A reported secret Trump administration backchannel to Iran's IRGC ran through Kurdistan President Nechirvan Barzani, putting Erbil at the center of U.S.-Iran diplomacy.

By Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj

A remarkable backchannel operation during the U.S.-Iran war reveals how Washington quietly turned to Iraqi Kurdistan’s president, Nechirvan Barzani, to establish direct contact with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps when American negotiators became uncertain about who in Tehran actually had the authority to make a deal.

According to reporting by Axios, citing three sources with direct knowledge of the discussions, the Trump administration in May used Barzani as an intermediary to reach IRGC leadership directly. The episode, if accurately described, offers a rare glimpse into the hidden diplomatic architecture surrounding the U.S.-Iran conflict—and demonstrates the unusual strategic value of Erbil in a region where formal diplomatic channels increasingly struggle to reach the real centers of power.

The Secret Channel Washington Could Not Build Itself

By early May, American negotiators believed they were approaching a possible agreement with Iran to end the war. But a fundamental problem emerged: Washington could not determine whether the Iranian officials sitting across the negotiating table actually possessed the authority to commit the Islamic Republic to a deal.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi were involved in negotiations, but delays and internal disagreements reportedly led U.S. officials to suspect that the IRGC was exercising decisive influence behind the scenes.

That created a problem much larger than a disagreement over negotiating language.

Washington needed to know who actually controlled Iranian war policy.

The answer increasingly appeared to be the IRGC.

The war had dramatically altered Iran's internal balance of power. The reported assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other senior figures, followed by weeks of fighting, created an environment in which the Revolutionary Guard gained greater influence over national security and foreign-policy decisions.

The uncertainty surrounding the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, during the early weeks of the conflict further reinforced the perception that military commanders had become indispensable to any serious negotiation.

For Washington, therefore, negotiating with Iran's official diplomatic representatives was no longer enough.

It needed a door into the military establishment.

That door was Erbil.

Why Nechirvan Barzani?

The Trump administration reportedly concluded that Nechirvan Barzani possessed an unusual combination of relationships that few regional figures could replicate.

Barzani has longstanding connections in Tehran, speaks Persian, lived in Iran during the Iran-Iraq War and studied at the University of Tehran. His political position also gives him access to Washington and to senior regional governments.

Most importantly, he occupies a rare diplomatic position.

He is neither an Iranian ally nor an American official.

He is a Kurdish leader who has maintained working relationships with both sides.

That makes him particularly useful when conventional diplomatic channels become politically toxic or strategically unreliable.

Around May 10, then-U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reportedly contacted Barzani and asked whether he could establish communication with IRGC Commander Gen. Ahmad Vahidi.

The request was reportedly made with the approval of President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance.

The message from Washington was straightforward: the White House wanted to know whether the IRGC supported the negotiations being conducted by Iranian political representatives—or whether the Revolutionary Guard had different demands.

The Americans had been unable to establish that directly.

Barzani could.

The Erbil Call

According to the Axios account, Barzani agreed to help.

He contacted his relationships inside the IRGC and conveyed that he had a message from the Trump administration.

But he reportedly insisted on one condition: he wanted to speak directly with Vahidi.

The Iranians agreed.

On May 14, an IRGC official reportedly arrived at Barzani's office in Erbil carrying an encrypted telephone for a secure conversation.

The significance of that moment should not be underestimated.

Inside the capital of the Kurdistan Region, a senior Kurdish leader was reportedly facilitating a direct communication channel between Washington and the Iranian military establishment at a moment when the two countries were locked in a devastating conflict.

Barzani asked whether Vahidi supported the Iranian negotiators.

The answer, according to sources cited by Axios, was yes.

Vahidi reportedly told Barzani that he fully supported the negotiations and that the IRGC preferred resolving the crisis through diplomacy.

Barzani then reportedly called Gabbard and conveyed the response to the White House.

The backchannel had accomplished what formal negotiations could not: Washington had obtained a direct signal from the institution it feared might be able to veto any agreement.

Washington Then Wanted Erbil to Host the Secret Talks

The story became even more consequential.

After receiving the IRGC's response, the Trump administration reportedly proposed taking the secret channel one step further.

Washington wanted Barzani to host clandestine U.S.-Iran negotiations in Erbil.

This was potentially explosive.

Erbil would have offered something both sides desperately needed: distance from the political pressure surrounding the formal diplomatic channels.

But the Iranian side reportedly had serious security concerns.

According to sources familiar with the discussions, Iranian officials feared that Israeli intelligence had extensive assets in Iraqi Kurdistan and could potentially target Iranian negotiators either in Erbil or while they were traveling to and from the city.

The meeting never happened.

But the proposal itself reveals how seriously Washington viewed Erbil as a potential diplomatic venue.

It also exposes the complicated security geography of the Kurdistan Region.

Erbil is simultaneously a political capital, a U.S. partner, a regional diplomatic hub and a location deeply entangled in the intelligence competition surrounding Iran, Israel, Turkey and Iraq.

That combination makes it uniquely useful—and uniquely vulnerable.

Kurdistan's Quiet Diplomatic Power

The episode points to a broader reality that is often overlooked in discussions about Iraqi Kurdistan.

