate into political solidarity.
For Kurdish leaders and intellectuals throughout the 20th century, “Islamic brotherhood” frequently masked assimilationist policies. Kurdish language bans, cultural suppression, and forced relocations occurred in various countries.
In Turkey, Kurdish identity was officially denied for decades, with Kurds referred to as “Mountain Turks.” In Iran and Syria, Kurdish political movements were frequently restricted or suppressed. In Iraq, tensions escalated into open warfare.
For the Kurds, ethnic survival—not religious alignment—became paramount.
Saddam Hussein and the Attempted Erasure of Iraqi Kurds
One of the darkest chapters in Kurdish history unfolded under the regime of Saddam Hussein.
During the Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988), Baghdad accused Kurdish groups of collaborating with Iran. The Iraqi government responded with the brutal Anfal Campaign, a systematic military operation targeting Kurdish villages.
The 1988 chemical attack on Halabja became an international symbol of Kurdish suffering. Thousands of civilians were killed in what human rights organizations later described as genocide. Tens of thousands more perished during forced displacements and mass executions.
The Iraqi Kurdish insistence on regional autonomy—and the fact that their territories contained significant oil and gas reserves—made them strategic targets.
Oil, Geopolitics, and the Road to Autonomy
The turning point came after the 1991 Gulf War. Following a Kurdish uprising against Baghdad, Iraqi forces retaliated, prompting a humanitarian crisis. The United States and coalition partners established a no-fly zone in northern Iraq, providing de facto protection for Kurdish areas.
This eventually paved the way for the formation of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in 1992. After the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Kurdish autonomy was formally recognized in Iraq’s 2005 constitution.
Today, the Kurdistan Region of Iraq operates with:
Its own parliament
Its own Prime Minister
Its own regional security forces (the Peshmerga)
Its own flag
Significant control over oil and gas resources
The KRG’s oil reserves have been central to its political leverage, although disputes with Baghdad over revenue sharing persist.
Why the Kurdistan Prime Minister Rejects a U.S.–Iran War
Given this history, the statement that Kurds have “no business” in a U.S.–Iran war becomes clearer.
The Kurdistan Region sits at a strategic crossroads between Iran and Iraq. It maintains complex relations with both Tehran and Washington. U.S. forces have cooperated closely with Kurdish Peshmerga in the fight against ISIS, while Iran wields influence across Iraq, including in territories bordering the Kurdistan Region.
A direct conflict between the United States and Iran would place Kurdish territory at immediate risk. Kurdish cities host foreign diplomatic missions, international businesses, and coalition military personnel. They could become targets in retaliation scenarios.
For Kurdish leadership, survival depends on balancing relations—not choosing sides in major power rivalries.
A Century of Armed Struggle
Over the past 100 years, Kurdish movements across the Middle East have taken up arms in various forms—sometimes against central governments, sometimes against extremist groups like ISIS, and sometimes against each other in internal rivalries.
But one constant remains: Kurdish political actors have consistently prioritized autonomy and self-preservation over ideological alignment.
The Peshmerga’s role in combating ISIS from 2014 onward elevated Kurdish forces to international prominence. However, even then, Kurdish leaders carefully navigated relationships with Baghdad, Ankara, Tehran, and Washington.
The failed 2017 Kurdish independence referendum in Iraq further demonstrated the risks of overreaching. Regional backlash from Turkey, Iran, and the Iraqi federal government led to territorial and economic setbacks.
Neutrality, therefore, is not weakness—it is strategic calculation.
The Kurdish Reality Today
The Kurdish people remain divided among four primary states. While the Kurdistan Region of Iraq enjoys formal autonomy, Kurds in neighboring countries face different political realities.
The Kurdish issue remains one of the Middle East’s most enduring unresolved questions. Despite shared religion with neighboring populations, ethnic survival has defined Kurdish political identity.
The Prime Minister’s declaration that Kurds have “no business” in a U.S.–Iran war is rooted in lived historical memory:
The betrayal of post-Ottoman treaties
Suppression under various regimes
Genocide under Saddam Hussein
Reliance on oil and geopolitics for survival
The fragile gains of autonomy in Iraq
Final Analysis: Survival First, Always
For the Kurdish people, every major Middle Eastern war has carried existential consequences. From colonial partition to chemical warfare to modern proxy conflicts, Kurdish history has been shaped by the ambitions of larger powers.
In this context, neutrality is not indifference. It is a survival doctrine forged over a century of struggle.
The Kurdistan Region’s leadership understands that being drawn into a U.S.–Iran confrontation could jeopardize everything achieved since 1991: autonomy, economic development, relative stability, and international partnerships.
The Kurdish position is therefore clear: their struggle is not about choosing between Washington and Tehran. It is about ensuring that Kurdish identity, governance, and territorial autonomy endure in a region where history has too often worked against them.
And for a people who have already survived the collapse of empires, chemical attacks, and geopolitical betrayals, staying out of another great power war is not just policy—it is preservation.
0 Comments