Iraqi Kurdistan Referendum Beats Drums of Ethnic War

Iraqi Kurds fly Kurdish flags during an event to urge people to vote in the upcoming independence referendum in Irbil. (AFP)
Iraqi Kurds fly Kurdish flags during an event to urge people to vote in the upcoming independence referendum in Irbil. (AFP)
TT

Iraqi Kurdistan Referendum Beats Drums of Ethnic War

Iraqi Kurds fly Kurdish flags during an event to urge people to vote in the upcoming independence referendum in Irbil. (AFP)
Iraqi Kurds fly Kurdish flags during an event to urge people to vote in the upcoming independence referendum in Irbil. (AFP)

Unprecedented tensions have been building between Iran, Turkey and Iraq and between the Iraqi Kurdistan Region’s staging of an independence referendum, the consequences of which may lead to a regional conflict against the Kurds.

The Kurds have been aspiring for their own country for a century and the first step to achieving that goal took place in 1992 when they garnered autonomous rule in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. They followed that up in 2005 by gaining federal privileges in the constitution and in 2008, then expanded their control in the region by reaching Kirkuk. Their power was further cemented by their success in combating ISIS in the region since 2014 and with western backing.

The referendum, scheduled for Monday, will likely awaken separatist sentiments in Kurds in Iran and Turkey, which is what Tehran and Ankara are trying to curb through diplomatic means. The Iraqi government in Baghdad has meanwhile warned that it may resort to military force to combat the independence vote. This has sparked fears of an ethnic conflict in Iraq after the defeat of ISIS, meaning the country may be headed to a new bloody phase, this time with nationalist undertones.

The Iraqi Kurdistan Region has stuck to its intention to hold the referendum on September 25, despite international and Iraqi demands to postpone it. This sent a message to the world that it will head towards independence regardless of the conditions and pressure.

“There is no longer time to postpone the process,” it stressed, especially after it denied that it had received a better alternative to the referendum that would appease the Kurdish people.

On June 7, all Kurdish parties, except the Change Movement and Kurdistan Islamic Group, had voted in favor for holding the referendum. The decision was made following failed negotiations between Iraq and Kurdistan on resolving pending issues between them.

Baghdad had rejected the referendum from the moment it was announced. This stance was also adopted by Iran, which had called on Irbil to cancel the vote. The United States, according to Kurdish and American officials, “does not stand against the referendum, but it believes that the timing is not right for it” because it affects the war against ISIS. This position was echoed by Russia, France and Britain, all of which had called on Kurdistan to postpone the vote, urging it to resolve problems with the Iraqi government within the framework of a unified Iraq.

For its part, the Kurdish government believes that the independence referendum is a right granted to it by the international community and Iraqi constitution. It also accuses Baghdad of violating, since 2005, 55 constitutional articles related to the Kurds and their rights. It said that Iraq has rejected partnership, marginalizing them from all aspects of the Iraqi state.

The Kurdish political leadership has alleged in its meetings with international delegations, which have intensified their visits to Irbil recently to persuade it to delay the vote, that Baghdad and its policies have pushed Kurds to pursue independence.

Head of the Kurdistan Socialist Democratic Party Mohammed Haci Mahmoud told Asharq Al-Awsat that the US, Britain, France and United Nations had proposed discussing the autonomous region’s affairs, including tackling the referendum at the UN, in exchange for postponing the vote for two years.

Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS, Brett McGurk, as well as the ambassadors of the US, Britain, France and the UN delegation in Iraq, had made this proposal to Kurdish President Masoud Barzani on Thursday, but he had rejected it. They warned that the region will have to suffer the consequences of this refusal. Kurdistan had however said that it will not turn away from dialogue and negotiations with Baghdad and the international community over gaining independence in the post-referendum phase.

Kurdistan Democratic Party MP Farhan Jawhar told Asharq Al-Awsat: “The idea of holding a referendum was born the moment the Iraqi government violated the rights of Kurdistan and its people. It then cut the region’s budget, as well as the salaries of employees, and it did not commit to the constitution. We therefore had no choice but the referendum.”

