The geopolitical stage is set for a familiar, and some might say troubling, drama. As the conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran enters its fifth day, multiple media reports indicate the United States is in talks with opposition Kurdish forces. The goal? To arm them and foment an uprising within Iran. It’s a move straight from a well-worn playbook, but one that analysts are already warning could be a dangerous miscalculation.
According to CNN, citing Kurdish and US officials, the Trump administration is actively discussing the possibility of providing weapons to these groups. As of Wednesday, no formal deals had been struck, but the intent is clear. The aim, as US officials described to CNN, would be to use Kurdish fighters to stretch Iranian forces thin, potentially allowing popular protests to gain momentum or even helping them seize control of northern Iran to create a buffer zone for Israel.
The Calls and the Calculations
The diplomatic maneuvering appears to be underway. CNN reported that President Trump spoke with Mustafa Hijri, head of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (KDPI), on Tuesday. A Kurdish official told the network that Kurdish groups in Iran are set to participate in ground operations in western Iran in the coming days.
This follows earlier reports from Axios that, on Sunday, Trump also spoke with two key Kurdish leaders from Iraq: Masoud Barzani of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and Bafel Talabani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). Talabani has confirmed the call, with the PUK stating it was an opportunity to discuss "joint support for building a strong partnership." Axios also reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been lobbying for this US-Kurdish connection for months, leveraging Israel's established intelligence networks among Kurdish groups in the region.
Yet, amid these high-level calls, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has already begun targeting Kurdish positions in western Iran, signaling Tehran's awareness and immediate response to the threat.
A History of Alliance and Abandonment
To understand why this plan is so contentious, you have to look at the history. The CIA has a long record of working with Kurdish groups, but it’s a record marked by both partnership and painful abandonment.
In Iraq, the US provided critical support in the 1990s, establishing no-fly zones that protected Kurds and helped create the de facto Kurdish Regional Government. More recently, the US partnered with Kurdish Peshmerga forces to fight ISIS. In Syria, the US armed and trained the Kurdish YPG militia in its fight against ISIS, only to later turn its support toward the new Syrian government, which then struck a deal with the Kurdish-led forces.
This pattern is what makes analysts deeply skeptical. "There can be little trust or faith amongst Iran’s Kurdish groups that US support will be honoured," said Neil Quilliam, an analyst with the UK-based Chatham House think tank. He described the plan as an "afterthought" in a poorly conceived broader conflict, warning it could fuel domestic conflict inside Iran by pitting opposition groups against each other.
The emotional calculus here is stark. For Kurdish communities, who have long sought self-governance and faced marginalization, external support can feel like a lifeline. But the bitter lesson from history is that such alliances can be fleeting, leaving them more vulnerable when geopolitical winds shift. The image of a woman mourning at a funeral in Minab, Iran—a casualty of the ongoing strikes—is a grim reminder of the human cost that escalates when proxy strategies are employed.
The CIA's Long Shadow
This reported plan fits into a much broader historical context of CIA operations to arm and fund rebel groups. From backing the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1970s, to supporting Contra rebels in Nicaragua in the 1980s, to the pivotal role in the 1953 coup in Iran that overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, the agency has repeatedly used such tactics to destabilize governments opposed to US foreign policy.
The question now is whether this historical template is still effective, or even ethical, in the current complex landscape. Quilliam argues it’s not. "Trump’s approach to regime change is very much a DIY approach," he told Al Jazeera. "Although supporting Iran’s Kurdish groups might advance that goal, it would be doing so without any responsibility for what happens: the US can simply walk away and leave the mess behind."
Furthermore, such a move would likely anger key regional partners like Turkey and Syria, and complicate relations with Iraq, creating a wider diplomatic headache.
Why This Feels Like a Flawed Strategy
At its core, this isn't just about military tactics; it's about trust and long-term consequence. Arming a group within a nation during an active conflict is a potent short-term lever, but it rarely builds stable, positive outcomes. It risks exacerbating ethnic tensions within Iran and could lead to a protracted internal conflict that outlives the current international showdown.
The reported strategy lacks a coherent vision for what comes after. It seeks to capitalize on Kurdish aspirations for leverage without a clear commitment to their future, echoing past interventions where local groups were instrumentalized for broader goals and then left to navigate the aftermath alone. In a conflict already causing significant civilian suffering, adding another volatile layer of proxy warfare seems less like a strategic masterstroke and more like a desperate, risky gamble.
As the situation develops, the world watches to see if history will repeat itself—not as farce, but as another tragic chapter in a long story of intervention and its unintended human costs.
