Israel Needs an Independent Kurdistan as a Strategic Partner

The Middle East is entering another period of strategic consolidation, and Israel should not assume that yesterday’s alignments will protect it tomorrow. Thus, Israel has a long-term strategic interest in the emergence of an independent, territorially coherent and politically united Kurdistan. Such a state would not merely add another friendly flag to the region. It could alter the balance of power across the northern Middle East, constrain several states that have historically opposed Kurdish and Israeli national aspirations, and create the basis for one of the region’s most consequential strategic partnerships.

The newly signed Mecca Joint Defence Agreement between Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan illustrates the direction of travel. Its public language is deliberately defensive and that is an armed attack on one signatory is to be treated as an attack on all, while Ankara has stated that the agreement “targets no country” and is open to other “brotherly countries.” Yet political analysis cannot end with the wording of a communiqué. It is not expected that such a pact to declare itself anti-Israel. However, if enlarged and institutionalised, it could develop into a Muslim security bloc whose combined military, financial and political weight would significantly narrow Israel’s strategic room for manoeuvre. Pakistan does not recognise Israel, and Türkiye’s relationship with Israel has deteriorated sharply. Even where Arab governments have normalised relations with Israel, normalisation has not erased the deeper regional antagonisms surrounding Israel and the unresolved Palestinian question. The Mecca pact therefore matters less for what it says today than for the strategic architecture it may become tomorrow.

Israel already confronts a demanding security environment such as Iran and its regional networks, missile and drone warfare, hostile non-state actors, fragile borders and the possibility that separate threats could become more coordinated. Israel’s technological and military superiority remains formidable, but superiority alone does not remove the need for strategic depth. In a region where coalitions can change rapidly, durable partners whose fundamental interests converge with Israel’s are strategic assets.

The Kurds are the most important unrealised partner in that equation. With a population estimated at more than 40 million across Türkiye, Iran, Iraq, Syria and beyond, they are widely regarded as the world’s largest stateless people. Their demographic weight, strategic geography, abundant resources and shared national identity give an independent Kurdistan the potential to become a major regional power.

A future Kurdistan should therefore be viewed not through the constrained circumstances of Kurds currently divided among Türkiye, Iran, Iraq and Syria, but as a sovereign state with its own strategic interests and choices. In that context, the long history of converging Kurdish and Israeli interests provides a strong foundation for a future partnership.

The logic remains compelling. An independent Kurdistan would change the territorial geometry of the Middle East. Türkiye, Iran, Iraq and Syria currently derive strategic depth, population, resources and internal reach from Kurdish-inhabited territories. A successful Kurdish state would redistribute some of that power and oblige neighbouring states to reconsider how they allocate military and political resources. This would not automatically produce peace; any major change to borders could provoke resistance, conflict and counter-balancing. But from a balance of power perspective, a sovereign Kurdistan could reduce the strategic freedom of several large regional actors while creating a new centre of power between the eastern Mediterranean and the Iranian plateau.

Kurdistan and Israel would also understand one another in a way few regional states could. Both are national projects shaped by experiences of vulnerability, contested legitimacy and the need for self-reliance. A Kurdish state surrounded by hostile or potentially hostile neighbours would confront a strategic reality Israel knows well, where survival requires constant military readiness, superior intelligence, strong alliances and the capacity to defend itself.

The military complementarity could be formidable. Israel brings advanced intelligence, airpower, cyber capability, missile defence, precision technology and one of the world’s most experienced military establishments. Kurdish forces, across different historical theatres, have repeatedly demonstrated resilience, difficult-terrain expertise, local intelligence and substantial ground-combat experience.  A politically united Kurdish state drawing on a population exceeding 40 million could transform fragmented demographic and military potential into sovereign strategic power.

Such an alliance would not make either country invulnerable, nor should serious analysis claim that no adversary could ever challenge it. The stronger argument is that an Israeli–Kurdish alliance, combining Israel’s technological, intelligence and military capabilities with Kurdistan’s manpower, geography and combat experience, would create a strategic combination difficult to counter.

For Israel, supporting the principle of an eventual independent Kurdistan should therefore be understood not as sentiment, opportunism, but as long-range balance of power strategy directed toward a future regional order. The boundaries created after the First World War are not immutable, and they have not produced durable stability. A sovereign Kurdistan could correct a historic denial of Kurdish self-determination while simultaneously generating a new strategic equilibrium. Israel should recognise that possibility early. In a region where hostile coalitions can emerge quickly, the most valuable and reliable strategic partner may be the state that does not yet exist.

Israel should therefore treat Kurdish independence not as a desirable possibility, but as a strategic necessity. Sympathy is not enough. Israel should actively support legitimate political and diplomatic movements seeking to establish an independent Kurdistan and make Kurdish statehood a clear strategic objective. Supporting its emergence is not simply good policy for Israel; it is an investment in Israel’s future balance of power, strategic depth and long-term security.

…………..

Dr Hussein Tahiri completed his PhD in Political Science at the University of Melbourne in 2001 and is an Adjunct Associate Professor at Victoria University, Australia. He is a commentator on Middle Eastern and Kurdish affairs.