At Kurdish Crossroads: Autonomy Fatigue

Hafsa Arslan | Middle East Fellow

Image sourced from Saad Salim via Unsplash.

Kurdish political movements across Iraq, Syria and Türkiye have symbolised the pursuit of self-determination and resilience in the Middle East. Influential actors that reshaped borderlands were essential in the fight against ISIS and the decentralisation of governance. Currently, however, the Kurdistan Regional Government’s (KRG) momentum is hindered by a significant financial crisis and paralysed by partisan rivalry. These pressures have materialised into autonomic fatigue, destabilising Kurdish self-rule through shifting geopolitical priorities and the resurgence of centralised state authority.

Such fatigue has evolved into a regional risk multiplier. Despite this, regional governments perceive Kurdish autonomy through a security lens via militarised containment strategies. The Kurdish question today lies more in preserving what remains of its existing autonomy structures to curb instability, rather than pursuing independence. To do so, autonomy must be reframed not as a threat but as a foundation of regional stability through decentralised engagement, state interdependence, and international cooperation.

Iraq: governance stagnation

The Kurdistan Region of Iraq is the most successful representation of Kurdish autonomy in the region. However, its image has eroded due to a 2.5-year halt in Turkish oil exports, removing a primary revenue source. The Region’s intensified disputes with Baghdad have worsened conditions for public servants, leading to longstanding salary deprivation and protests.

These economic pressures have deepened political fragmentation between the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), undermining policymaking and ultimately culminating in governance paralysis. Despite these restrictions, the region could assume a greater international role in the future. However, the deterioration of autonomy in the KRG has spilled beyond the Kurdish territories, resulting in minimal economic recovery, and weakened local legitimacy across Northern Iraq.  This widespread inward collapse of Kurdish governance fuels regional instability and is only exacerbated by containment.

Syria: autonomy under siege

Meanwhile, the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) is focused on Northeast Syria and faces external pressures that risk losing long-term viability. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have allowed for the region’s governing structures to be strengthened during the dismantling of ISIS.

However, the durability of the SDF was dependent on the United States (US) military sustenance and political support, which has significantly weakened over time. With the US now prioritising a unified Syrian state and balancing against Iran, Türkiye opportunistically expanded its cross-border operations to reduce Kurdish Southern-frontier influence through buffer zones and humanitarian displacement. These operations have disrupted local governance, weakened security coordination and diverted administrative resources towards defence and emergency relief. 

On the sidelines,  Syria and Russia are working towards reintegrating the region into the Syrian state and holding negotiations that demand significant concessions and contractions of decentralised structures. As governance weakens and security gaps widen, a vulnerable environment for ISIS to exploit is created. This is due to autonomy fatigue, as external backing declines and adversarial states regain leverage. Likewise, Kurdish institutions in Syria were unable to sustain operations to stabilise the northeast.  Such circumstances highlight that neglecting Kurdish self-governance produces regional instability.

Türkiye: militarised containment

Türkiye relies on internal and external securitisation. Internally, Kurdish representation has been undermined through the forced closure of political parties, removal of elected officials and intensified restrictions on Kurdish civilians. These constraints have reinforced the immobility of political avenues among Kurdish communities.

In overly focusing on military containment, Türkiye has incited instability, obstructed economic cooperation and strained humanitarian efforts. Going forward, leaders must adopt a sustainable and autonomous approach, characterised by economic integration, political dialogue, and institutional reform that addresses the Kurdish demands within each state. Otherwise, Türkiye will continue to mirror the wider regional pattern, wherein states undermine Kurdish self-rule and deepen the instability that had once been contained.

Regional autonomy fatigue

Kurdish autonomy is being eroded by reasserted state centralisation, internal political fragmentation, and declining Western engagement. As states reclaim authority over Kurdish autonomy, Kurdish actors are unable to negotiate from a united standpoint. Similarly, Western actors have shifted into a narrower and security-focused partnership with Kurdish forces, without a long-term strategy. Consequently, the regional landscape contains formally intact Kurdish institutions, but severely lacks the resources, authority, and international support necessary to govern effectively.

Autonomy fatigue thus becomes structural – a condition that manifests in administrative paralysis, territorial claims, and diminished capacity of Kurdish actors to shape their future. This creates a vacuum that risks the renewal of insurgency, disrupts national economies and further delays the question of full independence for Kurdistan. 

Autonomy as stabilisation

Kurdish autonomy must be reframed as the key to regional stability, rather than a threat to territorial integrity – a process beginning with economic interdependence. Strengthening cross-border trade and integrating the Kurdish regions into national development strategies that preserve autonomous local agency is crucial for regional stability. Economic collaboration would create incentives for central governments and Kurdish authorities to adopt cooperative approaches, rather than adversarial ones. 

Stability is further ensured through diplomatic engagement from international partners beyond the realm of crisis-driven alliances. Specifically, Syrian Kurds must be internationally protected, and Western states must support governance capacity through institutional resilience and structured political dialogue. These actions would facilitate renewed Kurdish autonomy within Türkiye and encourage the development of decentralised frameworks in Syria to preserve local representation and recentralise Kurdish authoritarian control. Without such engagement, external actors will inadvertently accelerate the centralisation pressures driving regional instability and undo the stability that Kurdish governance has historically established for the region.

Hafsa Arslan is the Middle East Fellow for Young Australians in International Affairs. She is a final-year Curtin University student, pursuing a Bachelor of Commerce (Honours) in Economics and a Post-graduate Diploma in International Security. She is a two-time New Colombo Plan scholar, having completed an internship in South Korea in early 2025 and a study tour in Japan, focusing on the intersection of economic and geopolitical dynamics in the Asia-Pacific.

With her lived experience across the Indo-Pacific, particularly the Middle East, Hafsa has developed a strong interest in the region’s political and cultural landscape, exploring its complexity separate from its mainstream identity. Through this fellowship, she aims to combine her passion for cultural nuance and equity-driven policy discourse to create diverse perspectives for the region.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Young Australians in International Affairs. All content is original, and no plagiarism has been used in the preparation of this article.