Two weeks have passed since the United States launched attacks on Iran. During these two weeks of attacks, hundreds of civilians have lost their lives in strikes carried out by the United States and Israel. Unable to achieve the outcome it sought from the attacks on Iran, the United States is now attempting to draw Kurds into the war. In response, Kurds have clearly stated that they will not take part in the United States’ attacks on Iran.
Political scientist Naif Bezwan spoke to ANF about the United States’ attacks on Iran and the position taken by the Kurds.
United States sees Iran as a regional hegemonic power
Naif Bezwan said that the primary reason behind the United States attacks on Iran is the perception of Iran as a threat and made the following assessment: “The ongoing war, carried out with great intensity and destructive force, is fundamentally rooted in the fact that the Iranian regime, through its policies both domestically and internationally, is perceived by the United States and Israel as a primary threat and as an antagonistic regional hegemonic power. Immediately after the fall of the Shah’s regime in the 1980s, Iran was largely seen by the Western system as a political and ideological threat. However, the situation changed radically after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003 by an international coalition led by the United States. With the fall of the Iraqi Baath regime, Iran gradually emerged as a stronger political and strategic rival at the regional level. It skillfully exploited the geopolitical vacuum that followed and adopted an expansionist and militaristic foreign policy under what it called the ‘axis of resistance.’ As part of this strategy, Iran established dependent paramilitary forces and proxy regimes in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.
Taken as a whole, Iran’s strategic relations and alliance system, particularly with China and Russia but also at the regional and global level, have led to its being perceived as a strategic threat to the core interests of the West. It can be said that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, no power in the Middle East has posed a greater threat than Iran to the geopolitical and geoeconomic presence and interests of the United States and its allies.”
Bezwan stated that the conflicts between Iran and the United States date back to the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and said that the strategic conflict between the two countries, along with periods of cooperation, entered a different phase following the attacks carried out by Hamas on October 7. Bezwan also said: “However, the relationship between the United States and Iran, shaped by strategic conflict and occasional cooperation since the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, ultimately entered a qualitatively different phase on October 7, 2024. The regional war that began with Hamas’s attack on Israel and resulted in the near total destruction of Gaza constitutes the main turning point in this context. Particularly from Israel’s perspective, it has become clear that Iran’s decades long policy of ‘death to Israel and America’ was not merely a domestic rhetorical ritual aimed at its internal audience. Rather, it was a deeper and more lethal strategy that had been patiently and persistently constructed over many years.”
Kurdish statement reflects a strategy for a solution within current borders
After the attacks by the United States, attention also turned to Kurds in Eastern Kurdistan (Rojhilat), who clearly stated that they would not take part in the clashes between the United States and Iran. Bezwan said the following about the Kurdish position: “Although a representative of one party that forms part of the Alliance of Political Forces of Iranian Kurdistan, namely the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), made a statement along these lines, I believe that such a declaration has not yet been issued on behalf of the entire alliance.
As is known, the Alliance of Political Forces recently presented in its declaration, which attracted great attention both in Kurdistan and internationally, the goal of establishing ‘a democratic, pluralist and people based system of governance in Kurdistan within a federal, secular, democratic and pluralist Iran.’ Essentially, this represents a strategy for resolving the century long Kurdish struggle for self determination within the existing borders through regime change and the sharing of sovereignty.
Given that such an important and groundbreaking common stance has emerged in Eastern Kurdistan, I do not think there is any need or meaning in obscuring it with concepts such as ‘integration,’ ‘third way,’ ‘neutrality’ or other similar terms. The Kurds have their own side, whose roots at least go back to the proclamation of the Kurdistan Republic in Eastern Kurdistan in 1946, and in this sense they are not ‘neutral.’ Nevertheless, it is of vital importance that Kurds exercise the highest level of caution and sensitivity in order not to become the target of genocidal attacks by the lethal apparatus of a regime that is struggling in its final stages. They must determine the timing, location and conditions of their involvement according to their own capacities, positions and interests. Above all, the Alliance must, without delay, establish joint mechanisms in the fields of politics, defense and diplomacy and turn them into the guiding principle and strategic compass of all activities carried out both internally and externally. This would not only meet the demands and expectations of the overwhelming majority of public opinion in Kurdistan; it would also be indispensable for both the liberation of Eastern Kurdistan and the emergence of a new and democratic Iran.”
Iran seeks to maintain colonial rule in Kurdistan
Bezwan said that Iran’s primary objective is to maintain its colonial domination over Kurdistan and continued: “Iran’s main objective is to sustain its colonial domination over Kurdistan, and for this purpose every method, excuse and wrongdoing is considered permissible. Regimes in Iran have changed; governments have come and gone, but this reality has not changed. The dramatic shift in the position of the Trump administration, which only recently announced to the entire world that it had ended its alliance with the Kurds at a critical moment in Rojava, should be recorded as a development filled with important political lessons. One of the foremost of these lessons is the increasing recognition that the Kurdish question functions as a lever in shaping changes to the status quo and the balance of power in the Middle East. The second is the reality that it has become almost impossible to exclude Kurdish political actors from the regional order and geopolitical equation. A third point is the insatiable appetite of the Trump administration for relationships that are temporary, tactical and transactional, which it believes it can manage arbitrarily.
