핵심요약

• 이란-이스라엘 전쟁에서 쿠르드족은 자신의 의견 없이 지정학적 계산의 중심에 놓였습니다.
• 일부 분석가들은 쿠르드족의 역할 가능성을 과장했다고 주장하며, 쿠르드족 세력이 그들의 능력을 과대 포장했다고 비난했습니다.
• 이라크의 쿠르드 민족 운동은 사담 후세인의 안팔 캠페인, 화학무기 사용 및 대규모 학살을 포함하여 가장 파괴적인 장 중 하나에도 불구하고 쿠르드스탄 지역에서 사실상의 자치 행정부를 설립했습니다.
• 수십 년에 걸친 탄압과 외부의 배신에도 불구하고 쿠르드족은 일관된 강인함을 보여주었습니다.

도입

이 기사는 이란-이스라엘 전쟁에서 쿠르드족의 역할에 대한 전략적 오판을 분석하며, 투자자에게 중요한 지정학적 리스크와 기회를 제공합니다. 쿠르드족의 지속적인 강인성과 자치 행정부의 설립은 중동 지역의 정치적 안정성과 경제적 발전에 미치는 영향을 이해하는 데 필수적입니다.

본문 1: 쿠르드족의 지정학적 역할과 오판

기사에서 언급된 바와 같이, 쿠르드족은 이란-이스라엘 전쟁에서 자신의 의견 없이 지정학적 계산의 중심에 놓였습니다. 이는 쿠르드족이 전쟁의 결과에 미치는 영향을 고려하지 않은 전략적 오판을 보여줍니다. 쿠르드족의 자치 행정부의 설립과 지속적인 강인성은 중동 지역의 정치적 안정성에 중요한 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 따라서 투자자는 쿠르드족의 역할을 고려하여 중동 지역에서의 투자 전략을 수립해야 합니다.

본문 2: 쿠르드족의 역사적 강인성과 자치 행정부의 의미

이라크의 쿠르드 민족 운동은 사담 후세인의 안팔 캠페인, 화학무기 사용 및 대규모 학살을 포함하여 가장 파괴적인 장 중 하나에도 불구하고 쿠르드스탄 지역에서 사실상의 자치 행정부를 설립했습니다. 이는 쿠르드족의 역사적 강인성과 자치 행정부의 중요성을 보여줍니다. 쿠르드족의 자치 행정부의 설립은 중동 지역의 정치적 안정성과 경제적 발전에 긍정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 따라서 투자자는 쿠르드족의 자치 행정부의 의미를 고려하여 중동 지역에서의 투자 전략을 수립해야 합니다.

결론

이 기사는 이란-이스라엘 전쟁에서 쿠르드족의 역할에 대한 전략적 오판을 분석하며, 투자자에게 중요한 지정학적 리스크와 기회를 제공합니다. 쿠르드족의 지속적인 강인성과 자치 행정부의 설립은 중동 지역의 정치적 안정성과 경제적 발전에 미치는 영향을 이해하는 데 필수적입니다. 향후 쿠르드족의 역할과 자치 행정부의 발전 가능성이 주목됩니다.

---

원문 링크: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiV0FVX3lxTE1Gb092by05REZ6S0djdXVwRjlyQWtRc1d0SVJZcnNoR2xoeEV3NVdFa2VQNllPUGt1djhOTWdVQjdGY1oyb0xTUnpWSWpkUFVqbzVqWldpMA?oc=5

The strategic misjudgment of the Kurdish factor in Iran’s war - opinion - The Jerusalem Post

