From the Treaty of Sèvres to Syria and Iraq, the Kurdish people have repeatedly found themselves at the centre of great-power strategy—only to see international support evaporate when geopolitical interests shift.

By Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj | Kurdish Policy Analysis

The Kurdish struggle illustrates how great-power politics has repeatedly overridden Kurdish aspirations for statehood, leaving one of the world's largest stateless nations trapped between regional rivalries.

A century of unfulfilled promises

The Kurdish people remain the world's largest stateless nation, numbering an estimated 35–40 million across Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria.

For more than a century, Kurdish political aspirations have repeatedly collided with the strategic calculations of regional and global powers. From the collapse of the Ottoman Empire to today's conflicts in Syria and Iraq, Kurdish movements have frequently served as indispensable partners during wars, only to find themselves politically isolated once military objectives have been achieved.

This recurring pattern has shaped modern Kurdish history more than any single military campaign or diplomatic agreement.

The dream of Kurdistan and the reality of geopolitics

The idea of an independent Kurdistan has existed for generations.

Following World War I, the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) briefly envisioned the possibility of Kurdish self-determination. Yet the treaty was never implemented. It was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), which recognised the borders of modern Turkey without providing a Kurdish state.

Since then, Kurdish communities have remained divided among four countries, each pursuing different political systems and security priorities.

While Iraqi Kurdistan achieved internationally recognised federal autonomy after 2003, Kurdish aspirations elsewhere have continued to face considerable regional resistance.

Syria transformed Kurdish politics

The outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011 fundamentally altered Kurdish political dynamics.

As Damascus withdrew from large parts of northeastern Syria, Kurdish-led administrations gradually established autonomous institutions across significant territory.

The emergence of ISIS in 2014 further elevated the Kurdish role.

As much of the international community searched for reliable local partners capable of confronting ISIS on the ground, Kurdish forces became indispensable.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the People's Protection Units (YPG), supported by the United States-led Coalition, played decisive roles in liberating major ISIS strongholds, including Raqqa, while the Peshmerga in Iraq defended the Kurdistan Region and contributed significantly to the liberation of Mosul.

Thousands of Kurdish fighters lost their lives during the campaign against ISIS, transforming Kurdish forces into one of the Coalition's most effective military partners.

Strategic partnerships proved temporary

Despite their military contribution, Kurdish expectations of long-term political backing were never fully realised.

In October 2019, the United States repositioned forces from parts of northern Syria, allowing Turkey to launch Operation Peace Spring against Kurdish-controlled territory.

For many Kurds, the decision represented another chapter in a long history of geopolitical abandonment.

From Washington's perspective, however, broader NATO relations with Turkey and changing American strategic priorities outweighed commitments made during the anti-ISIS campaign.

The episode demonstrated a recurring reality of international politics: military partnerships do not automatically translate into political guarantees.

Turkey's security calculations

Turkey has consistently opposed the emergence of an autonomous Kurdish entity along its southern border.

Ankara argues that the YPG maintains close organisational and ideological links with the PKK, which Turkey, the United States and the European Union designate as a terrorist organisation.

Turkish leaders contend that preventing the establishment of such an entity is a national security imperative.

This strategic concern has shaped multiple Turkish military operations inside northern Syria and continues to influence Ankara's broader regional policy.

For Turkey, the issue extends beyond Syria itself and relates directly to domestic security and the country's own Kurdish population.

Iraqi Kurdistan followed a different path

Unlike Syrian Kurdistan, the Kurdistan Region of Iraq developed through constitutional federalism.

Following the 1991 uprising and the establishment of the international no-fly zone, Kurdish institutions gradually evolved into a functioning regional government.

The 2005 Iraqi Constitution formally recognised the Kurdistan Region as a federal entity within Iraq.

In 2017, nearly 92 percent of voters supported independence in a historic referendum.

However, the referendum encountered overwhelming regional and international opposition.

Baghdad imposed economic measures, international flights were suspended, and Iraqi federal forces re-established control over Kirkuk.

The referendum illustrated the difference between popular legitimacy and geopolitical feasibility.

The Kurdish question remains international

Today, the Kurdish issue continues to intersect with nearly every major regional security challenge.

