The Middle East is no longer experiencing a transient political crisis or a traditional conflict between states with differing interests and spheres of influence; rather, it has entered a phase of profound transformations that could reshape the map of political, security, and economic relations in the region. What is unfolding today transcends the confrontation between the United States and Israel on one hand and Iran on the other, as well as the protracted conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq, to arrive at a broader question concerning the nature of the regional order that will emerge in the wake of these confrontations.
We are facing a Middle East where power balances are shifting, old calculations are receding, and alliances that once seemed fixed are being tested, while regional and international powers strive to secure their positions and protect their interests before any political settlement is reached. Amid this complex picture, the Kurdish issue emerges as one of the matters that cannot be ignored when discussing the future of the region.
From my perspective, the question worthy of pause is not only where the Middle East is heading, but where the Kurds will stand in the new equation? And do they possess the capacity to transition from the position of a party affected by the decisions of others to the position of a partner sharing in the formulation of decisions concerning their own future?
Where Is the Middle East Headed?
It is evident that the confrontation between the United States and Israel on one side, and Iran on the other, is no longer confined within specific geographical boundaries, but its repercussions have extended to the Arab Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, energy security, and the global economy. The countries of the region find themselves facing security, political, and economic challenges that cannot be handled as temporary crises.
Recent developments in the Strait of Hormuz reveal the gravity of a widening circle of confrontation. Reuters reported on October 30, 2026, statements by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy regarding fires and explosions breaking out on three oil tankers, while also reporting an Iranian claim that one of the tankers collided with a naval mine. However, the agency clarified that it could not independently verify those claims. This is a significant point, because the security of navigation and energy is no longer merely a regional affair, but has become directly linked to the interests of the global economy.
Conversely, diplomatic efforts remain on the table to avoid a broader confrontation, yet the true challenge lies in the nature of the settlement that might end the conflict, and whether it will address the roots of the crises or postpone them to another phase.
Thus, the question is not only when the war will stop, but what will come after it? Will the region return to previous balances, or are we facing a new phase where the nature of alliances and centers of influence differs?
The political transformations witnessed in the region, the changing nature of the international military presence, and the retreat or rearrangement of the roles of certain armed forces are all indicators that the Middle East is entering a different phase, the final features of which remain unclear.
Iraq and Syria… At the Heart of the New Equation
Iraq occupies a sensitive position in these transformations; it is not merely a state affected by the regional conflict, but an arena where American, Iranian, Turkish, and Arab interests intersect. The conclusion of the military mission of the international coalition against ISIS in Iraq on September 30, 2026, places Baghdad before a real test regarding its ability to manage the security file, protect state sovereignty, and prevent its territory from becoming an arena for settling regional scores.
The British Ministry of Defense and the US Central Command confirmed the end of the coalition’s military mission in Iraq, alongside the transition to a new phase of bilateral security cooperation. Yet the end of the military mission does not mean the end of security challenges, nor does it eliminate the need for continued coordination to confront ISIS cells and prevent the resurgence of the organization.
The future of Iraq cannot be discussed without pausing at the relationship between Baghdad and Erbil. The stability of Iraq is tied to the extent of respect for the constitution, the implementation of the federal system, and the resolution of outstanding dossiers between the federal government and the Kurdistan Region, far from the politics of pressure and attempts to impose a fait accompli. The relationship between the two sides must be based on constitutional partnership, not on the logic of force or the use of economic and financial files as a means for political pressure.
As for Syria, it has in turn entered a different phase following the political and military transformations it experienced. The dossier of integrating institutions and military forces within the framework of the new Syrian state has become one of the most prominent issues that will determine the country’s future.
On August 25, 2026, Mazloum Abdi announced the conclusion of the mission of the Syrian Democratic Forces as an independent military force, following the completion of the process of integrating its forces into Syrian army brigades, according to what was reported by the official Syrian Arab News Agency. However, the end of the independent military formula does not mean that all political and constitutional questions concerning the future of the Kurds have been settled.
Here, the fundamental question arises: Will these arrangements translate into genuine constitutional and political guarantees for the Kurds, preserving their national, cultural, and political rights, and ensuring their participation in the administration of the state and its institutions?
Building a stable Syria is not achieved by reproducing old centralization, nor merely by changing the shape of institutions or the subordination of military forces, but by building a state that recognizes diversity, respects the rights of all its components, and guarantees genuine participation in managing the country’s affairs. Kurdish rights are not a temporary security issue that can be bypassed through military understandings, but a political and national cause that requires clear and sustainable solutions.
The Kurds… From Geography to Political Influence
When we speak of the Kurds, we are not speaking of a population group living in a part of the Middle East’s geography, but of a people possessing a long political and militant history, with a presence in Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran, in addition to their extension in European and international societies.
