The Kurds and Geopolitics: A Chess Game Between Ankara and Tehran

In the intricate world of politics, where interests collide and ideologies clash, the Kurdish question remains one of the most complex and contentious issues. At the heart of the Middle East, where borders intertwine and crises overlap, the presence of Kurdish fighters serves as a pivotal link between two regional powers: Turkey and Iran. This ongoing concern has compelled Ankara to extend diplomatic overtures toward Tehran, despite their deep-seated differences in vision and strategy.

Against this backdrop, Turkey dispatched its intelligence chief, İ-;-brahim Kalı-;-n, to Tehran in an effort to decipher Iran s ambiguous stance on the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which Ankara classifies as a terrorist organization. Although Turkey and Iran stand at opposite ends regarding Syria’s future, the Kurdish issue has nudged them toward security coordination—one that could potentially redefine their fraught relationship. But can Iran truly be the partner that Turkey seeks in solving this conundrum? And can Ankara offer enough to persuade Tehran to halt its support for Kurdish militants?

In diplomacy, where words carry immense weight, Turkey emerges as a key player attempting to reshape regional alliances. As the new year unfolds, Turkish diplomacy has gained remarkable momentum—Foreign Minister Mevlüt Ç-;-avuş-;-oğ-;-lu has embarked on shuttle diplomacy across the Gulf and Iraq, while İ-;-brahim Kalı-;-n has traveled to Damascus and Tehran. These visits, set against the backof an anticipated U.S. withdrawal from Syria, signal Turkey’s desire to fill the looming security vacuum, particularly concerning ISIS and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

Yet, Iran’s position remains shrouded in mystery. On the one hand, Tehran claims to be combating the PKK-;- on the other, reports suggest that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has, at times, provided the group with support. This contradiction places Turkey in a precarious situation, forcing it to decipher Iran’s true intentions. Can Iran be a reliable partner in this battle,´-or-is it merely playing a double game to serve its own strategic interests?

In the grand chessboard of alliances—where interests often outweigh ideologies—Turkey seeks to position itself as a bridge between East and West. Following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, Iran and Russia are maneuvering to consolidate their influence in the emerging Syrian landscape. Here, Turkey sees an opportunity to act as a mediator. Iran, facing hostility from the new U.S. administration, may need Turkey to de-escalate tensions with Washington. Given Turkey’s NATO membership, it could serve as a crucial intermediary in managing Tehran’s strained relations with the West.

But can Turkey offer enough to satisfy Iran? In the aftermath of Assad’s downfall, trust between Ankara and Tehran has eroded. Nevertheless, Iran has few alternatives to Turkey when it comes to maintaining dialogue with the West—particularly on nuclear negotiations and its role in Syria. Thus, despite their differences, cooperation remains a strategic necessity.

In the realm of conflict, where adversaries sometimes become allies, the Kurdish issue remains a formidable challenge for Turkey. Even if Ankara reaches an understanding with Tehran, other actors continue to support the PKK, further complicating the matter. Nonetheless, Turkey is striving to unify regional fronts against this challenge. Just months ago, Ankara convinced a Swedish delegation to withdraw its support for the PKK and held discussions with German officials on the same issue.

Meanwhile, there are emerging signs of change from Abdullah Ö-;-calan, the PKK’s imprisoned leader, who has expressed a willingness to dissolve the party. But can Ö-;-calan, who has been behind bars for years, truly impose his will on the scattered factions operating in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq? And could this be the beginning of the end for the long-standing conflict between Ankara and Kurdish fighters?

Ultimately, the Kurdish issue resembles a complex puzzle on the Middle Eastern chessboard, where interests intersect and strategies diverge, weaving a web of shifting alliances and fluctuating hostilities. Turkey, balancing power and diplomacy, seeks a path that merges dominance with compromise, while Iran, with its shrewd pragmatism, treads an uncertain course whose outcome remains obscure. In this theater, where interests precede principles, the Kurdish question may either bridge the gap between Ankara and Tehran´-or-deepen the rift between them.

Politics, much like a river, never flows in a straight line. It twists and turns with the contours of the land, expanding at times and receding at others, but never ceasing its movement. Yesterday’s enmity may transform into tomorrow’s alliance, and what seems stable today may soon be swept away by the winds of change. Amid these upheavals, the Kurdish issue stands as a testament to the fluidity of geopolitics—forever subject to the tides of power and ambition.

Yet, hope is not lost. Should the key players come to realize that true security and stability cannot be achieved without justice, and that a comprehensive and fair resolution to the Kurdish question is imperative, then—perhaps—darkness may lift, revealing a new dawn where the East breathes a peace it has not known for far too long.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1