By Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj

Sulaimani, Iraqi Kurdistan — 22 May 2026

From the fall of the Republic of Mahabad in 1946 to closed-door diplomacy over Syria in 2026, Kurdish self-rule has repeatedly been sacrificed in favor of state stability and geopolitical bargains.

 An analysis of how international diplomacy has repeatedly sidelined Kurdish self-determination — from the fall of the Republic of Mahabad in 1946 to the Paris-centered negotiations over Syria in 2026.

When International Diplomacy Chooses States Over Nations

For more than a century, Kurdish political aspirations have repeatedly collided with an international system built to protect recognized states rather than stateless nations.

From the collapse of the Republic of Mahabad in 1946 to the Paris-centered diplomatic process surrounding Syria in 2026, one pattern has remained remarkably consistent: Kurdish self-rule is tolerated only when it serves broader geopolitical interests — and abandoned once it conflicts with regional agreements negotiated elsewhere.

The names, actors, and geopolitical contexts change.

The structure does not.

Again and again, Kurdish movements have emerged during periods of regional crisis, built functioning systems of governance under extraordinary conditions, and then found themselves excluded from the diplomatic processes determining their future.

Mahabad: The First Kurdish Republic the World Ignored

The fate of the Republic of Mahabad remains one of the clearest examples of how the modern international order treats stateless nations.

In January 1946, the newly formed United Nations adopted Security Council Resolution 2 — only the second resolution in the institution’s history.

The crisis was framed entirely as a dispute between sovereign states: Iran and the Soviet Union.

The Kurdish question was invisible.

At the time, Mahabad was not merely a symbolic uprising. It functioned as a real political entity with:

• Its own administration
• Kurdish-language education
• Armed forces
• Political institutions
• Leadership under Qazi Muhammad

Kurdish cooperation with Soviet forces was largely tactical and defensive, driven by fears of repression from Tehran rather than ideological alignment with Moscow.

But the emerging postwar order prioritized territorial integrity above all else.

Once the Soviet Union withdrew under international pressure, Iranian forces moved into Mahabad and dismantled the republic. Qazi Muhammad was publicly executed in 1947.

The international response was silence.

Mahabad established a precedent that still shapes Kurdish politics today: even functioning Kurdish self-rule could be erased if it conflicted with state-centered diplomacy.

Rojava and the Return of a Familiar Pattern

Nearly eighty years later, Kurdish forces once again became indispensable to global security calculations.

Beginning in 2014, Kurdish-led forces in northern Syria emerged as the most effective local partner in the international campaign against Islamic State.

More than 15,000 Kurdish fighters were killed battling ISIS.

The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and the political institutions of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria built local governance systems, internal security structures, and civil administrations under wartime conditions.

To many international policymakers, however, Kurdish autonomy remained temporary by design.

Western governments consistently reaffirmed Syria’s territorial integrity as a non-negotiable principle, even while relying heavily on Kurdish forces militarily.

The contradiction mirrored Mahabad:
Kurds were valuable as security partners, but politically expendable once larger diplomatic priorities returned.

Paris 2026 and Diplomacy Without the Kurds

A recent Reuters report revealed how this dynamic continues in real time.

According to Reuters, three coordinated meetings held earlier this month — one in Iraq, one in Syria, and one in Paris — helped shape the next phase of Syria’s political and military future.

The report, citing nine sources, stated that officials from the United States, France, Israel, and regional actors were informed about a Syrian government operation intended to reassert central control over Kurdish-administered territories.

No major objections reportedly emerged through these diplomatic channels.

The symbolism was striking.

As in 1946, decisions concerning Kurdish territories were discussed primarily among states, not with Kurdish representatives participating as political equals.

Approval was communicated not through formal declarations, but through diplomatic silence and coordination behind closed doors.

For many Kurdish observers, the parallels between Mahabad and Rojava are no longer rhetorical — they are structural.

The Core Logic Has Never Changed

The similarities between Mahabad and Kurdish-administered regions in Syria reveal the enduring logic of the international system.

In both cases:

• Kurdish governance structures emerged during periods of war and state collapse
• Kurdish forces became strategically useful to global powers
• Kurdish autonomy was treated as provisional rather than legitimate
• Negotiations concerning Kurdish territories occurred without meaningful Kurdish representation
• Territorial integrity of existing states outweighed Kurdish political rights

Most importantly, international silence functioned as policy.

No explicit global consensus was required to dismantle Kurdish autonomy. Passive acceptance was enough.

The international system did not necessarily betray the Kurds through dramatic declarations.

It marginalized them through omission.

From Lausanne to Paris: A Century of Repetition

For many Kurds, these events are not isolated betrayals.

They are chapters in a consistent geopolitical pattern stretching from the aftermath of the Ottoman Empire to the present day.

The chain is deeply embedded in Kurdish historical memory:

• Treaty of Lausanne in 1923
• Republic of Mahabad in 1946
• The collapse of international guarantees after Kurdish uprisings in Iraq
• The shifting alliances in Syria after the war against ISIS
• Paris-centered diplomacy in 2026

Each moment reinforced the same lesson:
Kurdish political legitimacy remains conditional in the eyes of the international order.

Kurds are mobilized during crises, praised during wars, and excluded once negotiations begin.

Kurdistan Is Not a Temporary Question

The Kurdish issue is often framed internationally as a security challenge.

But that framing obscures a deeper reality.

Kurdistan is not merely a battlefield or buffer zone. It is a political reality involving tens of millions of people spread across multiple states, possessing distinct language, identity, history, and national consciousness.

Ignoring that reality has not resolved the Kurdish question.

It has prolonged it.

From Mahabad to Rojava, Kurdish political movements have repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to establish institutions, administer territory, and mobilize society under extreme pressure.

Yet the international system continues to treat Kurdish self-determination as destabilizing while viewing the preservation of existing borders as inherently stabilizing — even when those borders themselves remain sources of chronic conflict.

History Is Not Repeating by Accident

The fall of Mahabad was not an anomaly.

Nor is the marginalization of Kurdish political actors in Syria today.

These outcomes reflect the normal functioning of a state-centered international order designed after World War II, where recognized sovereignty consistently outweighs stateless national aspirations.

That system does not malfunction when Kurdish autonomy is ignored.

It operates exactly as intended.

Until Kurdish self-determination is treated as a legitimate political right rather than a temporary wartime convenience, history will continue repeating itself — from Mahabad to Paris, from 1946 to 2026.

And once again, Kurdish fate risks being decided elsewhere.