Since the most recent war between Iran and its regional proxies on one side and Israel and the United States on the other, the Kurds have once again been pulled into the center of geopolitical calculations, often without any input from the Kurds themselves. In this shifting strategic environment, Kurds in Iran and across the broader region have faced renewed pressure, suspicion, and in some cases collective punishment for dynamics they neither initiated nor controlled. At the outset of the US-Iran war, contradictory signals emerged from the White House regarding the Kurdish role in challenging the Ayatollah's regime. While Washington initially expressed rhetorical support for the Kurdish opposition, it later issued more cautious messages discouraging active Kurdish involvement in the conflict. Many analysts claimed that the potential for a Kurdish role was exaggerated, even accusing Kurdish forces of inflating their capacity and of misrepresenting both the internal structures of the Kurdish movement and political realities on the ground. Yet, treating the Kurds as momentary tactical tools, they ignored a far more durable truth: that the Kurdish political experience in the Middle East is characterized by historical resilience, adaptive governance, and repeated reinvention under conditions of extreme constraint.Despite intra-community political fragmentation, decades of repression across multiple states, and betrayal by external powers, the Kurds have consistently demonstrated stubborn fortitude. The Kurdish national movement in Iraq provides a striking example. The 1975 Algiers Agreement shifted geopolitical alignments, halting external support for the movement and leading to its collapse. Nevertheless, it quickly reemerged to establish a de facto autonomous administration in the Kurdistan region of Iraq – despite Saddam Hussein's Anfal campaign, which included the use of chemical weapons and mass atrocities and constitutes one of the most devastating chapters in Kurdish history. After 2003, the Kurdish national movement also played a pivotal role in the reshaping of post-Saddam Iraq, participating in the formation of a federal system despite immense regional opposition and complex geopolitical constraints.A similar pattern unfolded in Syria. Throughout decades of Ba'athist rule, Kurdish communities were systematically denied not only citizenship but even basic cultural recognition. When the Syrian civil war erupted, Kurdish forces initially lacked both institutional depth and material capacity compared to other armed factions. Yet over time, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – a Kurdish-led military coalition – became a key partner in the international campaign against ISIS, bearing significant responsibility in confronting one of the most violent transnational extremist groups of the modern era. Moreover, the Kurds established mechanisms of self-governance that have provided order and a variety of services to a diverse local population. Yet, shifting American priorities and persistent regional hostility – particularly from Turkey, along with allied jihadist proxies, but including also certain Arab tribes that sided with jihadist forces under the leadership of Ahmed al-Sharaa – have significantly constrained Kurdish capacity. A historical look at Kurdish mobilizationAs history has shown, however, Kurdish political organizations can evolve, stepping beyond the struggle for mere survival to become effective foundations for governance and security – both during wartime and within the chaotic political landscape of the Middle East that sometimes passes for peace.It is against this backdrop that the Kurdish national movement inside Iran may be understood not as marginal actors judged by their current military capacities and sizes but as a dynamic political force. External analysts often reduce the power of the Kurdish movement to a quantitative estimate of its current armed capacity, which is typically dismissed as a few thousand fighters based in border regions. However, this approach is misleading. History indicates that, thanks to experience gained through sustained conflict with the ruling regime, Kurdish armed forces can increase tenfold, mobilizing diffuse tribal Kurdish networks and cross-border ties. Thus, their political influence has historically extended beyond the immediately visible. This is clearly demonstrated by Kurdish mobilization in Rojava, other parts of the Kurdish homeland, and in the Kurdish diaspora. Likewise, Iranian Kurdish political organizations – including the PDK-I, PJAK, PAK, and Komala factions – have recently increased efforts to coordinate and to articulate a more unified Kurdish platform focused on democratic reform, decentralization, and a federal restructuring of the Iranian state. Thus, Kurdish mobilization, whether within Iran or in the diaspora, remains deeply woven into a broader social fabric that transcends military metrics in Iran and the Middle East.Again, one of the persistent analytical errors in external discourse is the tendency to treat Kurdish movements as auxiliary instruments in a broader regional contest. This perspective, whether originating in Western capitals or among regional powers, entirely ignores both Kurdish national aspirations and the ongoing struggle to realize them. The Kurdish national movement is neither a proxy force nor a passive actor. The Kurds, a collective comprising some 50 million people, have persisted in their fight to meet both national and civic objectives in countries that have colonized their homelands, outlawed their culture and their languages, and committed brutal atrocities against them. The potential Kurdish role in efforts to redefine Iran should be evaluated in light of this tenacity – not only in terms of their visible military capacities. Kurdish movements in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran have demonstrated, time and time again, the ability to survive in circumstances that would have demoralized and destroyed any weaker populations. A small spark of hope has the potential to ignite mass mobilization across economic, military, and political spheres. While their resilience alone does not guarantee success, Kurdish mobilization promises to leave a profound imprint on the geopolitical trajectory of the Middle East. Therefore, the Kurds are not peripheral to Middle Eastern politics but central to the transformation and future stability of the region. Any future regional order in which this reality is ignored will simply reproduce the old threats that have defined the past century. Therefore, regional and global powers engaged in the political transformation of the Middle Eastern order should recognize that the Kurds – one of the Middle East's most persistent and adaptive political forces – are not merely a tool to be used by others but dynamic political actors with agendas of their own.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

Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiV0FVX3lxTE1Gb092by05REZ6S0djdXVwRjlyQWtRc1d0SVJZcnNoR2xoeEV3NVdFa2VQNllPUGt1djhOTWdVQjdGY1oyb0xTUnpWSWpkUFVqbzVqWldpMA?oc=5