The United States has long viewed the Kurds as one of its most reliable partners in the Middle East.
From the Kurdistan Region of Iraq to Rojava in northeastern Syria, Kurdish forces have worked closely with Washington in efforts against both Saddam Hussein’s regime and, later, the so-called Islamic State (ISIS). Kurdish fighters have paid a heavy price in these conflicts, enduring thousands of casualties while serving as a vital ground force for American strategic interests in the region.
However, today, Kurdish political leaders increasingly feel that this partnership faces unprecedented challenges.
The allegations raised by US President Donald Trump suggest that US forces delivered weapons to Kurdish groups for the Iranian opposition. However, the Kurdish leaders reportedly failed to deliver these weapons and kept them for themselves. However, Kurdish leaders across all parties and regions in Iraq and Iran have vehemently rejected these claims and requested evidence regarding the Kurdish groups in question.
Beyond denying the accusations, Kurdish leaders assert that they are being drawn into what they describe as a broader “geopolitical plot” rooted in Ankara, aimed at undermining Kurdish legitimacy across the region.
In this context, Tom Barrack, the Lebanese businessman who has held multiple positions, including US ambassador to Turkey and US special envoy for Syria and Iraq, has emerged as a deeply controversial figure. Kurdish political leaders accuse Barrack, alongside Recep Tayyip Erdogan, of constructing a narrative that portrays Kurdish actors as destabilizing and unreliable forces rather than strategic partners.
Weapon transfers to Kurds
Within Kurdish political circles, there is growing speculation that some weapons may have been transferred to individuals or groups falsely presenting themselves as Kurdish while operating in alignment with Turkish interests. Several Kurdish politicians claim that Turkey has recently acted as an intermediary in transferring arms to Iranian proxies in Lebanon.
Furthermore, they point out that these weapons may include American-made arms originally intended for Kurdish forces. Although difficult to verify, these accusations illustrate a common Kurdish belief that regional powers, particularly Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, are manipulating security narratives to isolate Kurdish actors.
As part of these narratives, Kurdish leaders point to a coordinated media campaign where some American and European journalists, considered aligned with Ankara, amplify allegations of Kurdish cooperation with Iranian proxy groups. Such accusations are particularly sensitive, given that Iranian-backed militias have targeted Israel and have historically maintained a hostile stance toward Kurdish political movements throughout the region.
For many Kurds, the consequences of misleading narratives and claims are not just political but existential. Kurdish leaders have asserted that statements made by Trump have heightened security vulnerabilities for Kurdish people, particularly in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, which has been a persistent target of drone and missile attacks from the Iranian regime and its affiliated proxies in Iraq. These attacks have already resulted in significant civilian casualties.
The deeper issue is the erosion of political trust between Kurdish groups and the United States, which has historically supported their cooperation, not just the hostile attacks from Tehran. Kurdish people who have viewed the United States as a reliable and powerful partner are increasingly questioning whether Washington is accommodating Ankara’s anti-Kurdish and hostile agendas, which undermine the long-standing experience of Kurdish-American cooperation.
In Kurdish political discourse, Tom Barrack has emerged as a symbol of this perceived alarming shift. They characterize him as a tainted intermediary whose involvement has significantly harmed Kurdish-American relations, with far-reaching negative implications for broader regional stability and posing a long-term threat to Israel’s security.
Ultimately, the unproven claims by President Trump matter less than the troubling political reality and the damage Tom Barrack has inflicted in alignment with Turkey’s geopolitical interests. Consequently, Kurdish distrust toward Washington is deepening at a precarious time for regional stability. This increasing Kurdish disillusionment carries major repercussions for the wider Middle East.
This shift should concern not only American policymakers and lawmakers, but also Israel and other regional actors who have historically recognized the strategic importance of the Kurdish role in challenging nefarious dictators and extremist jihadist groups, as well as their role in providing stability, as evidenced by the models of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq and the now-defunct grassroots-based democratic self-governance in Rojava.
Historically, Kurdish political movements have been some of the region’s most secular, pro-Western, and institutionally loyal actors. In both Iraq and Syria, Kurdish self-administered actors have sought various forms of coexistence with ethnic and religious minorities while maintaining cooperative relations with Western powers.
The weakening of Kurdish-American ties, particularly for Israel, should not be dismissed as a minor issue. Kurdish stability has served as a counterbalance to Iranian expansionism and radical Islamist movements. Additionally, alienating Kurdish actors poses a risk of creating a strategic power vacuum, which regional adversaries could exploit.
If Kurdish groups determine that their partnership with Washington no longer ensures political protection or security cooperation, they may feel forced to pursue alternative alliances with Russia, Iran, Turkey, or other regional powers. Such a shift would signify a significant geopolitical setback for the United States and its allies.
Nevertheless, Kurdish leaders increasingly recognize that maintaining direct engagement with American institutions is essential. Despite their frustrations with President Trump’s rhetoric, they continue to stress the importance of diplomacy with members of the US Senate and the House of Representatives.
They are likely to intensify their efforts to communicate their counterclaims, objectives, and perspectives directly to American lawmakers, challenge disputed allegations, and underscore the political and humanitarian consequences that anti-Kurdish rhetoric can produce on the ground.
This strategy reflects a longstanding Kurdish awareness of American politics. They recognize that administrations may change, but institutional relationships are crucial. Therefore, Kurdish actors acknowledge that support within Congress and the Senate, and among certain political and security-related agencies of the US foreign policy establishment, remains vital.
The broader lesson emerging from this crisis is that narratives in the Middle East often extend beyond mere rhetoric. Accusations, media framing, and political signaling can significantly influence the political reality, leading to devastating consequences for civilian populations.
When Kurdish actors contend that hostile narratives have led to missile strikes by the Mullah regime, political isolation, and civilian casualties, they voice concerns shaped by decades of regional experience. For Washington, the challenge lies not only in managing another regional dispute but also in assessing whether it still values the Kurdish partnership as a strategic asset.
The Kurds have consistently shown their willingness to cooperate with the West under extremely challenging conditions. If that relationship deteriorates due to short-term geopolitical calculations in Washington, pressure from Ankara, and the impact of nefarious officials such as Tom Barrack, it will harm Kurdish-American relations and undermine the broader framework of stability that the United States, Israel, and other allies have sought to maintain in the Middle East for decades.
The writer is a researcher of the Kurdish Forum at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University. X: @dagweysi