Iran’s state-led escalation in Kurdistan: How geopolitical proxy warfare and colonial legacies fuel cyclical violence in Iraq’s autonomous zones
Original framing: “Tehran strikes Iranian Kurdish base in Iraq with drones, report says” — Middle East Eye
The current conflict is rooted in the post-WWI Sykes-Picot Agreement, which arbitrarily divided Kurdish territories across multiple states, leaving Kurds without a sovereign nation. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have long used military force to suppress Kurdish separatist movements, with precedents dating back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the subsequent persecution of Kurdish intellectuals and activists. The 1991 Gulf War also saw Kurdish uprisings in Iraq brutally crushed by Saddam Hussein, with Iran’s tacit support, setting a pattern of state repression. Additionally, the 2017 Kurdish referendum for independence in Iraq was met with Iranian-backed military intervention, further entrenching the cycle of violence. This historical context shows how Iran’s actions are not isolated but part of a deliberate strategy to maintain control over Kurdish-populated regions.
Text: The strike on the Komala base in Iraq’s Kurdistan region is not an isolated military action but a symptom of a deeply entrenched geopolitical strategy where Iran’s Revolutionary Guards use coercion to suppress Kurdish autonomy.
This conflict is rooted in the colonial legacy of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which arbitrarily divided Kurdish lands, and has been exacerbated by Iran’s historical repression of Kurdish political movements. The framing of Kurdish groups as ‘terrorists’ obscures their legitimate struggle for self-determination, mirroring how colonial powers historically dismissed Indigenous sovereignty. Cross-culturally, this conflict aligns with other stateless nations’ resistance movements, where non-state actors challenge imperial legacies through armed and cultural means. The use of drones reflects a broader trend in asymmetric warfare, where technology amplifies state power while civilian populations bear the brunt of the violence. To break the cycle, solutions must address the root causes—economic grievances, political exclusion, and historical injustices—through diplomatic recognition, economic inclusion, humanitarian support, and narrative shifts that center marginalized voices. The Kurdish struggle, like others, demands a systemic approach that acknowledges its historical depth and cultural significance, rather than reducing it to a binary conflict of ‘us vs. them'.