“Iraq without the Kurds”: Political and economic cost of rupture
Shafaq News
By Ali Hussein Feyli
An “Iraq without the Kurds” would not represent merely a geographic or political shift; beyond the deep historical bonds, it would mean the collapse of economic, security, and social ties. The consequences would be swift, comprehensive, and cross-border. It cannot be claimed that the crisis between Baghdad and Erbil is the making of one side alone.
Baghdad understands that the Kurdish people’s vision is a blend of national aspirations, legal rights, and identity. Any solution must therefore take these dimensions into account.
Those with a pragmatic outlook, concerned primarily with livelihoods and stability, expect authorities to ease tensions rather than obstruct efforts to resolve long-standing structural crises whose wounds have remained open for years. Otherwise, future generations will inherit it.
The identity- and citizenship-related dimensions of an “Iraq without the Kurds” scenario would either transform social relations or eliminate them altogether. What is being practiced today is a policy of ignoring rights and suspending justice, one that would impose a long-term social and moral cost that cannot be repaired.
The defining question is whether Iraqis seek to revive their shared history in an inclusive manner, or allow moments of political recklessness that cross “sacred lines” to burn away a collective human legacy and the values of citizenship.
At a time when even relations between two neighbors require a long-term strategy, why does no Iraqi minister or official “among those who shape disastrous outcomes” recognize that the current situation poses an imminent threat? This type of conduct and policy is what ultimately determines the future of Iraqis.
The loss of any part of Iraq’s geography would not simply alter borders; its consequences would be accelerating and extremely costly. Rational policymaking in the face of such risks would not spare the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Planning, or any related institution from accountability.
To mitigate the damage of a scenario involving the loss of the people and geography of Kurdistan, central decision-making in Baghdad requires a technical, not tactical, approach; financial justice rather than a “ministry of cutting off livelihoods”; and careful planning instead of concealed mismanagement.
Openness free from fanaticism is a necessary prior intention, as the prevailing trajectory in this country is toward deeper polarization, the real danger of rupture, and the expansion of further crises.
Proponents of such ideas futilely promote the notion that “lifting injustice” can be achieved through forced displacement and transferring the inhabitants of one area to another. In reality, reversing this course is what rebuilds trust and creates an inclusive identity among the country’s components. Every step that lacks rationality will carry a long-term cost and generate new crises. A carefully considered political decision can determine the path toward stability or collapse.
Attempting a solution requires alignment in will and public decision-making to prevent the accumulation of factors that fuel political instability, radicalization, rising protests, and further social fragmentation among the country’s components. This process demands legal and political measures, not coercive and arbitrary actions.
This article was originally written in Arabic.
