The Kurdish question continues to act as a structural force in the politics of the region at least a century after the Treaty of Lausanne demarcated the modern Middle East without giving Kurdish statehood. The Kurds cover the territory of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran and can be considered one of the largest stateless countries in the world. The fact that they are still fighting to be autonomous and represented at the political level has created security tensions and complicated diplomatic issues.
By 2025 this topic has acquired a new significance when the dynamics of conflicts change and power distribution advances with new regional orientations. The Turkish military presence in northern Iraq and northern Syria, internal strife in the Kurdish political system of Iraq, and an unpredictable future of an autonomous government in northeast Syria are all indicators of a long-standing and changing geopolitical rivalry.
The Kurdish political discourse still borders on counterterrorism discussion, national identity politics and interests of other global powers such as the United States, Russia and the European states. These relations perpetuate the Kurdish query as a regional security element.
Turkey’s Evolving Security Calculus
Turkey still stands at a strategic position on the Kurdish question which is highly rooted in security doctrine. The Kurdistan Workers Part (PKK) is recognized by Ankara as a direct threat on the national level and broadens military activities across the borders in search of what the Turkish leadership calls a long-term security perimeter.
Cross-Border Military Campaigns
In 2025, Turkey covered the third stage of Operation Claw-Sword, strengthening the permanent position of the Turkish military forces in northern Iraq, near the Qandil Mountains. In January 2025, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated once again, that Turkey will strike wherever terror nests, and that Turkey has the intention of providing an operational depth regardless of the diplomatic tensions.
These measures make it difficult to relate with both Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). The KRG also has trade and energy relations with Turkey which it should strike a balance between internal Kurdish politics and criticism by the Kurdish groups who suffer the impact of military action.
The Syrian Arena And Strategic Ambiguity
Turkey considers the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and its primary Kurdish wing, the YPG as a continuation of the PKK. However, the same forces are the most active U.S. allies in containing the leftovers of the Islamic State. As Washington keeps providing partial military aid to Kurdish-led organizations in northeastern Syria in 2025, Turkey is increasing the pressure on allies in NATO to minimize involvement.
This paradox makes the strategic uncertainty even more acute and cements the susceptibility of Kurdish governing experiment to the changes in the global agenda and military intensification in the area.
The Autonomy Dilemma In Iraqi Kurdistan
The KRG is the most formal Kurdish political organization that lacks economic strength, internal political divisions, and unstable relationships with Baghdad.
Post-Referendum Realignment
In 2017, after the independence referendum, where Kurdish voters overwhelmingly voted in favour of statehood, but were immediately countered by the region, Erbil became more pragmatic. In 2025, the U.S.-facilitated negotiations covered the issue of hydrocarbons and revenue-sharing regulations, with the aim to overcome the deep-rooted conflicts. Although the signs of cooperation were expressed by both parties, there is still distrustfulness, and the disagreement over such a territory as Kirkuk.
Internal Political Divisions
The historical enmity between Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) is an obstacle to the unity of governance. Civic fatigue has been caused by economic pressures, decline in oil revenues, and dissatisfaction of the population due to corruption claims. As one of the regional commentators has noted,
“Kurdish autonomy remains viable, but its resilience depends on cohesion that has not fully materialized.”
This disintegration strengthens the political limitation of Kurdish negotiations with Baghdad and Ankara and makes it difficult to coordinate security in localities where the PKK forces are still operational.
Syrian Kurdish Autonomy And Strategic Fragility
The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) presents a parallel but more fragile model of Kurdish self-rule.
Diplomatic Stalemate With Damascus
In 2025, a negotiation between the leaders of AANES and the government of Syria did not result in any meaningful breakthrough. The demands of the Syrian Kurdish authorities like constitutional guarantees and oversight of internal security are against the demands of Damascus which insist on national sovereignty and centralized command. Moscow and Tehran advocate centralization of states in Syria, but Turkey prevents Kurdish politics by implementing pressure.
This state of affairs puts Kurdish leaders at the mercy of the U.S. military staying. The change of strategic priorities in Washington may speed up the political vulnerability and initiate the additional uncertainty.
Humanitarian And Security Pressures
The Turkish airstrike of Northern Syria, the lack of resources, and the remnants of Islamic State are all components that threaten the region. Movements and population changes put pressure on the governance institutions and make the Kurdish populations feel abandoned geopolitically.
This pressure highlights the uncertain state of de facto autonomy without international guarantees.
Kurdish Diaspora And Transnational Mobilization
In Europe and North America, the Kurdish communities develop advocacy and cultural diplomacy with the help of digital movements and parliament activism. Demonstrations in Berlin, Stockholm, and Paris during 2025 can be discussed as the attempts to impact European reactions to Turkish military actions and humanitarian situation in northern Syria and Iraq.
Governments of Europe are of mixed views: some of them insist on more control over military operations of the region, and some limit the activities of the groups which are associated with the PKK because of the legal and security reasons. This is an expression of a two-sided calculus concerning internal stability, NATO commitments and wider foreign-policy interests.
Rethinking Statehood And Security In 2025
Kurdish question persists not only due to sovereignty demands but also due to the conflicting regional security, identity, and government visions. Efforts to overcome the problem by force have only strengthened Kurdish nationalism again and again, but there are always internal Kurdish divisions and external restrictions on the choice of paths.
The discussion is shifting towards not simply independent statehood, but also changing regimes of autonomy, constitutional accommodation, and decentralized government on current borders. The post-war regional restructuring in Syria and Iraq, new energy routes and the changing international partners all play a role in the possibilities.
The future of the Middle East, as the year 2025 arrives, will be pegged on how well states and actors in the global system can balance counterterrorism demands and political inclusion. The Kurdish question therefore continues to be a test case of whether the region can progress towards the more lasting structures of co-existence and security or whether confrontational and displacement patterns will remain the defining forces of political existence.
