Kurdish militias were the backbone of the American-led campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, where armed factions executed the majority of the ground fighting that ultimately helped regain territorial control. Praising the Kurds as the most reliable partner to the US in the region, the alliance was solidified after Trump’s announcement of ISIS defeat in 2019 and held up until recent clashes between the Kurds and the new interim government in Syria (which also garnered US Government support). The US-sponsored Kurdish presence in the Syrian north is also conveniently located by the oil wells of Al Hasakah, positioning the group as a central actor in American security dynamics in the region.

Despite cooperation on the ground, Kurdish forces have been repeatedly left hanging by the United States during regional power struggles and diplomatic autonomy efforts—most recently seen in the Syrian government’s takeover of the northeast. Months of integration talks after the fall of Assad led to shaky agreements accented by sporadic fighting between Kurds in the SDF and the Syrian military over political autonomy that ultimately led to the defeat. Defending the new status quo in Damascus, US Envoy Tom Barrack quickly announced the expiration of the SDF’s original purpose, pushing the Kurds to integrate after losing a significant amount of territory. The US also abandoned the group in 2019 after withdrawing American troops from northern Syria, leaving the Kurds vulnerable to attacks from Turkey immediately after.

The historic lack of support prompted a special message from the official Kurdistan ‘X’ account this month emphasizing that the group has “learned from the past” and wants a partnership based on “real guarantees.” The above pattern cultivated a perception that Western alliances are transactional and temporary, as the message indirectly addresses the repeated letdowns, implying that any future aid would require concrete delivery of American promises. Since then, reports indicating that the CIA has armed Iranian Kurdish groups within Iran have been released, despite outright denial from the Trump Administration. In reality, Kurdish fighters are a significant pressure point that can influence stability within their own enclaves and border security dynamics in Syria, Iraq, and Iran. A recent declaration from Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK) Co-Chair refusing to “fight other powers’ wars” demonstrates the group’s newfound understanding of its power, signaling a growing skepticism among the scattered population.

Kurdish leaders in Syria’s northern region who’ve worked with the US on a long-term basis since the fight against ISIS, have openly warned Iranian Kurds not to join US-backed operations in Iran, claiming it’s another trap as seen in previous historical betrayals. This recognition of a western reliance on local fighters to preserve their own military resources reminds us why Kurdish leadership originally said ‘yes’ to previous invitations, and their main objectives: Local autonomy and globally-recognized defined borders.

The Kurdish influence does not only lie in military capability, but the political choice—to refuse or participate—which could shape the entire trajectory of the Iran conflict. By withholding support, the Kurds could force external powers like the United States to reconsider intervention, while limiting other escalation pathways that could prevent large-scale conventional war and save innocent lives. If they decide to participate, recruits from their regional counterparts in Syria and Iraq could strengthen the fight against the Islamic regime while expanding the conflict to neighboring countries. This subtle yet powerful form of leverage sheds light on the blatant flaw in Western Middle East policy: its persistent overreliance on proxies it doesn’t fully comprehend or control. Whether or not Iranian Kurds mobilize for the US, the West’s repeated cycle of intervention and abandonment erodes trust and undermines future partnerships—which calls for a fundamental rethink of its crisis strategy.

The war with Iran may be shaped less by American and Israeli airstrikes and more by decisions made within Kurdish leadership circles across various Middle East countries. The Kurds have learned their lesson on the costs of serving as replaceable proxies who execute Western interests, and now possess strategic leverage to shape one of the most decisive conflicts yet. Who knew the greatest power of a proxy isn’t in what it does—but in its ability to refuse?

The post The Kurdish Role in the Iran-Israel War is Larger Than We Think appeared first on Free the People.

The New START arms-reduction pact, an Arctic nuclear treaty between the US and Russia expired on February 5, sparking Trump’s refusal to extend the pact, which leaves both Washington and Moscow free to expand their nuclear arsenals. Both appear poised to take this controversial step, especially with Putin’s recent signaled desire to rebuild diplomatic ties with European states. This emerging nuclear freedom may explain the American rush for an immediate Greenland deal, keeping the island in the geopolitical spotlight far longer than expected.

High Stakes

Renewed US interest in acquiring Greenland is more than just about national security; the island has become the main arena in the race for Arctic power between its adversaries—specifically Russia and China. It holds crucial access to the melting Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route, which wrap around the entire country. Whoever controls these trade routes essentially controls all of Arctic shipping. Rare earth elements (ideal for tech and defense systems), precious metals, and rumored oil reserves also incentivize the United States’ expansion of military bases in the region.

In January, NATO Top Commander Gen. Alexus Grynkewich affirmed the Arctic as the newest war zone, suspecting the Russian bases in the north to have deployed armed submarines in the surrounding seas. Whether his remarks are an attempt to unify NATO after Trump’s inflammatory comments or a desire to avoid a repeat of the Cuban Missile Crisis in our northern waters, the fact remains: the only safeguard the US would have from incoming Russian submarines in the Atlantic is the Faslane base in Scotland. Chinese and Russian equipment have crossed the American Exclusive Zone near Alaska in the past, so the concern is valid.

Arctic geopolitics are intertwined with the stipulations of the New START treaty, specifically signed to reduce overall nuclear arms production by the US and Russia in 2010, and complete with at least 18 on-site inspections for both parties to ensure compliance. The treaty’s end could mean massive accumulation of nuclear power around Greenland in the near future—whether through a revival of Camp Century, a secret US military base powered by a portable nuclear reactor under the island’s ice, or further build up of Russia’s Northern Fleet. Both actions would be clear attempts to deter either country’s growing influence in the neighborhood, and the newfound legality of stockpiling weapons would raise the risk of regional escalation even further.

Why the Rush?

Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner’s positive meeting with Putin last week centered on Ukraine, but can also be interpreted as a step in the right direction for the two countries, resulting in plans for a future three-way conversation in the UAE. The year-long rush to make a territorial deal with Russia is strategic and may include presenting Putin with an agreement he cannot refuse—alongside additional Arctic or nuclear stipulations, which would be a responsible angle for Trump to take at this point. Acquiring Greenland is less about the island itself—its rare mineral deposits and billions of barrels of oil aside—and more about American positioning before a potential increase of nuclear weapons in the Arctic. Putin’s added urgency of regaining diplomatic power with the EU before the deadline suggests the Kremlin is also nervous about its rival’s weapons production.

Nuclear Implications

The fight for the north has quickly transformed into a game of Risk, with America’s newfound interest in Alberta confirming the Arctic as a long-term flashpoint for the heavily anticipated World War III. America’s goal of establishing a military presence in Greenland won’t dissipate anytime soon given its added advantage of deterring China’s influence in the region. Its aspirations for nuclear and mineral influence only increases potential for future conflicts—and a long-term impact on US-Russian relations in the broader global order.

During his Davos speech, President Trump stepped back from previous threats of tariffs and military force in Greenland. He would be wise to continue in this way, adopting a more measured and strategic approach to Arctic diplomacy over outlandish threats to force transactional purchases. Negotiations should also emphasize nuclear treaty extension, transparency and regional cooperation to avoid global catastrophe. Though Trump has made it clear that military expansion in Greenland is the goal, the global debate about its sovereignty is merely a symptom of a much larger problem—a looming nuclear deadline.

The post Greenland’s Crisis Isn’t Sovereignty, It’s Nuclear Deadlines appeared first on Free the People.