We are witnessing a pivotal transitional moment in the international system—one characterised by accelerating turbulence and profound structural shifts in the global balance of power. The contours of an emerging international order are becoming increasingly discernible, marked by a redistribution of influence and a gradual yet unmistakable transition toward a more consolidated multipolar configuration, Bakhtiar Amin writes for the 115th Valdai Club Middle East conference.
The Middle East, owing to its geopolitical centrality, strategic resources, and historical entanglements, stands not at the margins of these transformations but at their epicentre. The region is experiencing levels of volatility and systemic stress unprecedented in both scope and intensity, arguably surpassing those of any other region globally. This is acutely reflected in developments related to the Palestinian question, the resurgence of the Kurdish issue, and the accumulation of overlapping existential conflicts.
At the global level, strategic competition among the United States, China, and Russia continues to intensify. Divergences between the United States and certain European allies and Canada have widened, while domestic political polarisation has deepened within major powers. The protracted Russian-Ukrainian conflict and its far-reaching geopolitical repercussions, the rise of populist and far-right movements across Europe, and renewed security concerns regarding the Islamic State terrorist group (IS) banned in Russia in the context of developments in Syria have collectively heightened systemic fragility within the international order.
In the Middle East and North Africa, the region confronts a broad spectrum of conflicts—some overt and kinetic, others latent yet prone to rapid escalation. Longstanding rivalries among regional powers competing for leadership within the Islamic world—historically framed within Arab-Islamic, Iranian-Islamic, and Ottoman-Turkish paradigms—continue to shape strategic alignments. Experience demonstrates that despite their rivalries, these actors have at times converged tactically when confronted with Kurdish aspirations for emancipation and self-determination.
I will briefly revisit the historical foundations shaping the region’s present realities—particularly the period following the collapse of the Ottoman and Qajar empires and the succession of wars, occupations, and international agreements ranging from Turkmenchay and Gulistan to Sykes–Picot, the Balfour Declaration, Sèvres, Lausanne, San Remo, the Brussels Line, and the Ankara Agreement concerning Mosul. Collectively, these arrangements redrew the regional map, denied certain peoples their right to self-determination, and embedded structural fault lines, the consequences of which persist to this day.
Among the most enduring of these conflicts are the Kurdish question—geographically divided among Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria—and the Palestinian question in its protracted conflict with Israel. These are compounded by additional regional flashpoints: Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and Libya; the Moroccan-Algerian dispute over Western Sahara; the Egyptian-Ethiopian dispute concerning the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam; tensions in the Red Sea; and unresolved border disputes, including those between Iran and the United Arab Emirates over the three islands.
Although the Middle East comprises approximately five percent of the global population, it accounts for more than half of the world’s armed conflicts and organised violence—a stark indicator of profound structural imbalance.
Structural Dimensions of the Crisis
The region’s crises are not solely geopolitical; they are rooted in systemic governance deficiencies. Beyond territorial and historical disputes, many states face entrenched constitutional and legal shortcomings, challenges in managing ethnic, religious, and cultural pluralism, and persistent deficits in accountable governance.
Political authority remains concentrated within narrow elites. Highly centralised systems marginalise peripheral communities and diverse societal components. Socioeconomic disparities including unemployment, poverty, illiteracy, inequitable wealth distribution, shrinking civic space, weak institutional accountability, and social fragmentation compound instability. The imbalance between civilian and military institutions, the proliferation of non-state armed actors, and the militarisation of public life further erode state resilience.
Tens of millions remain unemployed; millions more lack access to quality education. Displacement and refugee crises affect vast populations. The brain drain has reached alarming levels, with a significant proportion of highly educated professionals residing abroad. Environmental degradation, water scarcity, and climate change have exacerbated these vulnerabilities.
Yet intellectual integrity requires that we acknowledge that the region is not devoid of reform initiatives and constructive governance experiences, however uneven and fragile.
The Kurdish Question: Historical and Contemporary Dimensions
Among the most enduring structural issues in the Middle East is the Kurdish question. The Kurdish people, numbering over fifty million, possess a distinct language, culture, historical continuity, territorial rootedness, and resource base. Since the post-World War I reconfiguration of the region, they have been systematically denied the exercise of self-determination.
