Political analysis by Ibrahim Mustafa (Kaban)
Analytical Introduction: From Regional Upheaval to Ankara’s Confusion
The transformations unfolding across the Middle East since October 7 are not merely a military escalation between Israel and resistance groups, but rather the opening of a new chapter in the regional balance of power. The strategic map of the region is being redrawn with dramatic speed. Three major shifts have defined this moment: the erosion of Hezbollah’s offensive capacity under growing Israeli pressure, the contraction of Iranian influence in Syria and Iraq, and the collapse of Hamas’s combat capabilities within Gaza.
These developments have created a vacuum among the non-state actors that once served as the operational arms of the Iranian axis. This vacuum, in turn, has paved the way for a new reading of regional power dynamics—especially the potential role of Kurdish political and military forces as organized and relatively stable actors.
Ankara, fully aware of these transformations and their connection to the broader project of reshaping the Middle East under new security parameters, now faces a dual dilemma. On one hand, it recognizes that Kurdish forces—well-organized, disciplined, and politically structured—are the most prepared to fill the coming power gap. On the other, Turkey fears that any Israeli or Western engagement with Kurdish entities could directly threaten its geopolitical posture and internal security architecture.
The transformations unfolding across the Middle East since October 7 are not merely a military escalation between Israel and resistance groups, but rather the opening of a new chapter in the regional balance of power. The strategic map of the region is being redrawn with dramatic speed. Three major shifts have defined this moment: the erosion of Hezbollah’s offensive capacity under growing Israeli pressure, the contraction of Iranian influence in Syria and Iraq, and the collapse of Hamas’s combat capabilities within Gaza.
These developments have created a vacuum among the non-state actors that once served as the operational arms of the Iranian axis. This vacuum, in turn, has paved the way for a new reading of regional power dynamics—especially the potential role of Kurdish political and military forces as organized and relatively stable actors.
Ankara, fully aware of these transformations and their connection to the broader project of reshaping the Middle East under new security parameters, now faces a dual dilemma. On one hand, it recognizes that Kurdish forces—well-organized, disciplined, and politically structured—are the most prepared to fill the coming power gap. On the other, Turkey fears that any Israeli or Western engagement with Kurdish entities could directly threaten its geopolitical posture and internal security architecture.
The Turkish Fear: A Shift in the Balance of Power
Historically, Turkey has approached the Kurdish question through a purely security lens, perceiving it as a domestic threat to the unity and identity of the state. Yet the post–October 7 developments have complicated this perception. The potential rapprochement between Israel and Kurdish entities is no longer a distant hypothesis—it is an emerging possibility in a regional environment where Israel seeks reliable, locally grounded partners to contain Iranian influence.
For Ankara, such a scenario is a nightmare. It would not only challenge its dominance in northern Syria and Iraq but also undermine its long-standing narrative of being the West’s indispensable bulwark against Iran and Russia. As Washington and Tel Aviv reconsider their regional partnerships, Turkey’s leverage begins to wane, while the Kurds emerge as viable, pragmatic, and militarily capable partners in the new order taking shape.
The Delayed Peace: Turkey’s Strategic Deception
Confronted with this shifting reality, Ankara resorted to a familiar yet more sophisticated tactic: projecting an image of readiness for “peace” with the Kurds—both domestically and regionally—while initiating indirect contacts through political and religious intermediaries.
However, this initiative was never about genuine reconciliation. It was, in essence, a strategic delaying maneuver, designed to place the Kurds on a “waiting list” until the Israeli storm passes and the contours of the emerging regional order become clear.
Time, from Ankara’s perspective, is a weapon. Every week or month that passes without a clear Kurdish–Israeli alignment gives Turkey breathing space to reposition itself within the new geopolitical framework. The rhetoric of “domestic peace” thus functions as a façade—an attempt to absorb Western pressure and to preempt international recognition of the Kurdish question as an integral part of regional security, rather than an internal Turkish issue.
Beyond the Deception: Turkey’s Return to the Logic of Control
In practical terms, there are no signs that Turkey is serious about peace. The continuous bombardment of the Autonomous Administration regions in North and East Syria, the systematic political arrests within Turkey, and the refusal to engage with legitimate Kurdish parties all indicate a strategy of containment and exhaustion rather than reconciliation.
As Israel’s military and intelligence influence expands across the region, Ankara’s fear deepens that any strategic coordination between the Kurds and Israel could empower Kurdish political ambitions in Syria, Iraq, and even Turkey itself. Consequently, the peace rhetoric serves merely as a temporary cover to buy time and deflect attention, while Ankara doubles down on its efforts to fragment and weaken Kurdish political structures.
Conclusion: Between Deception and Strategic Deadlock
Turkey’s deception—placing the Kurds on the waiting list—is symptomatic of a deeper strategic impasse. The Turkish state can no longer confront the structural changes reshaping the Middle East with its old tools of denial and suppression. On one hand, it cannot ignore the growing weight of Kurdish forces as legitimate regional actors; on the other, it fears acknowledging them, since doing so would mark the end of its century-old policy of ethnic exclusion.
What Ankara fails to grasp is that the coming phase of Middle Eastern politics will not tolerate the logic of postponement. The emerging order—shaped in the wake of October 7—will rest on durable balances, not temporary bargains. And the Kurds, by virtue of their geography, organization, and political coherence, will inevitably be part of that balance, whether Ankara accepts it or not.
Ultimately, the Turkish deception will succeed only to the extent that the Kurds allow themselves to remain hostages of waiting. Should Kurdish actors instead choose proactive engagement and build independent strategic understandings with international partners, Turkey will find itself confronting a new reality—one that cannot be obscured by promises of “delayed peace” or the illusion of managed negotiations.
