At a conference in London organized by the Jewish-Kurdish network, I joined a panel discussing the emerging strategic architecture of the Middle East.
My argument was that the region has changed significantly since October 7 in at least three ways: local conflicts have become increasingly interconnected with regional security; the boundary between gray-zone competition and direct interstate confrontation has blurred; and, perhaps most importantly, states and non-state actors are reassessing old assumptions about alliances, deterrence, and security cooperation.
For the Kurds, there is an important lesson from decades of engagement with Western powers: too often, they have been treated as security instruments, discovered during wars and crises, then forgotten when the crisis ends and diplomacy begins.
There is another dimension that deserves greater attention. Kurdish society is one of the Middle East’s most religiously diverse communities. The majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslims, but Kurds also belong to a wide range of other religious traditions, including Shi'a and Alevi, Yazidism, Christianity, and Judaism. Today, hundreds of thousands of Israelis trace their Kurdish Jewish heritage to Kurdistan, while families of Kurdish origin can also be found among Palestinians. This religious diversity within Kurdish society reflects a long history of different faiths and communities living alongside one another and is important when considering the role Kurds could play in a more pluralistic regional order.
This is also relevant to discussions about Kurdish-Israeli relations. Despite widespread assumptions, there is no formal strategic alliance between Israel and the Kurds. But if Israel seeks to build a meaningful partnership with Kurdish actors in this changing regional order, it should not repeat the old Western approach.
A durable partnership cannot be based on viewing the Kurds simply as useful partners during moments of regional confrontation. It must be built as a long-term relationship based on mutual interests, political recognition, and shared strategic goals.
The Middle East’s strategic architecture is changing. The question is whether policies toward the Kurds will change with it.