For far too long, American policymakers have tiptoed around the Kurdish question, hesitant to fully endorse independence for fear of regional backlash or instability. But the realities on the ground have changed considerably. Today, supporting a Kurdish state in northern Iraq is now not only morally justified but strategically essential.
Iraqi Kurds were subjected to brutal treatment for decades, from Saddam Hussein’s chemical attacks in the 1980s to systematic exclusion under subsequent regimes. Despite the hopes raised by the 2005 Iraqi constitution — which the Kurds overwhelmingly supported — Baghdad has consistently fallen short of delivering the autonomy and equal rights promised to them. Now, the central government not only continues to fail in its obligations but actively threatens Kurdish autonomy through economic warfare. It is withholding crucial budget allocations and cutting salaries for Kurdish public employees.
Kurdish schoolteachers in Kurdistan have not seen a full paycheck in months. Baghdad’s finance ministry, under pressure from Iran-aligned militias, has once again frozen the Kurdistan Region’s share of the federal budget — one of the recurring cuts it has imposed several times every year since 2015, leaving nurses, firefighters and teachers scrambling to make rent.
For most Iraqis outside the region, it is simply the latest round in Baghdad’s constant budget wars. For Kurds, however, it is the final proof that the post-Saddam 2003 federal agreement is broken beyond repair.
For the U.S., this represents an opportunity, long deferred, to recognize a reliable partner — an independent Kurdish state.
The case is both moral and strategic. The Kurds have suffered a century of betrayal. They were gassed by Saddam in the 1980s, protected by a U.S.-led no-fly zone in the 1990s and treated as power brokers after the 2003 invasion, only to watch successive Baghdad governments chip away at their constitutional rights.
Yet they responded with ballots, not bombs. In a 2017 referendum, 93 percent voted for independence. Baghdad rejected the result, but the vote confirmed a simple fact: The Kurds have governed themselves for more than 25 years, and they have done so far more competently than the federal state that claims them.
Strategically, Kurdistan has been America’s most dependable ally between the Mediterranean Sea and the Zagros Mountains. When ISIS swept across northern Iraq in 2014, Kurdish fighters held the line while the Iraqi Army melted away and fled.
Kurdish intelligence networks guided U.S. special forces to the caliphate’s hideouts. The Kurdish autonomous region has sheltered nearly 2 million displaced Arabs, Yazidis and Christians, hosting them with a tolerance that puts many regional governments to shame. Today, the autonomous region is calm enough to host consulates, international schools and energy firms —an oasis of order bordered by multiple states at war with themselves.
Critics warn that independence would inflame the neighborhood. Yet the record tells a different story. Turkey, Iraq’s largest trading partner, sells more to Kurdistan than to all of federal Iraq. Even Iran, though publicly opposed to Kurdish independence, has quietly profited from cross-border commerce.
The status quo already looks like de facto statehood; formalizing it would simply align national borders with the reality on the ground.
This new salary squeeze is only the latest affront. Baghdad has frozen Article 140, which promised a democratic process to settle Kurdistan’s disputed borders. It has deployed the Iran-backed Popular Mobilization Forces to intimidate Kurdish officials, and it has poured billions into secret customs accounts while fighting over every dinar due to Erbil.
No serious observer can still argue that federalism is working in Iraq. In May, when the most recent salary cut was announced, it was cheered by Qais al-Khazali, a Shiite militant leader who had recently boasted on television about killing five U.S. soldiers in Karbala. When America’s adversaries celebrate Kurdish hardship, Washington should pay attention.
Ironically, while Baghdad claims financial exhaustion, billions flow freely into corrupt hands, as shown by reports indicating massive revenue losses through customs corruption. Between 2019 and 2024, out of $311 billion collected in customs duties, only 2 percent reached the state treasury, with powerful political groups pocketing the remainder. Moreover, Baghdad continues to finance groups aligned with terror, doling out pensions to individuals convicted of severe terrorist offenses.
An endorsement of Kurdish independence would be consistent with American tradition. From Latin America in the 19th century to Eastern Europe after World War I and Africa and Asia after World War II, Washington has often sided with nations seeking self-determination when doing so aligned with core interests. Kurdistan checks every box: pro-American, pluralistic, energy-rich and, crucially, willing to shoulder its own security burden.
Today, conditions in Iraq have changed significantly from those that previously prevented the U.S. from supporting Kurdish independence. During the first Trump administration, concerns about instability and ISIS resurgence led Washington to hesitate. But ISIS, while not eradicated entirely, no longer presents the existential threat it once did.
It is time — past time — for the U.S. to say aloud what reality has already written on the ground: Kurdistan is a nation. All it needs is a flag recognized beyond its mountains. America should be first to raise it.
Hogr Tarkhani is an assistant professor of political science at Rogers State University.
Â