Asked if all Kurdish political parties backed the vote, he replied: “All the people of Kurdistan support this operation and the political parties as well, except the Change Movement and Kurdistan Islamic Group, who have asked that it be postponed. They added however that they will support the referendum if it is held.”

A statement for the higher referendum council issued on Thursday voiced its commitment to the independence vote, explaining that Kurdistan did not receive the “desired alternatives to it.” The referendum will therefore be held as scheduled.

Jawhar revealed that if the Baghdad government boycotted Kurdistan after the referendum and refused to negotiate with it, then Irbil will immediately announce the establishment of a Kurdish state. He ruled out however that Iraq or any other neighboring country would take such a measure against Kurdistan.

The independence vote will not only include the Kurdish regions that enjoy autonomous rule, but also disputed areas that are covered by article 140 of the Iraqi constitution between Kurdistan and the Iraqi government. The disputed regions include the Kirkuk province and a number of cities and provinces in Mosul, Diyala and Salaheddine. These areas enjoy Kurdish, Arab, Turkmen and Christian populations and they have been under Peshmerga control since 2003. The Iraqi Kurdistan Region had assured the disputed regions that the upcoming Kurdish state will not be a nationalist one, but it will be based on a civic basis.

Fears remain however among the Kurds in the autonomous region and the disputed areas over the eruption of problems and violence as a result of the threats of the Iraqi government and Shi’ite militias. They also fear that Tehran and Ankara may close their borders with Iraqi Kurdistan and impose an economic siege against it.

Kurdistan Islamic Union MP Haji Karwan told Asharq Al-Awsat: “We have not ruled out any possibility and we are prepared to deal with them. Some threats were made by some unofficial sides. We are dealing with the Iraqi government, not the Shi’ite militias, which we consider illegal.”

“Our borders are fortified by the Peshmerga and no force, whether Shi’ite or Sunni, will cross them,” he stressed.

It appears that the Kurdish referendum has allowed Iraq, Iran and Turkey to overcome their differences and they have been united in confronting the vote. They vowed in a joint statement released on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly earlier this week that they “will take measures against the Iraqi Kurdistan Region if it went ahead with the independence referendum.”

They expressed a concern that the vote may squander the gains achieved by Iraq against ISIS, warning that the referendum may spark new conflicts in the region that would be difficult to contain.

Dr. Sami Nader of the Levant Institute for Strategic Affairs in Lebanon said that the joint statement was like a “declaration of a cold war in the Middle East.”

He told Asharq Al-Awsat that the war will pit Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Russia against the US, Israel and Kurds in the region. Arab countries that have an interest in Turkey expanding its influence in the region and Iran limiting its power will also be involved in this cold war.

Iran and Turkey fear that the independence vote will lead their own Kurdish minorities to demand a similar vote. Russia has meanwhile adopted a cautious approach, while Saudi Arabia urged the Kurdish leadership to abandon the vote, warning of its consequences. The only regional power to support the referendum was Israel, which has long backed Kurdish goals because they represent a non-Arab buffer zone in the confrontation with Iran.

Lebanese researcher on regional and Iranian affairs, Dr. Talal Atrisi ruled out to Asharq Al-Awsat the possibility of the eruption of a direct military confrontation as a result of the Kurdish referendum. He also said that the vote for independence does not mean that independence will be automatically achieved because such a goal needs complicated procedures.

Kurds make up a fourth of Turkey’s population of 80 million. Kurds believe that they are the largest national population in the world that has been deprived of their right to establish a state after decades of displacement in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria in wake of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I.

Turkey currently hosts the largest Kurdish population and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) has since 1984 been leading a separatist movement there. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned before the UN on Tuesday Kurdish authorities against “ignoring the clear and firm Turkish stance” on the referendum.

Turkey is not alone in its fierce opposition to the establishment of a Kurdish state, but it is not clear whether it was willing to take the risk of making a tangible response to the vote.

