Reassessing Kurdish Independence in Iraq
For quite some time, American policymakers have been handling Kurdish issues poorly, often hesitant to support their independence for fear of causing regional unrest. However, the reality has shifted significantly. Supporting a Kurdish state in northern Iraq is now seen as not just ethically right, but also strategically necessary.
The Iraqi Kurds have faced harsh treatment for decades, suffering from Saddam Hussein’s chemical attacks in the 1980s to systematic persecution thereafter. Although the 2005 Iraq Constitution raised hopes, which Kurds largely backed, Baghdad has continually failed to provide them with the autonomy and rights that were promised. Currently, the central government not only neglects its obligations but also actively threatens Kurdish autonomy through economic means, cutting wages and withholding crucial budget allocations affecting Kurdish civil servants.
Kurdish teachers, for instance, have gone months without full pay. Baghdad’s Treasury, under pressure, has once again frozen the Kurdish region’s share of the federal budget. This isn’t the first time; similar cuts have occurred repeatedly, affecting not just teachers but also nurses and firefighters who struggle to make ends meet. For many Iraqis outside of Kurdistan, this may just seem like another example of Baghdad’s ongoing budget battles. But for the Kurds, it’s undeniable evidence that the federal pact from 2003 has essentially been rendered meaningless.
For the United States, this situation offers an opportunity to acknowledge a reliable ally—a Kurdish state.
This isn’t just about ethics; it’s a strategic matter as well. The Kurds have a long history of betrayal. They faced brutal attacks in the 1980s, gained protection via US-led no-fly zones in the 1990s, and were seen as key players after the 2003 invasion.
Yet instead of resorting to violence, the Kurds turned to the ballot box. In the 2017 referendum, a striking 93% voted for independence, a decision that Baghdad rejected. This vote highlighted a crucial reality: the Kurds have been managing their own affairs efficiently for over 25 years, far more competently than the federal authorities.
Strategically, Kurdistan serves as America’s most dependable ally in the region. When ISIS invaded northern Iraq in 2014, Kurdish forces stood their ground while Iraqi troops retreated.
The Kurdish Intelligence Network has been instrumental in leading special operations against ISIS. They’ve also taken in around 2 million displaced individuals, including Arabs, Yazidis, and Christians, showcasing a level of hospitality that has shamed some nearby governments. Today, those autonomous regions are stable enough to host consulates, international schools, and energy firms.
Critics, however, warn that Kurdish independence might spark unrest in the region. But the evidence tells a different story. For example, Turkey, the largest trading partner of Iraq, sells more to Kurdistan than to the federal government. Meanwhile, Iran has voiced opposition to Kurdish independence but benefits from trade with the region.
What exists now resembles a de facto nation. Official recognition would merely establish borders that align with the existing reality.
This latest round of salary cuts is yet another humiliation for the Kurds. Baghdad has frozen Article 140, which was supposed to aid in settling contested borders democratically. Meanwhile, Iran-backed groups threaten Kurdish officials while funding goes to figures who have committed serious crimes.
Those who argue for effective federalism in Iraq seem to miss the mark. When new cuts were announced, they were celebrated by leaders aligned with Iran, raising alarms for anyone watching closely. It’s worth noting that while Baghdad claims to be financially burdened, billions vanish into corrupt circles. Reports reveal that a significant portion of revenues from customs are lost due to corruption, leaving barely any to reach the state Treasury.
Supporting Kurdish independence aligns with American history. From the 19th-century in Latin America to various eras in Europe and Asia, the U.S. has often sided with nations pursuing self-determination in line with its strategic interests. Kurdistan meets those criteria: it’s pro-American, diverse, rich in resources, and importantly, willing to take responsibility for its own security.
Today, Iraq is in a markedly different situation than it was when the U.S. hesitated to support Kurdish independence. During the early Trump administration, fears of instability and a resurgence of ISIS created a climate of caution. Yet ISIS, while not completely defeated, no longer poses the same existential danger.
It’s time for the U.S. to acknowledge what reality has already made clear. Kurdistan is indeed a nation; all it needs is a flag recognized throughout the region. The U.S. should take the lead in acknowledging this.
