Kurdistan’s Political Crisis: How the KDP–PUK Power Struggle Threatens Regional Autonomy and Strategic Stability

Image
The KDP–PUK Power Struggle Threatens Regional Autonomy and Strategic Stability Geopolitical Analysis | 7 November 2026 The withdrawal of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) from the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) marks a significant escalation in the political confrontation between the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the PUK. What initially appeared to be another disagreement over government formation, parliamentary representation and the distribution of senior positions has developed into a wider institutional crisis, raising questions about the future of Kurdish self-government, the region's economic stability and its position within an increasingly contested Middle Eastern geopolitical environment. The implications extend well beyond the relationship between the two dominant Kurdish parties. The possibility of rival administrations, competing security structures and fragmented economic governance threatens to undermine the institutional foundations of the Kurdistan ...
Post a Comment

Can Hamas be disarmed? the real challenge facing Gaza's post-war future



 By Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj

Hamas' offer to relinquish governance raises a far more difficult question: can the organization surrender its military power, or will Gaza repeat Lebanon's Hezbollah model?

Can Hamas truly be disarmed? Gaza's future depends not only on new governance but on whether armed groups relinquish military power after decades of conflict.

Governance Is Easier Than Disarmament

Hamas' announcement that it may step away from administering Gaza has generated cautious optimism among diplomats seeking to stabilize the territory after years of devastating conflict.

However, surrendering administrative authority is fundamentally different from surrendering military capability.

History demonstrates that armed organizations frequently retain their weapons even after relinquishing formal political responsibilities. Consequently, the central challenge for Gaza is no longer simply who governs—but who controls force.

The Missing Piece of Every Peace Plan

The current international framework envisions several interconnected objectives:

  • A technocratic civilian administration
  • Reconstruction of Gaza
  • International security assistance
  • Humanitarian recovery
  • Hamas' disarmament

Among these, disarmament remains the most difficult.

Without a monopoly on force by legitimate state institutions, any civilian government risks becoming symbolic rather than sovereign.



Lessons From Other Conflicts

History offers mixed precedents.

Northern Ireland demonstrated that political agreements can gradually replace armed struggle through negotiated disarmament and power-sharing.

Conversely:

  • Hezbollah retained its weapons after Lebanon's civil war.
  • Colombia's FARC experienced an uneven demobilization.
  • The PKK remains active despite repeated peace initiatives.
  • Criminal organizations in Latin America have often survived political transitions because they retained coercive power.

These cases illustrate a common lesson: institutions cannot function effectively while parallel armed structures remain intact.

Why Gaza Is Different

Unlike many previous counterinsurgency campaigns, Gaza presents unique operational constraints.

Dense urban terrain, humanitarian concerns, and the continued presence of civilians complicate military operations.

The post-war environment therefore depends on creating credible civilian alternatives alongside security arrangements capable of preventing renewed militarization.

Strategic Implications

The debate surrounding Hamas increasingly concerns three interconnected questions:

  • Can governance be separated from military power?
  • Who guarantees security during transition?
  • Can reconstruction succeed while armed organizations remain intact?

The answers will determine whether Gaza enters a period of recovery or remains vulnerable to renewed cycles of violence.

Conclusion

The future of Gaza ultimately depends less on declarations than on implementation.

Political transition requires institutions.

Long-term stability requires security.

Neither can succeed if armed organizations continue exercising independent military authority alongside civilian governance.

#Hamas #Gaza #Israel #MiddleEast #Security #Counterterrorism #PeaceProcess #Geopolitics #WarAnalysis #KurdishPolicyAnalysis


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Development Road: Iraq's emerging geopolitical position between Türkiye, Iran, the Gulf and the Kurdistan Region

Image
Iraq’s Development Road faces political, security and regional challenges involving Kurdistan, Türkiye, Iran and Baghdad’s state capacity. The Development Road is not simply as an infrastructure or trade project, but  a geopolitical corridor whose success depends on unresolved Kurdish, Turkish, Syrian and Iranian dynamics. One can identify three Kurdish-related issues as particularly important to the corridor's political viability: Baghdad–Erbil disagreement over the northern route through the Kurdistan Region. The Türkiye–PKK peace process and its implications for northern Iraq. The future status and integration of the Kurdish-led SDF in Syria. In this article I also examine Iran's position, arguing that Tehran has so far avoided outright opposition partly because Iraq presents the project as potentially compatible with Iranian connectivity through the Basra–Shalamcheh rail link. Iraq and Türkiye completed a framework draft agreement on transport infrastructure on September 21...
Read more

The Kurdish Referendum: Between Defeat and Achievement

Image
  Nine years after Kurdistan’s 2017 referendum, its political, economic and strategic consequences remain deeply contested. Nine years after the Kurdistan Region’s independence referendum, debate over the referendum and its consequences for the Kurdistan Region continues. Supporters regard it as a historic achievement, while its opponents see it as a factor that weakened the Region’s position within the framework of Iraq. On September 25, 2017, the referendum process was held in the Kurdistan Region and the disputed territories. At the time, the authorities of the Kurdistan Region claimed that the process was intended to pave the way for “independence” and “separation” from Iraq. However, less than a month later, the political balance shifted dramatically against the Region. When the referendum was held in the Kurdistan Region, most political parties and factions supported the process. However, less than a month later, when the Iraqi military operation against the disputed territor...
Read more

As 30 September Deadline Nears, Washington’s Kurdish Partnerships Face a New Test

Image
Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj  Washington’s September 30 withdrawal deadline marks a new test for U.S. partnerships with Kurdish actors in Iraq and Syria. The 30 September deadline marks an important moment in the changing relationship between Washington and its Kurdish partners in Iraq and Syria. On that date, the United States is due to complete the withdrawal of its remaining coalition forces from Iraq, while the Pentagon’s memorandum of understanding with the Kurdistan Region’s Peshmerga is set to expire. The deadline represents another stage in Washington’s effort to reduce its military footprint in the Middle East and place greater responsibility for regional security on local and regional actors. The withdrawal timetable has been confirmed by Baghdad, while Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi has said that Iraq aims to complete the disarmament of Iran-aligned militias by 30 June 2027, separating the coalition’s departure from Baghdad’s longer effort to establish state control over armed groups...
Read more