A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.
OPINION:
Three years ago, the Kurds of Iran played a leading role in the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement. The death of a young Kurdish woman while in the custody of Iran’s morality police sparked nationwide outrage. What began in the Kurdish city of Saqqez quickly spread across all 31 provinces of Iran, reaching more than 165 cities and 144 universities. The movement evolved into one of the most significant challenges to the Iranian regime in recent history.
This was not an isolated moment in Iran’s history. Earlier this year, another wave of protests echoed demands for fundamental political change. In the Kurdistan region, a general strike across the business sector demonstrated solidarity with demonstrators in Tehran and other cities, reinforcing the idea that Kurdish participation is intertwined with the broader national movement against the regime. The regime’s response was brutal, with mass killings and arrests, underscoring the high stakes of political dissent in Iran.
As discussions about Iran’s future intensify with the war, any serious vision for a stable and democratic transition must include the Kurds. In fact, Kurdish political parties represent millions of people and possess significant organizational capacity and grassroots support. Yet they are often viewed through a narrow security lens, portrayed as a threat to Iran’s territorial integrity.
This framing is counterproductive. The right to self-determination is recognized under international law, and Kurdish movements in Iran have repeatedly demonstrated a preference for political engagement and responsible governance rather than fragmentation. Far from destabilizing the country, they have the potential to contribute meaningfully to a more inclusive and stable political order in a unified Iran.
Historically, Kurds have been at the forefront of resistance to the Islamic republic. In 1979, they overwhelmingly rejected the referendum that established the current system after the Islamic Revolution, signaling early opposition to an exclusionary theocratic state. In the decades since, Kurdish movements have expanded their focus beyond regional demands and aligned themselves with broader democratic aspirations that seek to unify Iran’s diverse population, including other marginalized ethnic and social groups.
Today, Iran stands at a critical juncture. Political transitions are defined not only by the collapse of existing regimes but also by the systems that replace them. Durable governance depends on legitimacy, inclusion and public trust. Excluding groups with deep social roots and political experience is not a path to stability; it is a formula for renewed conflict and fragmentation.
Kurdish participation, therefore, is not optional; it is essential. Kurdish political actors bring a combination of grassroots legitimacy, organizational experience and the willingness to cooperate with other opposition forces. These qualities are crucial for building a post-conflict order grounded in pluralism, representative governance and social cohesion. Their inclusion, alongside that of other communities, offers the best chance for a balanced and credible transition.
Mischaracterizing Kurdish movements as inherently threatening undermines this possibility. It narrows policy thinking, weakens potential coalitions and reinforces the very patterns of exclusion that have fueled decades of unrest. A more accurate understanding recognizes Kurdish actors as partners in shaping a democratic future, not obstacles to it.
For policymakers, particularly in the U.S., this shift in perspective is vital. Supporting the Iranian people requires a strategy that includes engaging with credible opposition groups, expanding access to communication technologies — especially in light of recent crackdowns and prolonged internet disruptions — and supporting peaceful forms of protest, such as strikes, should the regime endure. It is equally important to recognize that the Kurdistan region has borne a disproportionate share of political executions and sustained militarization for more than four decades, making Kurdish inclusion not only a strategic necessity but also a matter of historical accountability.
Additional U.S. measures could include programs to encourage military defections in line with human rights standards, as well as efforts to target the remaining financial networks of regime-affiliated elites. Establishing a dedicated democracy fund for the Iranian people also would signal a long-term commitment to political transition and institutional development.
Engaging Kurdish actors should not be seen as a concession but rather as a necessity. Their role is central, not peripheral, to Iran’s future. A stable and democratic Iran cannot emerge from exclusionary practices that ignore key segments of its population. Instead, it must be built on a foundation of inclusion, mutual recognition and shared political responsibility.
Kurdish participation is indispensable. Recognizing and integrating its role in shaping Iran’s future is not only a matter of justice but also a prerequisite for lasting stability and meaningful democratic change.
• Salah Bayaziddi is the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan representative to the United States.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.