The Kurdistan Region does not possess the conventional power of Iran, Turkey, Iraq or the United States.

But it possesses something else: access.

Erbil has spent decades building relationships across otherwise hostile political camps.

Its leaders have communicated with Washington while maintaining channels to Tehran. They have dealt with Baghdad while negotiating with Ankara. They have maintained ties with European governments while navigating the interests of powerful regional actors.

This gives Kurdish diplomacy an unusual characteristic.

It can sometimes communicate where major powers cannot.

Nechirvan Barzani, in particular, has cultivated an image as a pragmatic intermediary rather than an ideological actor.

That reputation matters in secret diplomacy.

When governments cannot speak directly without creating political consequences, they need intermediaries whose involvement can be denied, tolerated or quietly accepted.

The Kurdistan Region can sometimes occupy precisely that space.

But the Backchannel Could Not Solve the Core Problem

The most important lesson from the episode may be that mediation cannot overcome fundamentally incompatible strategic objectives.

The U.S.-Iran negotiations eventually failed to produce a durable settlement.

Pakistan and Qatar have reportedly continued to transmit messages between Washington and Tehran, but regional sources cited in the Axios reporting indicate that meaningful progress remains elusive.

The problem is therefore not simply finding a mediator.

It is determining whether the Iranian leadership is prepared to make the strategic concessions Washington demands.

And the most difficult issue remains the future of the Strait of Hormuz.

Control over the Strait is not merely an economic question. It is a central component of Iran's leverage over the global energy system and one of Tehran's most powerful strategic instruments.

As long as Iranian leaders view control of the Strait as indispensable to their bargaining position, a mediator can transmit messages—but cannot manufacture compromise.

The Bigger Geopolitical Implication

The most striking aspect of this story is not simply that Barzani acted as a messenger.

It is that the Trump administration reportedly needed a Kurdish regional leader to determine whether the Iranian military establishment was actually behind the country's diplomatic representatives.

That is an extraordinary illustration of how fragmented power has become in the Middle East.

Formal institutions increasingly do not tell the whole story.

The foreign ministry may negotiate.

The parliament may issue statements.

The supreme leadership may provide political authority.

But military and security institutions can possess the practical ability to determine whether agreements survive.

That makes backchannels indispensable.

And it explains why individuals such as Barzani can suddenly become central to negotiations involving the world's most powerful states.

For Kurdistan, this creates both opportunity and danger.

If Erbil becomes a trusted platform for communication between Washington and Tehran, the Kurdistan Region could gain diplomatic relevance far beyond what its constitutional status would normally allow.

But the same role could make it a target.

The Iranian security concerns surrounding Erbil are not merely theoretical. Any location that becomes a meeting point for U.S., Iranian and potentially Israeli intelligence networks inevitably becomes part of the strategic battlefield.

Kurdistan's diplomatic usefulness could therefore become a security liability.

Barzani's Next Move Could Matter

According to the reporting, Barzani has more recently sent messages to the White House offering to help revive U.S.-Iran negotiations.

That means the May backchannel may not have been an isolated episode.

It could represent the emergence of a new diplomatic function for Erbil.

For Washington, Barzani provides something difficult to replicate: a regional intermediary with access to Iranian officials and established relationships with American policymakers.

For Tehran, communication through Barzani provides a channel that is less politically exposed than direct negotiations with Washington.

For the Kurdistan Region, however, the calculation is more complicated.

Every diplomatic opportunity comes with a strategic price.

If Erbil becomes the place where Washington attempts to communicate with Tehran's military establishment, Kurdistan risks becoming increasingly entangled in the U.S.-Iran confrontation.

The same geography that gives Erbil diplomatic value also places it directly inside the competition between regional intelligence services.

The Kurdish Card Is Becoming More Valuable

For years, Iraqi Kurdistan's international importance was largely explained through oil, counterterrorism cooperation and its relationship with the United States.

That may be changing.

The region's greatest strategic asset may increasingly be neither its territory nor its energy resources.

It may be its network of relationships.

In a Middle East where formal diplomatic channels are frequently blocked by distrust, political fragmentation and military escalation, the ability to communicate across rival camps has become a form of geopolitical capital.

Nechirvan Barzani appears to possess considerable amounts of it.

The reported Trump-IRGC backchannel demonstrates why.

When Washington could not determine whether Tehran's negotiators truly spoke for the Revolutionary Guard, it did not turn to another major power. It turned to Erbil. That is the real scoop behind the story.

Further Reading: “Iran’s Cross-Border Campaign Escalates: What the Latest IRGC Strikes Mean for Iraqi Kurdistan” — an analysis of the IRGC’s expanding role and its security relationship with the Kurdistan Region, providing useful context for understanding why Nechirvan Barzani’s ability to maintain a channel with Tehran is strategically significant.

Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj is the founder of Kurdish Policy Analysis and a geopolitical analyst specializing in Kurdistan, Iraq, Iran, regional security and energy politics. He holds a PhD in English Literature from Brunel University London, with research focused on war literature, and has published extensively on Kurdish politics, Middle Eastern geopolitics and regional security.

 #Iran #Trump #Kurdistan #NechirvanBarzani #IRGC #Erbil #Iraq #USIran #MiddleEast #Geopolitics