Afrasianet - Elhami Meligi - The Kurdish geography is at the heart of one of the world's most sensitive regions: between Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria. Any military movement within this space will not remain a local event, but could quickly turn into a series of regional interactions.
Just causes are not only defeated by oppression, but when they are hijacked and used in the wars of others. Reports of Kurdish groups arming an uprising inside Iran raise a serious question: Who is pushing the Kurdish cause into the game of empires?
Not all just causes are defeated by force, some are defeated when they are kidnapped and thrown into the game of empires.
This is the real danger that threatens the Kurdish cause today, with Western media reports circulating about discussions related to arming Iranian Kurdish groups with the aim of igniting an uprising inside Iran.
The issue here is not just a new development in the context of the conflict between Washington and Tehran, but something much deeper: the moral and political place of the Kurdish cause itself within the historical consciousness of the peoples of the Middle East.
The Kurdish issue, at its core, is neither a project of war nor an instrument of geopolitical conflict, but rather the cause of a people seeking to recognize its existence and its cultural and political rights within a common regional space. But the region's recent history reveals a more complex truth: the issue has repeatedly found itself at the center of the great-power game, with peoples' demands sometimes turning into leverage in empire conflicts.
And therein lies the real danger.
Empires do not enter the conflicts of the Middle East out of the defense of the rights of peoples, but out of the management of the balance of power. When a just cause is called into this arena, they risk losing part of their original meaning, because liberation cannot be born from the womb of hegemony.
Any talk of arming Kurdish groups in order to mobilize a new front inside Iran puts the Kurdish issue to a very sensitive political and moral test. Such a scenario may provide some tactical gains in a moment of intense conflict, but it carries with it an even greater risk: turning the Kurdish issue into an instrument of international conflict in the eyes of the region's peoples.
Once that happens, the moral capital of the cause begins to erode.
The Kurds, like the Arabs, Persians, Turks, and the rest of the Middle East, are part of a single historical fabric, and any path that puts them in the position of instrument in major power conflicts will not only create a crisis with states, but may also open a deep rift with societies.
Here in particular, the paradox is evident with the intellectual vision put forward by the Kurdish leader and thinker Abdullah Ocalan.
In his writings on the Middle East, Ocalan repeatedly stressed that one of the most serious ills in the region is dependence on external powers, stressing that imperialist powers do not solve the problems of peoples, but reproduce them in new forms.
The concept of a democratic nation has therefore been put forward as an alternative horizon to the conflicts that have torn the Middle East apart. A democratic nation, as envisioned by Ocalan, is not a new state project or a new border map, but a formula for coexistence among the peoples of the region based on mutual recognition and cultural and political pluralism.
In other words:
The Kurdish cause cannot be won if it turns into an extension of the conflicts of empires.
Kurdish geography is at the heart of one of the world's most sensitive regions: between Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria. Any military action within this space will not remain a local event, but could quickly turn into a series of regional interactions whose consequences are difficult to control.
Recent history provides many examples of how Kurdish regions are becoming arenas of conflict between different powers, as international calculations intersect with regional tensions to produce spirals of violence that are paid for by the local community first.
Therefore, the real question that this moment poses is not a military question, but a political and moral question at the same time:
Are the Kurds meant to be a bridge for coexistence between the peoples of the region, or an arena for the wars of others?
Throughout its history, the Middle East has never known a shortage of armies, fleets, and military alliances. What it has always known is a surplus of foreign projects that pass through it like storms and then go on.
But the peoples who live above this land cannot cross with them.
Therefore, the Kurdish issue today, like many issues in the region, stands at a clear crossroads:
Either it turns into a card in the conflicts of empires, called when the battles intensify, and then folded when the need is over.
Or it will remain true to its original spirit: a cause of rights and justice within a regional space that is looking for a new formula for coexistence.
Abdullah Ocalan was clear when he warned of the illusion of salvation through imperialist powers, stressing that the Middle East will only find its way to stability by building a network of coexistence among its peoples, not by turning them into tools in external conflicts.
The question that will continue to haunt this historic moment is simple in its formulation. Deep in its results:
Will the Kurds remain part of the democratic nation's project based on coexistence among the peoples of the region?
Or will they be pushed back into the role that empires have perfected throughout history:
The role of the tool in a war whose owners do not have a decision or an end?
Just cases may falter... But it really loses its soul when it turns into cards in the game of empires.
