Nournews: Recent developments suggest that after the failure of scenarios based on direct military pressure and the targeted assassination of senior Iranian political and military leaders—aimed at creating political and structural instability—Washington and Tel Aviv are now rearranging their pressure tools. Their initial assessment of the effectiveness of a “hard blow” to force Iran into strategic retreat proved to be a miscalculation. Not only were the anticipated political objectives not achieved, but Iran’s powerful military response and the remarkable presence of grieving and outraged citizens defending the country and supporting the political structure have created an entirely different landscape in the arena of strategic confrontation. Under such circumstances, the United States and the Israeli regime have turned to more complex, indirect, and undoubtedly more costly options.
Within this framework, reports of contacts between Donald Trump and key leaders of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq—including Masoud Barzani and Bafel Talabani—alongside the movements of Benjamin Netanyahu, should be interpreted accordingly. The primary aim of these contacts appears to be the creation of a mechanism to exploit the capacity of Kurdish anti-revolutionary groups—most of which are based in the Kurdistan Region—and to use the region’s geography as their operational depth and logistical support base against Iran. In security terminology, this scenario falls under the concept of “peripheral pressure.”
Changing the Tool of Pressure: From Direct Strikes to Peripheral Destabilization
The United States and Israel have now placed emphasis on activating peripheral and ethnic fault lines as an alternative option.
Due to its geopolitical position, shared border with Iran, and the presence of certain armed groups opposed to the Islamic Republic, the Kurdistan Region of Iraq occupies a key place in this scenario. However, if implemented, this would not be a low-cost option but rather a multilayered plan with regional consequences.
Historical Memory and the Complex Kurdish Equation
Any analysis of this trend cannot ignore the historical memory of Kurdish society. At the height of the threat posed by Islamic State and its advance to the outskirts of Erbil, direct and effective Iranian support—including advisory and military assistance—alongside local resistance forces, prevented a large-scale humanitarian catastrophe. This experience remains embedded in the security memory of the Kurdistan Region and the Kurdish people, cementing the equation of “cooperation in the face of a common threat” as a historical reality.
Moreover, the United States’ overtly instrumental use of Syrian Kurdish forces—particularly the Syrian Democratic Forces—and their perceived abandonment in pursuit of American political and security objectives has significantly increased Kurdish distrust toward Washington.
From this perspective, simplifying the assumption that the Kurds would unconditionally join any anti-Iranian project overlooks these experiences and the internal complexities of the Kurdistan Region. Today, Kurdish leaders are more than ever engaged in managing the economy, balancing relations with Baghdad and neighboring states, and preserving internal stability. Entering a broad confrontation scenario could jeopardize the achievements of the past two decades.
Furthermore, the Kurdistan Region is part of Iraqi sovereign territory. Naturally, any use of Iraqi soil against Iran—a neighboring country with religious, political, cultural, and economic ties—would certainly face a reaction from the Iraqi government.
Iran’s Preemptive Measures: A Sign of Intelligence Awareness
Recent field developments also carry a clear message. Iran’s targeted strikes in recent days against the positions and support facilities of Kurdish armed groups in the Kurdistan Region indicate that Tehran possesses intelligence awareness of emerging trends and will adopt a preemptive and deterrent approach against any attempt to activate these capacities. Such actions should be analyzed within the framework of “active deterrence”—that is, preventing a threat from materializing before it becomes an operational crisis.
These responses effectively raise the cost of any attempt to use the region’s geography against Iran and complicate the risk–benefit equation for the external backers of this scenario.
The Decisive Role of Turkey
Although activating this option may appear attractive in certain circles in Washington or Tel Aviv, the plan would be incomplete without considering the role of Turkey. Over the past decades, Ankara has demonstrated that it responds firmly and preemptively to any development that could strengthen armed Kurdish nationalism along its borders. Therefore, any organized destabilization in northern Iraq could face opposition or even direct intervention from Turkey, further complicating the project.
Ultimately, efforts by the United States to destabilize the borders of the Islamic Republic of Iran and to pursue costly plans that could expand the dimensions of the ongoing regional war—while reflecting a clear underestimation of the region’s prevailing security equations and of Iran’s overt and covert capacities to defend its independence and national sovereignty—are initiatives whose prospects of failure appear evident even before their full implementation.
NOURNEWS