It should not be forgotten that Kurdish politics is essentially the politics of geopolitical necessity and moments of opportunity. If we respond to these geopolitical opportunities at the right time with a correct and unified political strategy, and if we manage the constraints carefully and wisely, we have a chance to achieve results. When this cannot be done, risks increase and dangers grow. This reality represents the most concise summary and the fundamental lesson of the Kurdish struggle to determine its own future, a struggle that has taken different forms for at least a century. Kurdish political actors in Eastern Kurdistan are currently passing through a very critical and decisive historical moment in which they must remember this lesson more than ever since the short-lived experience of the Kurdistan Republic in 1946.”
Şanaz Ibrahim Ahmed’s statement sparked debate
Bezwan also commented on the remarks made by Kurdish politician Şanaz Ibrahim Ahmed and said: “The statement made by Şanaz Ibrahim Ahmed, who comes from one of the most established political families of Southern Kurdistan (Başur), is the wife of Iraqi President Abdullatif Rashid and one of the leaders of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), appears to have created a need for discussion and evaluation. When we approach this assessment from the perspective of the idea of national unity, it is also worth recalling that Ms. Şanaz has often attracted attention with notable statements at critical moments. For example, it would be appropriate to remember that she made a rather unfortunate political statement immediately after the independence referendum held in Southern Kurdistan in 2017. Without saying a single word about the joint invasion and destruction attacks carried out by Iran and Iraq aimed at eliminating the political and legal status of Southern Kurdistan, Ms. Şanaz held Masoud Barzani, who was then President of the Kurdistan Regional Government, responsible for the disaster that followed the referendum.
On the other hand, it should be noted that Ms. Şanaz’s rightful and justified objection, expressed in the words ‘Leave the Kurds alone, we are not anyone’s mercenaries,’ produced two opposing reactions. While a significant portion of public opinion in Kurdistan and many of its friends welcomed these words as a declaration of an obvious truth, certain circles that attempt to explain the Kurdish struggle for rights and freedoms through external support, intervention and conspiracies highlighted the statement as if it were a kind of confession confirming their own prejudices. It should be emphasized that such condescending and defamatory approaches, which are products of a colonial mindset, ultimately target the Kurds’ ability and capacity to speak for themselves, conduct politics and make their own decisions.
The point that must be underlined here is this: the geopolitical positions and colonial conditions of Kurdish political actors frequently confront them with risky choices and difficult dilemmas. Like any responsible and rational actor, Kurdish political actors must confront the past and draw the necessary lessons from it and must regard a culture of genuine criticism and collective learning as a foundational element of truth, politics and the struggle for the future. However, those who label the roles, positions and political choices of the Kurds, or the successes and failures resulting from them, with degrading concepts such as ‘a card of imperialism,’ ‘a trap,’ ‘being used’ or ‘being sold,’ not only fail to create any learning effect but also become a major obstacle to genuine confrontation and reflection.
In this context, the point that must be strongly emphasized is this: epistemic liberation is a prerequisite for the struggle for political and legal rights and equality. This requires building political discourse and action in a space that overcomes manipulations, smear campaigns and imposed policies and practices that attempt to place Kurdish politics under discursive and political tutelage.”
War may continue until the regime surrenders or collapses
Bezwan stated that Donald Trump’s political legacy will largely be shaped by the outcome of the war with Iran and continued: “It should be noted that the Trump administration is facing the greatest geopolitical challenge it has directly confronted so far. It would not be wrong to say that Trump’s future and political legacy will be shaped by the concrete outcomes he achieves in this war. There is no exit strategy here without a clear victory narrative. This is even more relevant for Israel, which views the Iranian regime as an existential threat to its own existence and future. In other words, if the United States and Israel end the war without achieving their goal of an Iran that is no longer a threat to them, this will be seen as a defeat. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect this war to continue until the regime either surrenders or collapses. However, this could also manifest itself as a transformation of the regime through the replacement of its ruling elites.
As for the possible outcomes, just as the collapse of the Soviet Union created a geopolitical earthquake in world politics, the fall of Iran would very likely produce a similar effect in the Middle East. The fall of Iran would in any case accelerate the emergence of a new Middle Eastern order and security architecture in which Israel plays the leading role. If a government aligned with the United States and Israel comes to power in Iran, we would witness a completely new balance of power and the emergence of a new political axis.
As for the Kurds, the fall of the regime in Iran, its transformation or the continuation of the deep crisis it is currently experiencing would carry the century long Kurdish struggle for self-determination into a new phase and a new geopolitical context. The opening of deep cracks in three pillars of the colonial status quo imposed on Kurdistan since the 1920s, namely Iraq, Syria and Iran, would undoubtedly have lasting and decisive effects on Turkey’s internal and foreign policy. Historically the Republic of Turkey has responded to geopolitical ruptures that create pressure for change in three ways: expansion, adaptation and transformation. Turkey is once again facing such a moment of decision and reality. It can either persist with its current policies and pursue an expansionist and confrontational strategy across Kurdistan that pits it against all Kurds, or it can recognize the national existence, rights and status of the Kurds and establish a new relationship based on equality, justice and a lasting solution.
In conclusion it should be emphasized that the Kurds cannot afford another loss, another loss of time and political ground. Therefore, the correct approach once again is for the Alliance of Political Forces in Eastern Kurdistan to establish joint mechanisms and policies in the arenas of politics, defense and diplomacy without delay, and for Kurdish society and the diaspora to be mobilized on this basis.”
Leave a Reply