By Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj

Sulaimani, Iraqi Kurdistan, Kurdish Policy Analysis — 3 June 2026

As regional tensions reshape the Middle East, questions are emerging about whether Turkish strategic calculations influenced Washington's approach toward Kurdish forces and indirectly contributed to the survival of Iran's regional power projection network.

The Question Few Policymakers Want to Ask

In the turbulent geopolitics of the Middle East, outcomes are often determined not only by wars fought but by wars that never happen. One of the most intriguing strategic questions of the past decade concerns the relationship between Turkey, the Kurdish movement, the United States, and Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Some Kurdish analysts argue that Kurdish forces were deliberately excluded from broader efforts to counter Iranian influence because Turkey convinced Washington that empowering Kurdish actors would create greater long-term instability than tolerating Iran's regional networks.

Whether this claim is entirely accurate is ultimately less important than the larger strategic question it raises: Did Turkish regional strategy indirectly contribute to the survival and resilience of Iran's Revolutionary Guard system? Understanding this question requires examining one of the most consequential geopolitical rivalries in the modern Middle East.

The Strategic Triangle: Washington, Ankara, and Tehran

Since the end of the Cold War, American policymakers have struggled to balance three competing objectives:

• Maintaining NATO's relationship with Turkey.

• Countering Iranian regional influence.

• Managing relations with Kurdish actors.

The challenge is that these objectives frequently conflict. From Washington's perspective, Kurdish forces repeatedly proved effective partners against extremist organizations, particularly ISIS. From Ankara's perspective, however, the expansion of Kurdish military and political influence represented a direct national security concern.

Iran meanwhile benefited whenever disagreements emerged between the United States and Kurdish partners. The result was a geopolitical triangle in which every gain by one actor generated anxieties among the others.

Turkey's Kurdish Red Line

For Turkish policymakers, preventing the emergence of an autonomous Kurdish security architecture along Turkey's southern frontier became a strategic priority. Successive Turkish governments viewed Kurdish military gains in Syria and elsewhere through a national security lens.

This perspective shaped Ankara's regional diplomacy. Turkish leaders consistently argued that Western support for Kurdish forces could create long-term instability and threaten regional borders. As a result, Turkey invested substantial diplomatic capital in persuading Washington that cooperation with Kurdish actors should remain limited and conditional.

The objective was not simply tactical. It was strategic. Turkey sought to prevent the emergence of a Kurdish geopolitical pole capable of reshaping regional balances.

The Unintended Beneficiary: Iran

The irony is that efforts designed to constrain Kurdish influence may have generated opportunities for Iran. Throughout the Middle East, Tehran expanded its network of allied militias, political movements, and security partnerships. From Iraq to Syria and Lebanon, Iranian influence grew partly because alternative regional power centers remained fragmented.

Had Kurdish actors been integrated into a broader regional containment strategy, the geopolitical landscape might have evolved differently. This is not to suggest that Kurdish forces alone could have fundamentally weakened the IRGC.

However, they represented one of the few locally rooted actors capable of challenging Iranian influence across multiple theaters. The exclusion of such actors reduced Washington's strategic options. Iran benefited from that reality.

Why Ankara Prioritized the Kurdish Question Over Iran

Many Western observers assume that Turkey and Iran are natural rivals. In reality, the relationship is more complicated. The two countries compete in several arenas while cooperating in others.

Historically, Turkish policymakers often viewed Kurdish separatism as a more immediate threat than Iranian regional expansion. This strategic hierarchy influenced decision-making. From Ankara's perspective, a stronger Kurdish geopolitical position could alter regional borders and power structures.

Iranian influence, while concerning, was often viewed as a manageable challenge. As a result, Turkish diplomacy frequently focused on limiting Kurdish gains even during periods of heightened confrontation with Tehran.

Trump's Middle East Calculus

The debate also raises important questions about the foreign policy of former U.S. President Donald Trump. The Trump administration pursued a maximum-pressure campaign against Iran while simultaneously seeking to reduce American military commitments in the region.

These objectives created contradictions. A successful anti-Iran strategy required reliable local partners. Reducing American involvement limited the availability of such partners.

Turkey's influence within NATO and its strategic importance therefore became even more significant. Whether Ankara directly persuaded Washington to limit Kurdish involvement in anti-Iran initiatives remains debated. What is clear is that Turkish concerns played an important role in shaping American calculations.

The New Middle East Power Balance

Today the region is entering a new phase. The collapse of old assumptions, the rise of new technologies, and shifting alliances are transforming the strategic landscape.

Iran remains influential but faces growing pressures. Turkey seeks greater regional leadership. Arab states are pursuing economic modernization. Israel is attempting to reshape regional security architectures.

The Kurdish question remains unresolved. In this environment, historical decisions regarding alliances and partnerships continue to shape contemporary realities. The exclusion of one actor often strengthens another.

The weakening of one pole can reinforce a rival. Such dynamics have long defined Middle Eastern geopolitics.

Lessons for Kurdish Policymakers

For Kurdish leaders, the central lesson is not that Turkey alone determined regional outcomes. Middle Eastern politics is rarely that simple. Rather, the lesson is that geopolitical relevance depends on becoming indispensable to multiple actors simultaneously.

Reliance on a single external sponsor creates vulnerability. Strategic autonomy requires diversified partnerships, economic resilience, and institutional strength. The future of Kurdish influence will depend less on external promises and more on the ability to build sustainable sources of power.

Conclusion: Did Turkey Save the IRGC?

The answer depends on how the question is framed. Turkey did not create Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Nor did it determine Iranian regional strategy.

However, Ankara's determination to constrain Kurdish geopolitical influence may have narrowed the range of actors available to counter Iranian expansion. In that sense, Turkish policy may have produced consequences that indirectly benefited Tehran.

The larger lesson is that Middle Eastern geopolitics is often governed by unintended outcomes. States pursuing one objective frequently empower rivals in unexpected ways. As the region enters a new era of competition, the question is no longer whether past decisions shaped the balance of power.

It is whether today's leaders are learning from those decisions before the next strategic realignment arrives.

#Turkey #Iran #IRGC #Kurds #MiddleEast #Geopolitics #Erdogan #Trump #Kurdistan #RegionalSecurity