Kurdish Identity: Then, Now, Future

Professors Michael M. Gunter, Seevan Saeed — Sun, 06 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0000

This article analyses Kurdish identity then, now, and in the future with emphasis on the Iraqi Kurds (KRG). The KRG currently has many of the trappings of an independent state: its own president, prime minister and parliament; its own flag and national anthem; its own army that has the right to prevent the federal Iraqi army from entering the Kurdish region; its own international airports and educational system in which Kurdish is the principal language of instruction; and even its own stamp entered into the passports of visitors. This article also analyses the new Trump 2.0 administration’s approach to the Kurds. It also asks why not several different Kurdish states? After all, there are some 22 Arab states and 6 Turkic states. So, if Kurdish unity is so difficult to achieve, why not at least 2 different Kurdish states, the KRG and Rojava? However, the Iraqi Kurds should not be discouraged at the lack of full U.S. support. After all, look at Europe. Under Trump, the United States almost seems hesitant even to guarantee Europe’s independence from Putin’s Russia. This means if the KRG still seeks eventual independence, it must be patient and play the waiting game. Furthermore, despite initial optimism, the current PKK peace process initiative with Turkey seems unlikely to be successful because it appears more like a PKK surrender than a guarantee of Kurdish constitutional rights in return for disarming and disbanding the PKK. In conclusion, the Kurds, especially in Iraq, have made enormous progress in recent years towards constitutional guaranteed economic, social, and even political rights as Kurds. However, much remains to be accomplished, elusive Kurdish coordination and unity being of utmost importance.

Imperial and Anti-Imperial Responses to the 12-Day Israel-Iran War

Rojîn Mûkrîyan — Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Many self-identified Iranian leftists, who positioned themselves as dissidents of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) during the 12-Day Israel-Iran War, openly or tacitly aligned with the Iranian regime and emerged as guardians of the state’s “territorial integrity.” This paper investigates the complexities of this alignment, asking how one can justify siding with an oppressor when that oppressor is under attack. To address this paradox, the paper analyses the imperial and anti-imperial dynamics shaping responses to the 2025 Israel-Iran War, focusing on how segments of the Iranian left, once opposed to the IRI, came to support a state that has long oppressed them. It argues that this contradiction stems primarily, though not exclusively, from the methodological dualism identified by Sara Kermanian within postcolonial studies—specifically, the tension between imperialism and anti-imperialism, juxtaposed with nationalism. The regime has exploited this paradox, resulting in a shift from emphasizing Ummah (the transnational Muslim community) to a form of pre-Islamic Iranian nationalism. By providing a brief critical historical analysis of Israeli and Iranian nation-state building, the paper contends that neither state is immune from charges of imperialism. Furthermore, it examines the anti-imperial rhetoric of the IRI to illustrate how this rhetoric serves as a crucial instrument for obscuring its imperial Islamism. In doing so, this article contributes to contemporary Iranian politics and aims to offer an awakening critique to foster transnational solidarity among and between the peoples.

The Commentaries

Kurdish Identity: Then, Now, Future

Imperial and Anti-Imperial Responses to the 12-Day Israel-Iran War