More than four decades have passed since the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran—a state that has built its survival on two primary pillars. Internally, it enforces a policy of radical centralization and ethnic apartheid, with Kurdistan serving as the primary laboratory for its repression. Externally, it pursues a strategy of "perpetual war," generating crises to export its domestic failures. Amidst this turmoil, it is not only the nations within Iran but the entire Middle East that pays the price for the survival of a system willing to sacrifice the region to preserve its hegemony.

The Political Economy of Repression: Kurdistan as an "Internal Colony"

In the political discourse of the Tehran regime, "the territorial integrity of Iran" is a constant refrain; however, in reality, this integrity is enforced through Structural Violence. From the early months of the 1979 Revolution, when Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa of "Jihad" against the Kurdish nation, it was clear that the new state viewed Kurdistan not as a constituent part of the country, but as a "security threat" and an "internal colony."

This security-oriented perspective has had profound consequences for the region's political economy. The state has systematically prohibited investment and industrial development in Eastern Kurdistan (Rojhelat), relocating vital economic infrastructure to central, Persian-populated provinces. This is not an arbitrary decision but a deliberate strategy to keep marginalized regions in a state of economic dependency. The result of this neo-colonial policy is the catastrophic phenomenon of Kolbari. Tens of thousands of Kurds, driven not by choice but by the collapse of their local economy, are forced into grueling physical labor. Daily, they face the bullets of border guards—a stark indication that, from Tehran’s perspective, the lives of marginalized people carry no value.

Furthermore, statistics on executions and imprisonment in Iran reveal a state of legal apartheid. While Kurds constitute less than 15% of the total population, they represent more than half of the political prisoners and victims of execution. In Iran, the Revolutionary Courts have become the primary instruments of a state-sponsored system of terror rather than the guardians of justice.

The Diplomacy of Traps and International Terrorism

The Islamic Republic has never believed in the immutable principles of international relations or state sovereignty. For Tehran, diplomacy is often merely a tool to buy time or set traps for its opponents. The most prominent example of this behavior was the assassination of Dr. Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou, the leader of the Iranian Kurds, in the heart of Europe (Vienna). This act, carried out at the negotiation table under the guise of seeking a peaceful solution, sent a clear message to the world: Iran recognizes no legal or moral boundaries when it comes to eliminating its dissidents.

Today, as Tehran speaks of dialogue with Western powers regarding its nuclear program or de-escalation, it simultaneously attacks American interests through its proxy forces, subsequently portraying itself as a victim. This is the same mindset that, in October 1979, declared a comprehensive war against the international community by storming the U.S. Embassy and taking diplomats hostage. Labeling the United States as the "Great Satan" was not merely a religious slogan; it became the foundation of an anti-Western ideology that continues to legitimize the rule of the Velayat-e Faqih today.

Exporting Crisis: The Axis of Resistance and the Devastation of the Middle East

According to geopolitical theories, totalitarian states often resort to creating external enemies when they fail to resolve internal contradictions. Iran’s strategy of building militias and proxy forces (the "Axis of Resistance") in Arab countries serves this exact purpose.

The Tehran regime, which displays a "countdown to Israel's destruction" in its public squares, is willing to sacrifice the entire region for its ideological narrative. The Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7 and the subsequent devastation—often referred to as a "Second Holocaust"—would have been impossible without Tehran’s logistical and financial support. The Supreme Leader’s praise for this massacre indicates that Tehran’s strategy is predicated on dragging the region into a quagmire of blood.

In this context, the Kurdistan Region (Southern Kurdistan), as a democratic and stable entity in the region, has been a constant target of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Launching hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles at hospitals, schools, and oil refineries in Erbil and other areas—despite the region not being a party to the military conflicts between Iran, the U.S., and Israel—is a flagrant violation of International Humanitarian Law and constitutes a war crime. Iran seeks to send a threatening message to the West by striking the Kurdistan Region, while simultaneously masking its own inability to respond directly to Israel.

The Historical Necessity for Change

An analysis of the Islamic Republic’s behavior leads to one conclusion: the problem does not lie in a specific policy of a government that can be reformed, but in the very "fascistic and centralized structure" of the regime itself.

Admittedly, attacks on civilian infrastructure by any force are condemnable, but the primary engine of instability in the Middle East and the root cause of this destruction is the expansionism of the Islamic Republic. As long as this regime persists with its current centralized and ideological structure, there is no horizon for peace in the region. The only way to untie this geopolitical knot is to move beyond this regime and restructure the Iranian political system on the basis of Decentralization and the recognition of the rights of marginalized nations. Only then can this geography transform from a global threat into a normal neighbor.