The widening war involving Donald Trump, Iran, and Israel has entered a volatile new phase as the United States openly entertains the possibility of internal pressure on Tehran through Kurdish forces. In comments to Reuters, Trump said he would support Iranian Kurdish militias launching attacks against Iranian security forces from bases in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region of Iraq.
The remarks come amid a rapidly expanding conflict that has already spread across much of the Middle East. Iranian missile and drone attacks have targeted Israel as well as regional states including Turkey, Cyprus, Azerbaijan and several Gulf countries hosting U.S. military bases. The conflict has also extended to maritime theatres, with U.S. forces striking Iranian naval assets in the Indian Ocean.
At the same time, the war has intensified inside Iran itself. U.S. and Israeli strikes part of what the Pentagon calls Operation Epic Fury have focused on missile infrastructure, naval assets and weapons production sites. The campaign followed the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, an event that has deepened uncertainty over Iran’s political future.
Kurdish Factor Enters the Conflict
The involvement of Iranian Kurdish militias introduces a potentially destabilizing internal dimension to the war. Kurdish opposition groups based in Iraqi Kurdistan have reportedly been consulting with Washington about the feasibility of attacking Iranian forces in western Iran. These groups have long maintained tense relations with Tehran and operate near the Iran–Iraq border.
Trump’s endorsement of such action represents a notable shift toward encouraging internal insurgent pressure on Iran. Kurdish fighters have historically played key roles in regional conflicts from the fight against the Islamic State to long-running disputes with regional governments but direct encouragement from Washington risks internationalizing what Tehran would view as a domestic security challenge.
The development also heightens the risk of retaliation against Kurdish regions of Iraq. Iranian drone strikes have already targeted opposition camps in Iraqi Kurdistan, signaling Tehran’s willingness to expand the battlefield beyond its borders if Kurdish groups enter the war.
Regional Spillover and Strategic Escalation
The conflict is increasingly destabilizing neighboring states. Azerbaijan has warned it will retaliate after Iranian drones reportedly crossed into its territory and injured civilians in the Nakhchivan exclave. President Ilham Aliyev condemned the incident as an act of aggression, while Iran denied responsibility.
Meanwhile, the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah has warned Israeli border towns to evacuate, raising fears that a northern front could open between Israel and Lebanon. Israeli strikes around Beirut and Iranian-backed militia threats point to a growing risk that the conflict could transform into a multi-front regional war.
Such escalation is already having global economic repercussions. Energy markets have been shaken as attacks and shutdowns disrupt oil and liquefied natural gas supplies across the Middle East, a region responsible for a significant share of global energy exports.
Leadership Question and U.S. Strategic Ambiguity
Trump’s suggestion that the United States should help determine Iran’s next leader after Khamenei’s death has added another layer of controversy. His remarks appear to contradict statements from Pete Hegseth, who insisted Washington’s objectives remain limited to degrading Iran’s military capabilities and preventing it from acquiring nuclear weapons.
This discrepancy highlights a broader ambiguity within U.S. strategy. While military operations are framed as targeting Iran’s offensive capacity, political statements from the White House hint at ambitions that could extend toward regime change. Encouraging Kurdish insurgency or discussing leadership succession risks reinforcing Tehran’s narrative that the war aims to dismantle the Iranian state.
Analysis: A War Moving Toward Internal Destabilization
Trump’s comments about Kurdish forces signal a potential shift from conventional military confrontation to strategies aimed at weakening Iran internally. If Kurdish militias were to open a front inside Iran, the war could transform into a hybrid conflict combining external bombardment with internal insurgency.
Such a development would significantly complicate regional security dynamics. Iran has long accused external powers of exploiting ethnic and sectarian divisions to destabilize the country. Kurdish involvement would validate those fears and could prompt Tehran to retaliate not only against Kurdish fighters but also against states hosting them, particularly Iraq’s Kurdish region.
At the same time, the expansion of the war across multiple theatres from the Gulf and the Levant to the Caucasus and the Indian Ocean demonstrates how quickly the confrontation is escaping the confines of a bilateral conflict between Israel and Iran. The growing number of actors and fronts increases the risk of miscalculation and makes diplomatic de-escalation far more difficult.
Ultimately, the encouragement of Kurdish militias may provide short-term military pressure on Iran, but it also risks triggering wider regional fragmentation. Rather than weakening Tehran decisively, it could transform the conflict into a prolonged and unpredictable regional crisis with consequences extending far beyond the Middle East.
With information from Reuters.
