What we are seeing today in part of the current Coalition of Political Forces of Iranian Kurdistan is no longer just a tactical slip or simply a sign that they cannot understand the real balance of forces.
Organizations such as PJAK, PAK, and Khabat had been waiting for foreign intervention and for a chance to play on the borderlines for years. The others are no better, and these parties follow the right-wing and far-right horizon in Kurdistan and welcome war conditions.
What we are facing is a clear political choice: the reconstruction of a fake version of “liberation,” where the will of the people from below is replaced by a top-down scenario of power transfer, and where the language of people’s rights is mixed with the logic of foreign intervention, proxy war, and geopolitical engineering. This is exactly the point that must be spoken about openly.
Your support helps keep this space alive but also ensures that these critical discussions remain accessible to all.
The truth is that the original basis for cooperation among opposition parties in Kurdistan was not military adventurism or joining the projects of the United States and Israel. It was an attempt to reach a form of social cooperation against the Islamic Republic.
The real product of that period was not foreign strategy rooms, but calls for general strikes that were widely welcomed by people in the cities of Kurdistan. In other words, wherever this cooperation relied on the strength of society, on the street, on strikes, on solidarity from below, and on the real capacity of the people, it was able to gain legitimacy and social resonance.
The crisis began when some of these same forces, instead of relying on society, started looking toward war, bombing, and outside scenarios for changing the balance of power.
This is exactly where a line must be drawn. The parties and currents in this coalition, as part of Kurdish society, naturally have the right to their own political and social presence. No serious left-wing or communist force denies their right to exist politically.
But the problem is that the current politics of part of this coalition not only fails to help the liberation of the people, it also destroys from within the same social possibility that once formed the basis of cooperation.
When the language of politics shifts from social organization to waiting for foreign intervention, when the horizon of action moves from strikes and popular protest to fantasies of military attack and power transfer by hostile states, then we are no longer dealing with a minor deviation. We are dealing with politics being emptied of its popular content.
The claim that these parties could carry out a ground military operation is also more illusion than analysis. No force in Iranian Kurdistan can advance such a scenario without air support, logistics, intelligence backing, and at some stage even direct US ground intervention.
This is not just a technical limitation. It is the political Achilles’ heel of this whole approach. Because from the very moment a political force’s military project becomes tied to support from Washington and Tel Aviv, it can no longer present itself as the expression of the independent will of the people.
From that point on, the issue is not only the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. The real issue becomes what is meant to replace it: the free organization of the people, or the rearrangement of a dependent order under words like nation, security, and salvation.
Parts of this coalition are now moving in a direction that can only be described as the production of a dangerous ethnic and geopolitical discourse. In this discourse, the Islamic Republic is no longer central as a religious capitalist, repressive, and anti-social regime.
Instead, “Iran” itself is reconstructed as an abstract enemy, as a political and historical whole. This shift is not accidental. It opens the way for a kind of politics whose horizon is less the liberation of people and more the reshaping of power in West of Asia.
These are projects written not in the streets of Sanandaj, Mahabad, and Mariwan, but in the decision-making centers of regional and global powers.
If there is to remain any emancipatory horizon in Kurdistan and in Iran, this political falsification must be exposed: the falsification of liberation in the language of the people, in order to advance a politics that in practice is nothing but the reproduction of domination in a new form.
Kurdish society has already paid too high a price to once again become a testing ground for ethnic fantasies, foreign interventions, and political opportunism.
Any politics that does not come from the people, does not rely on the people, and does not aim at freedom and equality for all the people of Iran will, in the end, become one more form of failure, even if it raises the flag of the most radical slogans.
That is the truth that must be stated plainly today. The people of Iran and Kurdistan are trapped between monsters.
Do not believe US propaganda about the Kurds.
We are not talking here about some marginal population or a force that can be managed like a laboratory project. In western Iran, we are dealing with a society of millions, at least around 10 million people spread across a vast and complex geography, a region that, in terms of size, is at least comparable to half of United Kingdom.
At that scale, a few political-military organizations, no matter how much history or influence they may have, cannot seriously enter a war scenario and carry it forward in some controlled way. The idea that someone outside can just push a button and turn “the Kurds” into a ready-made ground force for advancing US goals is nothing but a political lie and a colonial fantasy.
I hope the six-party Kurdish political alliance, as dozens of political organizations and different groups have already asked in various statements, does not enter into military confrontation and does not, directly or indirectly, open the way for US military involvement and the dragging of the region into an even bigger disaster.
This needs to be said clearly: the US narrative about the “role of the Kurds” in this war is a propaganda tool. It is a lie.
