Report prepared by: Geostrategic Studies Team
Since Donald Trump’s initial presidency in 2016, his foreign policy regarding the Kurds and Turkey has been a topic of ongoing debate and analysis. Should he win the presidency again, questions arise about whether his approach toward the Kurds might change, especially given regional geopolitical shifts and evolving U.S. interests.
Trump and the Kurds: A History of Tensions and Fragile Alliances
During his first term, Trump’s administration followed an unpredictable approach toward the Kurds. In the fight against ISIS, the United States relied heavily on the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), with the Kurds playing a pivotal role in combatting ISIS and emerging as key U.S. allies. Yet, Trump’s sudden 2018 decision to withdraw American troops from Syria signaled, in Kurdish eyes, an abandonment of their cause. This decision, though partially revised, underscored Trump's "America First" approach, in which he viewed U.S. presence through the lens of direct American economic and security interests, irrespective of local alliances.
Potential Trump Policies Toward the Kurds if Reelected
If Trump returns to office, he might adopt a similar approach, albeit with greater flexibility. His primary focus would likely remain on “reducing U.S. military interventions” and emphasizing the direct protection of U.S. interests. Consequently, Trump may continue offering limited support to the Kurds for specific military purposes but without any long-term commitments or substantial security guarantees.
On the other hand, he might seek to avoid direct conflict with Turkey, a longstanding U.S. ally within NATO, by reiterating the importance of balancing relations with both Kurds and Turkey. Such an approach aligns with his isolationist stance aimed at scaling back American presence in conflict zones.
Trump vs. Biden on Kurdish Policy
Trump's policies toward the Kurds diverge sharply from those of Biden. Biden has been more flexible in his approach toward local forces in Syria, viewing U.S. obligations toward Kurdish allies as both moral and strategic. Although Biden did not take drastic measures to protect Kurds from Turkish threats, his administration sought to contain Turkey and diplomatically encouraged it to respect Kurdish rights.
By contrast, Trump’s return could mean a less supportive stance on Kurdish rights and political status, with a transactional perspective on international alliances. He is likely to adopt a pragmatic approach, aiming to maintain a regional power balance without engaging in local conflicts.
Trump and Turkey: Continued Tensions or a New Strategy?
Trump maintained a unique, often complex relationship with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Despite diverging interests on issues like Turkey’s purchase of the Russian S-400 missile defense system, Trump generally avoided direct confrontation with Turkey, sometimes resorting to private negotiations with Erdogan.
If Trump returns to office, this personalized approach toward Turkey could persist. Rather than imposing severe sanctions or taking a strict stance on issues such as Kurdish rights or military alliances, Trump may work with Turkey on an economic and transactional basis, relying on the deal-making strategies he is known for. In this context, it’s plausible that he would continue allowing Turkey limited operations against the SDF, as long as such actions don’t disrupt core U.S. strategic interests.
In Conclusion: The Future of the Kurds under a Trump Presidency
In summary, Trump’s policies toward the Kurds, should he regain the presidency, are likely to be pragmatic and less committed. His primary focus would be on reducing U.S. military presence while prioritizing immediate American interests, even if it comes at the expense of some local allies. Conversely, he would likely maintain a working relationship with Turkey, potentially encouraging it to address Kurdish concerns on its terms, as long as it doesn’t destabilize the broader regional balance.
In conclusion, a second Trump presidency would likely bring a more pragmatic and transactional approach to the Kurdish issue, one that is less anchored in long-term commitments or ideological alliances. His focus would remain on reducing U.S. involvement in the Middle East while concentrating on core American interests, even if that meant a more limited and conditional engagement with Kurdish forces.
Trump’s likely approach to Turkey, however, could further complicate the situation for the Kurds.
His willingness to allow Turkey latitude in handling regional Kurdish forces would underscore his preference for a non-confrontational relationship with Ankara.
This could mean a continued or even heightened Turkish military pressure on Kurdish areas, with Trump focusing primarily on keeping Ankara aligned on broader NATO interests and U.S.-Turkey economic cooperation.
For the Kurds, this scenario suggests a complex landscape in which they might find their position increasingly precarious without the steady U.S. support seen in the past. They may have to rely more on regional partnerships or recalibrate their political and security strategies to navigate the shifting dynamics. With a Trump administration potentially focused on short-term interests, the Kurds might face the challenge of redefining their alliances and diplomatic approaches to ensure they can maintain a level of security and political influence amid the evolving U.S.-Turkey-Kurdish triangle.
With these shifting dynamics, Kurdish leaders would likely need to adopt a more cautious and adaptable strategy. They may seek to strengthen ties with other regional powers, such as Russia or certain European nations, to balance their dependence on the United States. Additionally, the Kurds might pursue increased political negotiations with the Syrian government or other neighboring states, aiming to secure some degree of autonomy and protection independently of U.S. guarantees.
In northern Syria, particularly in areas controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the Kurds may need to adopt a defensive stance to prepare for any potential Turkish incursions that could arise under Trump’s more permissive approach toward Ankara. At the same time, Kurdish forces would likely continue their counter-terrorism cooperation with U.S. forces as long as there is an American military presence in the region, though they might approach this cooperation with greater caution, aware that U.S. policy could shift abruptly.
In Iraq, where the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) has long-standing ties with Washington, a second Trump administration might still support Kurdish interests, particularly in the fight against ISIS. However, any support would likely be conditional on direct U.S. interests and not necessarily involve deeper commitments to Kurdish political autonomy.
Trump’s transactional approach could lead to a focus on economic agreements, such as oil exports, while urging the KRG to avoid actions that would destabilize relations with Baghdad or other neighboring states.
Strategic Implications and Broader Regional Impact
Trump’s potential return to the White House would not only impact U.S.-Kurdish relations but could also reshape alliances across the Middle East. With Trump’s likely emphasis on reducing military commitments and avoiding prolonged conflicts, regional powers—especially Turkey, Iran, and Russia—might feel emboldened to expand their influence in Kurdish areas, either through diplomatic means or increased military pressure.
Turkey, in particular, would likely view Trump’s stance as a green light to intensify operations against Kurdish forces near its borders. This could lead to a shift in the regional power balance, with Turkey seeking to establish a “buffer zone” in northern Syria to reduce the influence of Kurdish forces affiliated with the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party). For the Kurds, this could mean a heightened state of vulnerability, necessitating greater efforts to either diplomatically engage with Turkey or seek alternative alliances to counter Turkish actions.
Conclusion: Navigating an Uncertain Future
In summary, a second Trump presidency would likely bring a more pragmatic, interest-driven approach to U.S.-Kurdish relations, where the Kurds could face less direct support and greater pressure to adapt to the realities of a shifting U.S. foreign policy. Trump’s likely prioritization of economic and strategic interests over long-term alliances could lead to greater Kurdish dependence on regional actors, which might not always align with Kurdish aspirations for autonomy.
Facing an uncertain future, Kurdish leaders may need to rethink their strategies, emphasizing diplomacy, regional partnerships, and self-reliance to navigate a complex geopolitical landscape. As they work to protect their territories and maintain political influence, the Kurds’ ability to adapt and negotiate will be crucial in managing the risks and challenges posed by shifting U.S. priorities and Turkey’s growing regional assertiveness.