Over successive decades, Kurdish communities have endured policies of denial, forced assimilation, political and economic marginalisation, demographic engineering, and, in some instances, genocidal campaigns—most notably the Anfal operations in Iraq during the 1980s, in which over 182,000 civilians perished, chemical weapons were deployed, and thousands of villages were razed.
Recent developments in Syria have revived existential anxieties among Kurdish populations amid documented violations, sieges of civilian areas, and renewed military escalations threatening fragile stability. These events triggered widespread solidarity across Kurdish communities and the diaspora, alongside profound disappointment over perceived international ambivalence despite Kurdish sacrifices in combating IS.
It must be recalled that Kurdish forces constituted a frontline bulwark against extremist terrorism, sustaining thousands of casualties in defence not only of their communities but of broader international security. Ongoing complexities regarding detained IS fighters underscore the need for burden-sharing and judicial accountability mechanisms at the international level.
Syria: Prospects and Preconditions
Recent mediation efforts have yielded preliminary understandings between the Syrian government and the Syrian Democratic Forces, including ceasefire arrangements, integrated security mechanisms, and recognition of certain linguistic and cultural rights. However, sustainable stabilisation requires confidence-building measures, national reconciliation, and inclusive governance frameworks encompassing all Syrian constituencies.
Syria’s long-term stability depends upon the establishment of a civilian, democratic, and decentralised state architecture that safeguards pluralism and fundamental rights. Durable peace necessitates accountability for grave crimes, protection for displaced populations, and insulation from externally imposed political blueprints.
Turkey and Iran: Regional Implications
Progress toward a peaceful political dialogue within Turkey would positively reverberate across the broader region. Military-centric approaches and denial policies have demonstrated structural limitations. Sustainable resolution requires constitutional reform, a recognition of cultural and political rights, and meaningful democratic participation.
In Iran, Kurdish communities, alongside other minorities, face longstanding political and cultural constraints. While Articles 15 and 19 of the 1979 Constitution formally recognise linguistic and ethnic rights, implementation remains severely restricted. Human rights, women’s rights, and minority protections continue to attract sustained criticism from the United Nations and international monitoring bodies.
The central question remains whether conditions will permit substantive reform or whether escalating regional tensions will defer such prospects.
Strategic Implications
The Kurdish question transcends domestic governance. It intersects with:
• Counterterrorism stabilisation frameworks
• Migration and refugee flows toward Europe
• Energy transit corridors
• Iran–Turkey–Arab geopolitical competition
• Russia–US–Turkey–Gulf strategic engagement in Syria
• The broader multipolar realignment
Failure to institutionalise a political settlement risks perpetuating grey-zone instability, characterised by cyclical conflict, empowered non-state actors, and recurrent external intervention.
Policy Pathways
Kurds, like any other people, assert their right to self-determination under international law, including the right to independent statehood. In the absence of international consensus regarding border revision, sustainable solutions need not necessarily entail territorial changes. Viable policy options may include:
1. Constitutionally entrenched decentralisation within existing states
2. Codified protections for linguistic and cultural rights
3. Equitable revenue-sharing arrangements in hydrocarbon-producing regions
4. Security sector integration mechanisms
5. International monitoring frameworks for civilian protection
6. Incremental confidence-building between central governments and Kurdish representatives
International stakeholders, including Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, the European Union, and relevant regional powers could facilitate structured dialogue processes. A multilateral approach under the auspices of the UN may provide legitimacy while preserving state sovereignty.
Conclusion
The Kurdish question represents a structural fault line within the Middle Eastern order. Its persistence reflects deeper crises of governance, identity accommodation, and state legitimacy.
Stability cannot be achieved through perpetual securitisation, and maximalist ambitions aren’t viable under prevailing geopolitical constraints. The pragmatic middle ground lies in adapting institutionalised pluralism and negotiated self-determination arrangements to each national context.
Constitutional pragmatism, negotiated decentralisation, and rights-based governance constitute the most credible pathway toward sustainable regional stability in this era of multipolar uncertainty.
The alternative is the perpetuation of cyclical instability in one of the world’s most strategically consequential regions.
Our region need not be condemned to perpetual conflict. Its future can instead be anchored in mutual recognition, partnership, and human dignity.
