By Payraw Anwar
The latest escalation between the United States, Israel, and Iran marks another dangerous phase in Middle Eastern geopolitics. What began as targeted strikes has evolved into a broader confrontation, with attacks on infrastructure, disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, and missile exchanges extending across the region. Yet amid this intensifying conflict, one point must remain clear: the Kurdistan Region of Iraq is not a party to this war.
From a realist perspective, the current conflict reflects a classic struggle for power and regional dominance. States are acting to secure their strategic interests, projecting military force to reshape the balance of power. In such a system, smaller entities like the Kurdistan Region risk becoming arenas of indirect confrontation—caught in the crossfire of larger rivalries despite having no direct stake in the conflict.
At the same time, the actions of Iran-aligned militias in Iraq highlight the logic of proxy warfare, a key feature of contemporary regional politics. These groups operate outside full state control, yet play a central role in extending influence and applying pressure. Their attacks on the Kurdistan Region—targeting infrastructure and civilian areas—are not tactical; they are strategic. By demonstrating reach and destabilizing a relatively secure region, militias seek both to signal power and to undermine what has been one of Iraq’s few post-2003 success stories.
From a post-structuralist lens, the narrative surrounding the Kurdistan Region also matters. For years, it has been constructed—both domestically and internationally—as a space of relative stability, governance, and reconstruction. Attacks against it are not only physical but symbolic: they attempt to deconstruct this image and reframe the region as no different from the rest of Iraq’s fragile landscape.
Despite these pressures, the Kurdistan Regional Government has consistently maintained a position of neutrality. It has neither engaged in the conflict nor aligned itself with its belligerents. Nevertheless, it continues to face repeated violations of its security—attacks that have damaged civilian areas and created widespread psychological distress.
This raises a fundamental question of sovereignty and responsibility. Under both domestic and international legal frameworks, it is the duty of the Iraqi federal government to prevent armed groups from operating outside state authority and to protect all regions of the country equally. Failure to do so not only undermine Iraq’s sovereignty but also risks further fragmentation.
The Kurdistan Region should not be transformed into a battleground for conflicts it did not create. Allowing such a trajectory would reinforce a dangerous precedent in which non-state actors and external powers dictate the security realities of smaller political entities.
In a region already defined by overlapping conflicts, preserving the neutrality and stability of the Kurdistan Region is not merely a local concern—it is a strategic necessity.