Experiences over past decades have proven that the Kurds were present at pivotal junctures in the region’s history, whether in confronting terrorism, defending stability, or participating in building political institutions. The Kurdistan Region of Iraq played a well-known role in confronting ISIS, and the region’s experience became a model for federal governance within Iraq, despite the political, economic, and security challenges it faced.
Yet the upcoming phase poses different responsibilities. It is no longer sufficient for the Kurds to have a military or geographical presence, or to command the attention of international powers during times of crisis. What is required is for them to have an influential political and diplomatic presence in shaping the understandings that will draw the future of the region.
From my perspective, the most dangerous challenge facing the Kurdish cause is not only external pressures, but also the failure to fully capitalize on the political and diplomatic capabilities possessed by the Kurds. This people has paid exorbitant prices in the region’s conflicts, and it is unreasonable for them to find themselves once again outside the table of understandings determining the future of the Middle East.
Here, a distinction must be made between the importance of the Kurdish role and the belief that international powers will grant the Kurds free gains. Experiences have proven that international interests change, and that alliances built on military necessity may shift when circumstances change. Therefore, reliance on a single international party cannot be a permanent basis for protecting rights and gains.
The Kurdistan Region… Internal Unity is a Prerequisite for External Presence
The Kurds cannot demand that others respect their political and constitutional rights while their internal disagreements remain an obstacle to building a unified stance. This is not an administrative matter or a dispute over the distribution of positions, but an issue concerning the future of the entire Kurdistan political project.
The persistence of disputes between the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the stumble in forming the regional government, and the paralysis of the active role of parliament occur at a time when the region is witnessing dangerous strategic transformations.
An analysis published by Chatham House on October 28, 2026, addressed this crisis, warning that the continuation of the division between the two main parties could weaken the governance of the Kurdistan Region and its joint institutions, paving the way for broader regional interventions. The analysis also noted the continued stumbling in government formation and the absence of effective parliamentary meetings for more than four years.
This is an assessment worthy of attention, because it places internal disagreement within its regional context and clarifies that the repercussions of division do not stop at the distribution of positions or the management of institutions, but may touch the region’s status and its ability to protect its constitutional powers.
Here, it must be emphasized that political disagreement is a democratic right, but turning it into a division in institutions, decision-making, security, and economy weakens everyone. The Kurdistan Region needs an effective government, a parliament that exercises its role, unified institutions, and balanced relations with Baghdad, regional countries, and the international community.
The role played by President Masoud Barzani in cementing the standing of the Kurdistan Region and enhancing its regional and international relations represents an important milestone in the Kurdish political experience. Preserving this standing requires internal consensus and institutions capable of continuing work steadfastly, because the region’s external strength begins with the cohesion of its internal house.
Turkey and Iran… Different Calculations Regarding the Kurdish Issue
The future of the Kurds cannot be read without understanding the nature of Turkish and Iranian policies. Both states view the Kurdish issue from an angle tied to their national security and their internal and regional calculations, even though the tools and policies followed differ.
Turkey seeks to rearrange its regional relations and manage the Kurdish dossier within the framework of its security and political calculations. Furthermore, the path of disarming the Kurdistan Workers’ Party opens an important discussion regarding the possibility of transitioning from armed confrontation to a more stable political handling. Yet the success of this path is not tied to security arrangements alone, but to the extent of its capacity to open the horizon for political solutions that address the causes of the conflict and guarantee legitimate rights.
As for Iran, the military and political developments surrounding it render the Kurdish dossier part of its security calculations, particularly in light of the war and tension with the United States and Israel. It is imperative that the Kurds realize that turning their regions into arenas of confrontation among regional powers will expose their security and gains to grave risks.
In this context, a responsible Kurdish stance must be based on protecting national rights and interests, avoiding being dragged into conflicts that do not serve the Kurdish cause, while adhering to political solutions, dialogue, and respect for state sovereignty.
The United States and International Powers… Interests Before Alliances
It is a political error to believe that the United States or any other international power will deal with the Kurdish issue as a fixed matter detached from calculations of interest. International relations are based on mutual interests, and alliances shift according to circumstances and priorities.
The Syrian experience has proven that military partnership with the United States, regardless of its importance, does not necessarily mean a permanent guarantee for a specific political future. Likewise, the conclusion of the international coalition’s military mission in Iraq obliges the Kurdistan Region to re-evaluate the tools of its relationship with Washington, transitioning toward a more institutionalized political, security, and economic cooperation.
This does not mean downplaying the importance of relations with the United States, but rather dealing with them with political realism, building relations based on mutual interests and clear agreements, and not relying solely on positions that may change with shifting administrations and priorities.