Ankara’s stance meets that of Tehran, which has faced various rebellions led by Kurdish groups. Turkey and Iran have long cooperated in suppressing nationalist Kurdish movement.

Atrisi predicted that Ankara will likely take economic measures against Irbil. Turkey is in fact Iraqi Kurdistan’s closest ally in the region as it has allowed it to export oil through its territories and they both share an opposition to the PKK. Iraqi Kurdistan in turn has become one of the greatest importers of Turkish consumer products. Furthermore, the alliance between Turkey and Iraqi Kurds has allowed the former to expand militarily in Iraq and set up a military base in Bashiqa in the north.



Is Iran Pushing Houthis Toward Military Action Against Washington?

Houthis continue mobilization, fundraising, and declare combat readiness (AP) 
Houthis continue mobilization, fundraising, and declare combat readiness (AP) 
TT

Is Iran Pushing Houthis Toward Military Action Against Washington?

Houthis continue mobilization, fundraising, and declare combat readiness (AP) 
Houthis continue mobilization, fundraising, and declare combat readiness (AP) 

As US military movements intensify in the Middle East and the possibility of strikes on Iran looms, Yemen’s Houthi group has continued military preparations, mobilizing fighters and establishing new weapons sites.

The Houthi mobilization comes at a time when the group is widely viewed as one of Iran’s most important regional arms for retaliation.

Although the Iran-backed group has not issued any official statement declaring its position on a potential US attack on Iran, its leaders have warned Washington against any military action and against bearing full responsibility for any escalation and its consequences.

They have hinted that any response would be handled in accordance with the group’s senior leadership's assessment, after evaluating developments and potential repercussions.

Despite these signals, some interpret the Houthis’ stance as an attempt to avoid drawing the attention of the current US administration, led by President Donald Trump, to the need for preemptive action in anticipation of a potential Houthi response.

The Trump administration previously launched a military campaign against the group in the spring of last year, inflicting heavy losses.

Islam al-Mansi, an Egyptian researcher specializing in Iranian affairs, said Iran may avoid burning all its cards unless absolutely necessary, particularly given US threats to raise the level of escalation should any Iranian military proxies intervene or take part in a confrontation.

Iran did not resort to using its military proxies during its confrontation with Israel or during a limited US strike last summer because it did not perceive an existential threat, al-Mansi said.

That calculation could change in the anticipated confrontation, potentially prompting Houthi intervention, including targeting US allies, interests, and military forces, he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Al-Mansi added that although Iran previously offered, within a negotiating framework, to abandon its regional proxies, including the Houthis, this makes it more likely that Tehran would use them in retaliation, noting that Iran created these groups to defend its territory from afar.

Many intelligence reports suggest that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has discussed with the Houthis the activation of alternative support arenas in a potential US-Iran confrontation, including the use of cells and weapons not previously deployed.

Visible readiness

In recent days, Chinese media outlets cited an unnamed Houthi military commander as saying the group had raised its alert level and carried out inspections of missile launch platforms in several areas across Yemen, including the strategically important Red Sea region.

In this context, Yemeni political researcher Salah Ali Salah said the Houthis would participate in defending Iran against any US attacks, citing the group’s media rhetoric accompanying mass rallies, which openly supports Iran’s right to defend itself.

While this rhetoric maintains some ambiguity regarding Iran, it repeatedly invokes the war in Gaza and renews Houthi pledges to resume military escalation in defense of the besieged enclave’s population, Salah told Asharq Al-Awsat.

He noted that Iran would not have shared advanced and sophisticated military technologies with the Houthis without a high degree of trust in their ability to use them in Iran’s interest.

In recent months, following Israeli strikes on the unrecognized Houthi government and several of its leaders, hardline Houthi figures demonstrating strong loyalty to Iran have become more prominent.

On the ground, the group has established new military sites and moved equipment and weapons to new locations along and near the coast, alongside the potential use of security cells beyond Yemen’s borders.

Salah said that if the threat of a military strike on Iran escalates, the Iranian response could take a more advanced form, potentially including efforts to close strategic waterways, placing the Bab al-Mandab Strait within the Houthis’ target range.