Iran views Kurdish opposition groups as potential security threats along its western frontier.

Turkey prioritises preventing the emergence of autonomous Kurdish military structures near its borders.

Iraq seeks to balance federal authority with Kurdish constitutional rights.

Syria remains politically fragmented, with the future status of Kurdish-administered areas unresolved.

Meanwhile, the United States and European countries continue to cooperate with Kurdish partners on counterterrorism while avoiding explicit support for Kurdish independence.

This balancing act reflects the broader complexity of Middle Eastern geopolitics, where strategic stability often takes precedence over questions of national self-determination.

Analysis: Why Kurdish aspirations remain unresolved

The Kurdish question has endured not because of a lack of political mobilisation but because it sits at the intersection of competing regional interests.

An independent Kurdistan would inevitably alter the strategic calculations of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria simultaneously.

As a result, international powers have generally supported Kurdish forces when they served immediate security objectives, particularly during the campaign against ISIS, while avoiding commitments that could fundamentally reshape regional borders.

This approach has created a recurring cycle:

Kurdish military cooperation during regional crises.
International praise for Kurdish contributions.
Limited political concessions after conflicts end.
Renewed regional pressure once strategic priorities shift.

Breaking this cycle would require not only Kurdish political unity but also a regional environment in which Kurdish self-government is viewed as contributing to long-term stability rather than challenging it.

Conclusion

The Kurdish experience illustrates one of the defining paradoxes of modern Middle Eastern politics.

Few peoples have contributed as consistently to regional security while receiving so few permanent political guarantees in return.

Whether in Iraq, Syria, Turkey or Iran, Kurdish aspirations continue to be shaped less by military capability than by the strategic calculations of surrounding states and global powers.

More than a century after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurdish question remains unresolved—not because history has forgotten it, but because geopolitics continues to postpone its final answer.

Sources

Treaty of Sèvres (1920).
Treaty of Lausanne (1923).
United Nations reports on Iraq and Syria.
Coalition statements on the anti-ISIS campaign.
Historical analysis of the 2017 Kurdistan independence referendum.
Francesco Paolini, Curdi, un popolo senza Stato tradito da Europa e Usa (2019).

#Kurdistan #Kurds #MiddleEast #Geopolitics #Iraq #Syria #Turkey #Iran #InternationalRelations #Security

Search This Blog

Kurdish Policy Analysis

From the shadows to supreme power: why Iran chose Ahmad Vahidi to lead its confrontation with the United States

The Kurds: A nation without a state and the geopolitics of repeated betrayal

The Kurdish struggle illustrates how great-power politics has repeatedly overridden Kurdish aspirations for statehood, leaving one of the world's largest stateless nations trapped between regional rivalries.

The dream of Kurdistan and the reality of geopolitics

Syria transformed Kurdish politics

Strategic partnerships proved temporary

Turkey's security calculations

Iraqi Kurdistan followed a different path

The Kurdish question remains international

Analysis: Why Kurdish aspirations remain unresolved

Conclusion

Sources

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lindsey Graham Passing Reshapes Republican Foreign Policy—and Raises Questions for the Kurds

Lindsey Graham's Death Leaves a Void in US-Kurdish Relations

Can the stateless Nation of Kurdistan help save the Global Order?

Lindsey Graham Passing Reshapes Republican Foreign Policy—and Raises Questions for the Kurds

Lindsey Graham's Death Leaves a Void in US-Kurdish Relations

Can the stateless Nation of Kurdistan help save the Global Order?

Trump warns Iran: 'Pickaxe Mountain' nuclear site is next

Iran’s Kurdish Front: Why Tehran Is Militarizing Its Iraqi Border as a New Regional Conflict Emerges

Iraq's Washington Gamble: Can Al-Zaidi Deliver a New Strategic Partnership with the United States?

The Lines No Dictator Could Erase: How Kurdish Art Preserves the Memory of the Anfal Genocide

Why Fuad Hussein needed no translator in Tehran—and why it matters

The Savaya file: FBI probe reportedly targets former Iraqi prime minister

Iraq Faces Growing Crisis Amid Escalating Iran War Conflict

Archive