Introduction
The Middle East has witnessed bloody national conflicts that have left millions of victims and displaced persons. The Kurdish question represents one of the most important of these conflicts, as Kurds are distributed across four countries: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. The fundamental question is: What is the possible solution now? Is it in building separate nation-states, or in struggling for a citizenship state with equal rights?
There has been and still is blatant national oppression against the Kurds. In Iraq, brutality reached its peak with the Anfal campaigns, the chemical weapons bombing of Halabja, and “Arabization” policies. In Syria, the Arab Belt and the 1962 census that stripped hundreds of thousands of their citizenship, and today in January 2026, this path is renewed through military attacks on areas led by the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Turkey has classified Kurds as “mountain Turks” and destroyed thousands of villages. In Iran, compound repression, executions, and economic marginalization continues.
However, these policies did not target Kurds alone; the dictatorship that crushes Kurdish identity is the same one that oppresses all citizens. The struggle against national oppression is part of the general struggle against tyranny. Confronting real oppression is not achieved by replacing one dominant nationality with another, but by dismantling the foundations of the exclusionary nation-state itself and building a democratic state based on equal citizenship.
From “Oppressed Nationality” to Ruling Authority
In the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, the “oppressed nationality” transformed into a ruling authority facing accusations of repressive practices and organized corruption. The two main parties established familial-tribal rule. A bloody civil war erupted (1994-1998) in which thousands of Kurds were killed, caused by the struggle for influence and resources. To this day corruption is rampant, salaries are cut off, and demonstrations are suppressed, while the two parties continue to monopolize wealth.
In Syria, the SDF transformed into an authority with a centralized character, with limited margin for pluralism. Despite progressive reforms in social aspects and women’s participation, these remained governed by a certain class and political ceiling. Human rights violations were recorded, including child recruitment and arrest and suppression and torture of opponents.
The nationalist discourse transformed into an ideological cover to justify tyranny and reproduce relations of domination. Historical national victimhood does not grant any authority absolution to practice oppression. The transformation of “oppressed nationality” into a “tool of oppression” represents the great moral defeat of the liberationist project, and proves that the flaw lies in the structure of the exclusionary nation-state itself.
Marginalizing Class Struggle and the Danger of Civil Wars
National conflicts push societies toward fanaticism and civil wars, in which the toiling masses become fuel for conflicts that do not serve their interests. Exclusionary nationalist discourse transforms the conflict from a class conflict between the toiling masses and the ruling classes into a false national and identity conflict. National conflicts are a tool for weakening class struggle and distracting the masses from their daily issues related to rights, work, wages, services, and social justice.
Under the cover of defending nationality, class struggle is marginalized, exploitation is justified, and authorities are immunized from accountability. The left’s mission is to rely on human and internationalist identity and solidarity with the suffering of all civilian victims of dictatorship and wars, regardless of race or religion. Selective solidarity is inhumane thinking which contributes to entrenching fanaticism and weakening any liberationist project.
Is the Nation-State Possible Now?
Objective conditions are not suitable for a Kurdish nation-state project. Kurdish areas are surrounded by hostile regional powers, and national movements lack real international support. American support is circumstantial and linked to immediate interests. Even if a Kurdish state were achieved, what guarantees its survival or prevents its transformation into a new dictatorial model? The experience in the Region and Syria is evident: tribal-partisan rule, tyranny, corruption, and human rights violations.
It is necessary to speak clearly about a demographic reality: many areas do not have a single national majority. How can a national project be built on lands where part of the population is from other nationalities? This problem creates acute tensions and opens the door to accusations of practicing “Arabization,” “Kurdification,” and “Turkification.” It is difficult to build a nation-state in multi-national areas without creating new national injustice.
Betting on America
Some Kurdish national movements have built their projects on American support. America, as the largest capitalist power, supports reactionary regimes and has never been on the side of oppressed peoples. Its alliance with Kurdish forces came to fill a vacuum resulting from the absence of large American ground forces. Recently, the alliance in Syria shifted toward Ahmed al-Sharaa and the central government, despite him being on the terrorism list, revealing that America cares only about its interests.
American policy stems from its strategic interests, as shown by experiences of abandoning its allies: the Kurds in 1975, and the Afghans after the Soviet withdrawal. Betting on major capitalist powers is betting on a “political mirage.” These powers see national movements as “pawns” on a geopolitical chessboard.
Citizenship State and Rights with Human Identity
A distinction must be made between demanding cultural, linguistic, and administrative rights, and demanding a separate nation-state. These rights are legitimate demands that every leftist should support. Struggling for them is more appropriate within the framework of an equal citizenship state transcending nationalities and religions. Today’s possible alternative lies in a citizenship state that neutralizes nationality and religion from power, and restricts the formation of parties on national or religious bases.
This transition is a gradual path requiring clear constitutional mechanisms. The model of geographical federalism emerges as an alternative to national federalism, whereby regions are granted broad powers, which empties the conflict of its ethnic charge. This must be coupled with “comprehensive constitutionalization of identities” and building supervisory institutions and an independent judiciary.
International experiences prove the possibility of building this model; Switzerland succeeded in accommodating four official languages, South Africa chose citizenship, and in India, Bolivia, and Spain there are attempts to manage diversity. These examples confirm that the alternative is not a utopian dream.
It may be said that the citizenship state is a utopian dream, but the separate nation-state project is more utopian. Talk of an independent, stable Kurdish state surrounded by hostile states, without international support, and in multi-national areas, is a distant dream. The citizenship state is a gradual project that begins with concrete steps: constitutionalizing national rights, building democratic institutions, applying decentralization, and enhancing the rule of law.
Right to Self-Determination and Realistic Rationality
While fully supporting the legitimate right of the Kurdish people and all peoples to self-determination including secession, I do not see that conditions are suitable now for declaring new nation-states. We must reject forced unity and support voluntary unity based on equal citizenship, while supporting the right to self-determination if it will provide more rights, equality, and better life.
This position is not hostility to Kurdish national liberation, but rather a defense of the essence of liberation from the distortion inflicted by bourgeois national projects. In current circumstances, the toiling masses are dragged into wars and national conflicts, and will face deeper crises for entities that may face the danger of transforming into another authoritarian model.
As Marxists and leftists, we must deal with scientific rationality and study conditions, power balances, and realistic possibilities. We must avoid dragging the masses into losing and destructive wars. Reliance on rationality is necessary, not on “national heroism” and “national pride.” This discourse drags the masses into more wars and destruction.
The Left’s Tasks
Our mission as leftists is to separate our line from all parties to national conflict, and struggle for a state based on citizenship, equal rights, and social justice, not on national or sectarian basis. The road is long and difficult, but it is the only road to reach a real and sustainable solution.
The left can organize itself practically by building cross-national and cross-sectarian organizations, starting from the shared interests of workers, linking the struggle for national rights with the social battle against exploitation, corruption, and tyranny. This requires complete independence from bourgeois forces with nationalist discourse.
Peoples are not in a state of innate conflict, but are victims of organized national mobilization, where masses are pushed into bloody conflicts, so that popular sacrifices become fuel for consolidating the thrones of bourgeois cliques. Our main battle is to dismantle the shackles of tyranny and exploitation, and build a democratic socialist human space. The path to the Kurd’s rights and freedom passes through the rights and freedoms of his Arab, Turkish, Syriac, and Iranian neighbor, under a state that does not ask the citizen about their origin, guarantees them bread and freedom, and respects their human dignity.
Rezgar Akrawi is a Kurdish Leftist from Iraqi Kurdistan.