Many observers have expressed concern that the Houthis may have transferred fighters and intelligence cells outside Yemen over recent years to target US and Western interests in the region.

Open options

After a ceasefire was declared in Gaza, the Houthis lost one of their key justifications for mobilizing fighters and collecting funds. The group has since faced growing public anger over its practices and worsening humanitarian conditions, responding with media messaging aimed at convincing audiences that the battle is not over and that further rounds lie ahead.

Alongside weekly rallies in areas under their control in support of Gaza, the Houthis have carried out attacks on front lines with Yemen’s internationally recognized government, particularly in Taiz province.

Some military experts describe these incidents as probing attacks, while others see them as attempts to divert attention from other activities.

In this context, Walid al-Abara, head of the Yemen and Gulf Studies Center, said the Houthis entered a critical phase after the Gaza war ended, having lost one of the main justifications for their attacks on Red Sea shipping.

As a result, they may seek to manufacture new pretexts, including claims of sanctions imposed against them, to maintain media momentum and their regional role.

Al-Abara told Asharq Al-Awsat that the group has two other options. The first is redirecting its activity inward to strengthen its military and economic leverage, either to impose its conditions in any future settlement or to consolidate power.

The second is yielding to international and regional pressure and entering a negotiation track, particularly if sanctions intensify or its economic and military capacity declines.

According to an assessment by the Yemen and Gulf Studies Center, widespread protests in Iran are increasingly pressuring the regime’s ability to manage its regional influence at the same pace as before, without dismantling its network of proxies.

This reality is pushing Tehran toward a more cautious approach, governed by domestic priorities and cost-benefit calculations, while maintaining a minimum level of external influence without broad escalation.

Within this framework, al-Abara said Iran is likely to maintain a controlled continuity in its relationship with the Houthis through selective support that ensures the group remains effective.

However, an expansion of protests or a direct military strike on Iran could open the door to a deeper Houthi repositioning, including broader political and security concessions in exchange for regional guarantees.


The Gaza Ceasefire Began Months Ago. Here’s Why the Fighting Persists

Israeli soldiers and tanks stand in Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border, in Israel, February 4, 2026. REUTERS/Amir Cohen
Israeli soldiers and tanks stand in Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border, in Israel, February 4, 2026. REUTERS/Amir Cohen
TT

The Gaza Ceasefire Began Months Ago. Here’s Why the Fighting Persists

Israeli soldiers and tanks stand in Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border, in Israel, February 4, 2026. REUTERS/Amir Cohen
Israeli soldiers and tanks stand in Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border, in Israel, February 4, 2026. REUTERS/Amir Cohen

As the bodies of two dozen Palestinians killed in Israeli strikes arrived at hospitals in Gaza on Wednesday, the director of one asked a question that has echoed across the war-ravaged territory for months.

“Where is the ceasefire? Where are the mediators?” Shifa Hospital's Mohamed Abu Selmiya wrote on Facebook.

At least 556 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli strikes since a US-brokered truce came into effect in October, including 24 on Wednesday and 30 on Saturday, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Four Israeli soldiers have been killed in Gaza in the same period, with more injured, including a soldier whom the military said was severely wounded when militants opened fire near the ceasefire line in northern Gaza overnight.

Other aspects of the agreement have stalled, including the deployment of an international security force, Hamas' disarmament and the start of Gaza's reconstruction. The opening of the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt raised hope of further progress, but fewer than 50 people were allowed to cross on Monday, The Associated Press said.

Hostages freed as other issues languish In October, after months of stalled negotiations, Israel and Hamas accepted a 20-point plan proposed by US President Donald Trump aimed at ending the war unleashed by Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack into Israel.

At the time, Trump said it would lead to a “Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace."

Hamas freed all the living hostages it still held at the outset of the deal in exchange for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel and the remains of others.

But the larger issues the agreement sought to address, including the future governance of the strip, were met with reservations, and the US offered no firm timeline.

