This publication is part of AGSIW’s U.S. Presidential Election series.
On October 20 approximately 3 million Kurds are set to head to the polls to elect their representatives in the sixth legislative elections in the Iraqi Kurdistan region. The stakes are high in the elections, as the outcomes may reshape the governance map of the Kurdistan region and influence political dynamics within the region and Iraq.
However, while these local elections are crucial, many Kurdish officials and citizens alike are increasingly preoccupied with developments far beyond their borders – specifically, the November U.S. presidential election. They are asking which candidate would be better for the Kurdish people – Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala Harris or her Republican opponent, former President Donald J. Trump. Who wins the election could have substantial implications for the future of Iraq’s Kurdish people and their hard-won autonomy in Iraqi Kurdistan, especially in light of the planned withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq by 2026. At the request of the Kurdistan Regional Government, the Iraqi government has agreed to allow a residual U.S. force to remain at Hareer base in Erbil beyond 2026 to counter terrorism and support the U.S. mission in Syria. However, there are particular concerns that, if Trump wins the upcoming election, he would abruptly withdraw troops and would be less worried about keeping a U.S. logistical support base in the Kurdistan region. This would be consequential for Kurds, who have historically depended on some level of U.S. support to effectively navigate the inhospitable geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East, where central authorities have often sought to undermine their autonomy and suppress their national aspirations.
Complex History of U.S.-Kurdish Relations
For Iraq’s Kurds, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has yielded both gains and setbacks. The fickle nature of U.S. foreign policy has frequently led to the Kurds being caught in the crossfire, with the interests of the Kurdish population sacrificed for broader strategic interests.
The complexity in relations has been particularly apparent with Republican administrations in the United States. On the one hand, the most meaningful geopolitical shifts for the Kurds occurred during Republican presidencies, including the 1970 Kurdish autonomy agreement, 1991 uprising leading to Kurdish self-governance in Iraq, and 2003 military intervention that resulted in the removal of Saddam Hussein. These moments were pivotal in reshaping the region and advancing Kurdish national aspirations. However, Republican administrations also oversaw some of the most distressing setbacks for the Kurds, including the collapse of the Kurdish revolution in 1975, crushing of the 1991 Kurdish uprising despite its initial success, and loss of Kurdish territories in Iraq after the 2017 independence referendum backfired.
A pivotal shift occurred in the geopolitical dynamics of Iraq’s Kurdistan region when the Iraqi security forces, supported by pro-Iranian Shia militia groups armed with U.S. weaponry, embarked on a fierce offensive against Kurdish positions in October 2017, with the tacit approval of the Trump administration, following the Kurdish independence referendum. The U.S. State Department, reflecting Trump administration policy, portrayed these military maneuvers as an essential “reassertion of federal authority” within Iraq, seemingly aimed at fostering national unity. However, the assault led to the Kurdish forces being forced to surrender nearly 40% of their previously controlled territories. This loss of territory was not simply a military defeat; it sparked a domino effect that critically weakened the political, economic, and diplomatic standing of the Kurdistan region. The erosion of Kurdish control over these areas undermined Iraqi Kurds’ bargaining power within the broader Iraqi political framework, diminished their control over strategic economic resources, and curtailed their ability to engage effectively on the international stage. As a result, the Kurdish leadership faced an existential crisis, grappling with the ramifications of a strategic withdrawal that reshaped the balance of power in Iraq and threatened the very autonomy they had fought to establish.
The pattern of erosion of autonomy for a minority group and stripping of its rights reflected a broader trend during the Trump administration in which nationalist and authoritarian governments took advantage of the vacuum of U.S. leadership on the global stage to consolidate power at the expense not only of democratic norms and human rights but of hard-fought struggles for autonomy.
Contrasting Views of Main Kurdish Parties
The preferences of Kurdish officials regarding a potential Trump or Harris presidency are diverse and often reflect the broader geopolitical landscape and strategic alliances of neighboring countries. The positions of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan represent their respective strategic visions for advancing the Kurdish cause while also signaling which administration might influence the rise or fall of the opposing party, given the pervasive lack of mutual trust between them. Thus, the divergent preferences not only illuminate internal Kurdish political dynamics but also emphasize the complex web of regional alliances and rivalries that dictate the KDP’s and PUK’s strategic choices, even when it comes to their preference for either a Democratic or Republican administration.
The KDP, the controlling faction in the Kurdistan Regional Government, tends to view Trump’s unpredictable and often impulsive approach to foreign policy as a potential catalyst for significant upheaval in the Middle East – upheaval that could create new opportunities for the Kurds to advance their cause. Although the KRG had serious setbacks during the Trump administration, Kurdish officials, particularly among the KDP, appreciated quick and easy access to the administration’s officials and senior advisors. But this has not been the case during the administration of President Joseph R. Biden Jr., which has frustrated the KRG. As a result, the KDP generally favors a Trump administration, believing it may lead to more favorable outcomes for the Kurdistan region, enhancing both its political and economic standing. While such geopolitical shifts could pose significant risks to Turkey, the KDP’s preference for Trump aligns closely with Ankara’s own preference for his leadership.
Conversely, the PUK worries about Trump’s unpredictability and in Harris sees consistency and support for the status quo. This preference is indicative of the PUK’s more cautious instincts when assessing the potential gains and damage from a change in U.S. administration. This view reflects the preference of the current Iraqi government and Iran, which both enjoy better relations with the PUK than the KDP.
While perhaps a surprising divergence of Kurdish political opinion at first glance, it reveals a telling assessment of each U.S. political party’s key characteristic for the region: Republican administrations have been instrumental in catalyzing transformative shifts in the geopolitical framework in the Middle East, thereby creating new avenues for the Kurds. Democratic administrations have typically prioritized the consolidation and stabilization of these gains. Thus, while the Republicans have been pivotal in altering the Kurdish reality, it is often the Democrats who have played a vital role in ensuring the durability and continuity of these developments.
Unpredictability vs. Stability
In an unstable Middle East, a stable U.S. foreign policy would provide Iraq’s Kurdish population with a reassuring sense of certainty. This could empower the Kurds to navigate the challenging dynamics of the region, where their autonomy is often subject or vulnerable to the fluctuating political terrain and actions of their neighbors. In this context, placing more stress on conserving the core remnants of hard-fought political gains over the possibility of gains from the creative chaos of an impulsive, potentially isolationist Trump administration leads to the conclusion that a Harris administration would be a surer bet for Iraq’s Kurds.