Hence, Kurdish relations with the United States and European countries, as well as with influential Arab states, should be expanded and not restricted to the security and military aspect. Diplomacy, economics, investment, education, and technology have become essential elements in building the political standing of any party.
The Arab Role and Egypt’s Position
In the new equation, the Arab role must not be overlooked, particularly the role of Egypt, which possesses political, diplomatic, and historical weight in the region.
The stability of Iraq and Syria, the protection of their territorial integrity, and the guarantee of the rights of their components represent issues that intersect with Arab interests. It is important that there be a more open Arab vision toward the Kurdish issue, based on understanding it as a cause of rights, partnership, and stability, rather than merely a security file or a card in regional conflicts.
Egypt specifically has a history of relations with the Kurdish movement, one of its most prominent milestones being the historical relationship that brought together the late leader Gamal Abdel Nasser and the immortal leader Mullah Mustafa Barzani, when Cairo became one of the important political stations in the history of the modern Kurdish movement.
This political memory can form a basis for enhancing dialogue and communication between Cairo and Erbil, and developing relations in political, cultural, and economic fields. With its Arab weight and regional standing, Egypt is capable of contributing to the enhancement of dialogue and understanding, and of dealing with the Kurdish issue from the perspective of stability, partnership, and respect for rights.
What Is Required of the Kurds in the Upcoming Phase?
I believe that the Kurds face a set of political imperatives that brook no delay.
First, preserving the unity of the Kurdish rank, because internal division grants others a greater opportunity to interfere in Kurdish decision-making and weakens the capacity to defend rights and gains.
Second, anchoring the constitutional rights of the Kurdistan Region in Iraq, and not allowing political disagreements to be used as an entry point for retreating from the federal system endorsed by the constitution.
Third, supporting a political solution that guarantees the Kurds in Syria their national, political, and administrative rights within a unified Syrian state based on partnership, citizenship, and pluralism, while shunning policies of exclusion and centralization.
Fourth, building balanced relations with Turkey, Iran, the United States, and Arab states, based on mutual interests, respect, and non-interference in internal affairs.
Fifth, developing Kurdish diplomacy so that it is not limited to reactions toward crises, but becomes capable of taking the initiative, putting forth visions, and participating in the making of regional decisions.
Sixth, realizing that military force alone does not forge a secure political future, and that building institutions, the economy, education, and internal stability is the true guarantee for the continuation of any political experience.
The New Middle East… Will the Kurds Have a Place at the Decision-Making Table?
The most dangerous hazard facing the Kurds at this juncture is the repetition of past experiences, when major powers negotiated the future of the region while the Kurds found themselves facing the results of agreements they were not a primary party in drafting.
Circumstances have changed, the nature of conflicts has changed, and the Kurds have acquired a political, military, and diplomatic presence that cannot be ignored. Yet this presence requires a unified strategic vision and a political leadership that recognizes the coming phase is not an era of slogans, but an era of interests, understandings, and partnership-building.
The Kurds should not view ongoing transformations as an opportunity to confront a state or align with one axis against another, but rather as an opportunity to cement their rights and guarantee their security and future through balanced relations and mutual respect.
The future of the Middle East will not be determined solely by what Washington, Tehran, Ankara, or Tel Aviv decide, but also by the capacity of the region’s peoples and components to assert their political presence and participate in shaping their future.
Finally, the question that we Kurds must pose to ourselves today is not only: What will happen in the Middle East? But rather: Where do we want to be when its new equations are formed?
For we Kurds do not wish to be fuel for the wars of others, nor a bargaining card in regional deals, nor a party awaiting the decisions of major capitals. Rather, we wish to be partners in stability, holders of recognized rights, and an active party in shaping the region’s future.
This will not be achieved by waiting or relying on the positions of others, but rather through unity of stance, strength of institutions, clarity of vision, and pragmatic diplomacy.
Indeed, the Middle East taking shape today will wait for no one, and whoever lacks political will, unity of stance, and the capacity to defend their interests will find themselves facing a new reality drawn by others, rather than a future in which they participated in choosing and crafting.
Sources and References
Chatham House – October 28, 2026: Analysis of the division between the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union and its impact on governance and the region’s institutions.
Reuters – October 30, 2026: Developments in the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian claims regarding tankers and mines, with the agency’s reservation regarding the lack of independent verification of those claims.
British Ministry of Defense – September 30, 2026: Official announcement of the conclusion of the international coalition’s military mission in Iraq.
Al-Ahram Newspaper – March 6, 2017: Historical material on the relationship between Gamal Abdel Nasser and Mullah Mustafa Barzani.
U.S. Department of State – Historical Documents: Documents on U.S. relations with the Kurdish movement during the era of Mullah Mustafa Barzani.
Note: This text is translated from the original Arabic version. Read the Arabic version:Click here