The return of the remains of hostages meanwhile stretched far beyond the 72-hour timeline outlined in the agreement. Israel recovered the body of the last hostage only last week, after accusing Hamas and other militant groups of violating the ceasefire by failing to return all of the bodies. The militants said they were unable to immediately locate all the remains because of the massive destruction caused by the war — a claim Israel rejected.

The ceasefire also called for an immediate influx of humanitarian aid, including equipment to clear rubble and rehabilitate infrastructure. The United Nations and humanitarian groups say aid deliveries to Gaza's 2 million Palestinians have fallen short due to customs clearance problems and other delays. COGAT, the Israeli military body overseeing aid to Gaza, has called the UN's claims “simply a lie.”

Ceasefire holds despite accusations

Violence has sharply declined since the ceasefire paused a war in which more than 71,800 Palestinians have been killed, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. The ministry is part of the Hamas-led government and maintains detailed records seen as generally reliable by UN agencies and independent experts.

Hamas-led militants killed some 1,200 people in the initial October 2023 attack and took around 250 hostage.

Both sides say the agreement is still in effect and use the word “ceasefire” in their communications. But Israel accuses Hamas fighters of operating beyond the truce line splitting Gaza in half, threatening its troops and occasionally opening fire, while Hamas accuses Israeli forces of gunfire and strikes on residential areas far from the line.

Palestinians have called on US and Arab mediators to get Israel to stop carrying out deadly strikes, which often kill civilians. Among those killed on Wednesday were five children, including two babies. Hamas, which accuses Israel of hundreds of violations, called it a “grave circumvention of the ceasefire agreement.”

In a joint statement on Sunday, eight Arab and Muslim countries condemned Israel’s actions since the agreement took effect and urged restraint from all sides “to preserve and sustain the ceasefire.”

Israel says it is responding to daily violations committed by Hamas and acting to protect its troops. “While Hamas’ actions undermine the ceasefire, Israel remains fully committed to upholding it,” the military said in a statement on Wednesday.

“One of the scenarios the (military) has to be ready for is Hamas is using a deception tactic like they did before October 7 and rearming and preparing for an attack when it’s comfortable for them,” said Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani, a military spokesperson.

Some signs of progress

The return of the remains of the last hostage, the limited opening of the Rafah crossing, and the naming of a Palestinian committee to govern Gaza and oversee its reconstruction showed a willingness to advance the agreement despite the violence.

Last month, US envoy Steve Witkoff, who played a key role in brokering the truce, said it was time for “transitioning from ceasefire to demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.”

That will require Israel and Hamas to grapple with major issues on which they have been sharply divided, including whether Israel will fully withdraw from Gaza and Hamas will lay down its arms.

Though political leaders are holding onto the term “ceasefire” and have yet to withdraw from the process, there is growing despair in Gaza.

On Saturday, Atallah Abu Hadaiyed heard explosions in Gaza City during his morning prayers and ran outside to find his cousins lying on the ground as flames curled around them.

“We don’t know if we’re at war or at peace,” he said from a displacement camp, as tarpaulin strips blew off the tent behind him.


What to Know as Iran and US Set for Nuclear Talks in Oman

The flags of USA and Iran are displayed in Muscat, Oman, 25 April 2025. EPA/ALI HAIDER
The flags of USA and Iran are displayed in Muscat, Oman, 25 April 2025. EPA/ALI HAIDER
TT

What to Know as Iran and US Set for Nuclear Talks in Oman

The flags of USA and Iran are displayed in Muscat, Oman, 25 April 2025. EPA/ALI HAIDER
The flags of USA and Iran are displayed in Muscat, Oman, 25 April 2025. EPA/ALI HAIDER

Iran and the United States will hold talks Friday in Oman, their latest over Tehran's nuclear program after Israel launched a 12-day war on the country in June and Iran launched a bloody crackdown on nationwide protests.

US President Donald Trump has kept up pressure on Iran, suggesting America could attack Iran over the killing of peaceful demonstrators or if Tehran launches mass executions over the protests. Meanwhile, Trump has pushed Iran's nuclear program back into the frame as well after the June war disrupted five rounds of talks held in Rome and Muscat, Oman, last year.

