A year after Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, the ideological lines are clear. Israel, the only liberal democracy in Rojhilata Navîn (the Middle East), stands alone against regressive forces. The region requires a strategic change to foster stability, promote democratic values, and counter the rise of authoritarianism. The Kurds, with their liberal mindset and commitment to democratic principles, are the key to a viable solution.
The geopolitics of the Middle East remain deeply rooted in treaties that were signed more than a century ago. The Sykes-Picot-Sazonov deal (1916), the Treaty of Sèvres (1920), the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), and the League of Nations Mandate System each short-changed the Kurds. These deals, with the exception of the Sèvres Treaty, failed to acknowledge the rights of the Kurdish people to an independent state. Denied self-determination by successive regimes, the Kurds often have risen in rebellion, striving for a sovereign Kurdistan. Stalin’s 1930 decision to dissolve Red Kurdistan (Krasnyi Kurdistan), integrating it instead into Azerbaijan and deporting its Kurds, marked another chapter in their long history of displacement and oppression. Similarly, the Pahlavi regime in Iran brutally crushed the short-lived Republic of Kurdistan (also called Mahabad Republic) in December 1946, and shortly after executed its leaders.
The systematic refusal to recognize the Kurdish right to self-determination has perpetuated instability and violence across the Middle East. Kurdistan’s partition has been a catalyst for human rights abuses, exacerbating tensions and undermining peace in the region. Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey have clung to their borders, regardless of the human toll, while invoking international law’s emphasis on territorial integrity. The appeal to international law by states that so often otherwise ignore it shows their cynicism in stifling Kurdish aspirations.
Host state and neighbors often say Kurdish expansionism would destabilize the region. They continue their calumny by saying any Kurdistan would be a “second Israel.” Such a comparison is misleading; Israel has neither expanded its ideology beyond its borders nor fostered militant groups in the region’s states. Kurdistan, too, would be a pragmatic state pursing relationships based on shared interests, peaceful coexistence, and trade. Neither imperial ambitions nor religious zealotry would motivate a Kurdish state. It would be a model of liberal governance, economic competition, and cooperation, not an incubator for division or extremism.
The question then becomes: Would Kurdish independence threaten international peace and security or, conversely, does the lack of a sovereign Kurdistan destabilize the region?
In a region characterized by authoritarianism, anti-liberalism, and theocratic tendencies, a modern, independent Kurdistan is not just a Kurdish aspiration; it is a strategic necessity for the sustainable peace in the region. The Kurds have proven their worth as a stabilizing force—defeating the Islamic State and resisting extremist ideologies. They were at the forefront of the Jina revolution, the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests in Iran standing against Iranian autocracy and repression.
As the Middle East teeters on the edge of further conflict, a sovereign Kurdistan could serve as a bastion of liberalism and modernity in a region still gripped by sectarianism and autocracy. Both autonomous Kurdistani segments, Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq and Rojava in Syria, already possess the capacity and meet the essential statehood requirements to establish such a future, while awaiting the possibility that their counterparts in Iran and Turkey will join them in a unified, sovereign Kurdistan. Rather than accept the propaganda of dictatorships, perhaps Western policymakers should ask: Can the Middle East survive without such a progressive force to shape its future towards peace and stability?