Trump began the diplomacy initially by writing a letter last year to Iran’s 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to jump start these talks. Khamenei has warned Iran would respond to any attack with an attack of its own, particularly as the theocracy he commands reels following the protests.

Here’s what to know about Iran’s nuclear program and the tensions that have stalked relations between Tehran and Washington since the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

Trump writes letter to Khamenei Trump dispatched the letter to Khamenei on March 5, 2025, then gave a television interview the next day in which he acknowledged sending it. He said: “I’ve written them a letter saying, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing.’”

Since returning to the White House, the president has been pushing for talks while ratcheting up sanctions and suggesting a military strike by Israel or the US could target Iranian nuclear sites.

A previous letter from Trump during his first term drew an angry retort from the supreme leader.

But Trump’s letters to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in his first term led to face-to-face meetings, though no deals to limit Pyongyang’s atomic bombs and a missile program capable of reaching the continental US.

Oman mediated previous talks

Oman, a sultanate on the eastern edge of the Arabian Peninsula, has mediated talks between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff. The two men have met face to face after indirect talks, a rare occurrence due to the decades of tensions between the countries.

It hasn't been all smooth, however. Witkoff at one point made a television appearance in which he suggested 3.67% enrichment for Iran could be something the countries could agree on. But that’s exactly the terms set by the 2015 nuclear deal struck under former President Barack Obama, from which Trump unilaterally withdrew America. Witkoff, Trump and other American officials in the time since have maintained Iran can have no enrichment under any deal, something to which Tehran insists it won't agree.

Those negotiations ended, however, with Israel launching the war in June on Iran.

The 12-day war and nationwide protests Israel launched what became a 12-day war on Iran in June that included the US bombing Iranian nuclear sites. Iran later acknowledged in November that the attacks saw it halt all uranium enrichment in the country, though inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have been unable to visit the bombed sites.

Iran soon experienced protests that began in late December over the collapse of the country's rial currency. Those demonstrations soon became nationwide, sparking Tehran to launch a bloody crackdown that killed thousands and saw tens of thousands detained by authorities.

Iran’s nuclear program worries the West Iran has insisted for decades that its nuclear program is peaceful. However, its officials increasingly threaten to pursue a nuclear weapon. Iran now enriches uranium to near weapons-grade levels of 60%, the only country in the world without a nuclear weapons program to do so.

Under the original 2015 nuclear deal, Iran was allowed to enrich uranium up to 3.67% purity and to maintain a uranium stockpile of 300 kilograms (661 pounds). The last report by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran’s program put its stockpile at some 9,870 kilograms (21,760 pounds), with a fraction of it enriched to 60%.

US intelligence agencies assess that Iran has yet to begin a weapons program, but has “undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so.” Iranian officials have threatened to pursue the bomb.

Decades of tense relations between Iran and the US Iran was once one of the US’s top allies in the Mideast under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who purchased American military weapons and allowed CIA technicians to run secret listening posts monitoring the neighboring Soviet Union. The CIA had fomented a 1953 coup that cemented the shah’s rule.

But in January 1979, the shah, fatally ill with cancer, fled Iran as mass demonstrations swelled against his rule. The Iranian Revolution followed, led by Grand Khomeini, and created Iran’s theocratic government.

Later that year, university students overran the US Embassy in Tehran, seeking the shah’s extradition and sparking the 444-day hostage crisis that saw diplomatic relations between Iran and the US severed.

The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s saw the US back Saddam Hussein. The “Tanker War” during that conflict saw the US launch a one-day assault that crippled Iran at sea, while the US later shot down an Iranian commercial airliner that the US military said it mistook for a warplane.

Iran and the US have seesawed between enmity and grudging diplomacy in the years since, with relations peaking when Tehran made the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. But Trump unilaterally withdrew America from the accord in 2018, sparking tensions in the Mideast that persist today.