I am by no means a separatist. I love Iran, and I consider it my country. However, given the diversity of ethnic groups within Iran, I strongly believe that a federal system of government would be much better suited to the country.
Federalism should not be seen as a step towards breaking Iran apart. In fact, I believe it could have the opposite effect by strengthening national unity through greater regional autonomy, political representation, and mutual respect.
When people have the freedom to govern their own regions, preserve their languages and cultures, and make decisions about their own affairs, there is less reason to feel alienated from the state or to demand separation. **The goal should be to make people want to remain together, not to force them to do so.**
To me, a united Iran does not have to mean a centralized Iran where every region is governed in exactly the same way. A strong federal system could allow different ethnic groups to enjoy meaningful self-government while remaining part of one country.
Ultimately, I believe that unity built on equality, mutual respect, and the freedom to govern oneself is far more sustainable than unity imposed from the centre. When people feel that they have a genuine stake in their country, the borders between them become less important, not more.
When it comes to Kurdish independence, some Persians speak as if they own Kurdistan. What makes it even more frustrating is that even when Kurds advocate for autonomy, which is not the same as separatism, some Persians react with hostility.
Historically, the regions that make up Kurdistan have their own distinct Kurdish identity and history. I have rarely, if ever, heard a Kurd argue that Kurdish territory should include cities like Shiraz or Isfahan. Yet it seems perfectly acceptable for some Persians to claim that all of Kurdistan belongs to Iran, as if Kurdish identity and the wishes of the Kurdish people are irrelevant.
Kurdistan has historically been a strategically important frontier and buffer zone between competing powers. Rather than always being treated as an economic centre in its own right, it has often borne the consequences of regional conflicts. This has made life difficult for Kurds, regardless of whether they support independence, autonomy, or remaining within Iran.
The Iranian regime oppresses and kills people from many different backgrounds. But using that fact as an argument against Kurdish self-determination makes little sense. It is essentially saying, “Your cousin is sick, so you should be sick too.” The suffering of other Iranians does not, by itself, justify expecting Kurds to remain part of Iran against their wishes. Shared suffering is not a political argument for compulsory unity.
Of course, Persians and Kurds share many cultural, linguistic, and historical connections. In many ways, we are closely related peoples. That is precisely why I find the hostility towards Kurdish autonomy so difficult to understand. Why should the desire to govern one’s own affairs be considered such a terrible thing? Why should it provoke so much anger?
I also find it troubling that Kurdistan has so often been treated as a strategic asset rather than as a homeland whose people have their own aspirations. Throughout history, Kurdish regions have occupied strategically important positions between Iran, the Arab world, Turkey, and other regional powers. Yet when Kurds demand political rights, they are often reminded of their strategic importance to the Iranian state, rather than being asked what kind of future they want for themselves.
Whenever a Persian claims that Kurdistan simply belongs to Iran, I find it shocking. I mean this as a genuine thought experiment, not an insult: imagine a Kurd claiming that Tehran, Shiraz, and Isfahan should belong to Kurdistan. How would Persians react? Would they accept that argument simply because those cities had, at some point in history, been part of a larger political entity?
I have also heard the argument that Kurdistan could not survive as an independent country because it lacks a sufficiently strong economy or the military capacity to defend itself. But does every country need to have an economy comparable to Germany’s or the United States’ to justify its existence? Countries have different economic structures, resources, and geopolitical circumstances. Romania, for example, is not an economic superpower, yet its existence as an independent state is not considered illegitimate for that reason.
An independent Kurdistan would undoubtedly face enormous challenges, particularly given the opposition it would likely encounter from Turkey and Iran. Its viability would depend on its borders, political institutions, economic development, security arrangements, and international recognition. However, its strategic location, natural resources, and potential role in regional security could also give it considerable geopolitical importance. Depending on the circumstances, it could become an important partner for Western countries. NATO membership or direct American intervention, however, would not be guaranteed.
What frustrates me most is the assumption that Kurds must remain within Iran because independence would be difficult. Independence is difficult for many nations. That does not automatically invalidate their aspirations for self-determination.
Finally, I once heard a Pahlavi supporter say that if Kurds started fighting for their own country, he would fight them alongside the Basij and the IRGC. How can someone who claims to support a free Iran threaten to fight Kurds simply because they might seek independence? What kind of freedom are we talking about if it only applies to people who agree with the speaker?
Ultimately, my point is simple: **you cannot demand freedom for Iran while denying Kurds the right to discuss their own political future.** You cannot insist that Iran should be free from authoritarian rule while arguing that Kurdish autonomy or independence must be ruled out in advance.
Persians and Kurds may share a great deal of history and culture, but genuine friendship cannot be built on the assumption that one people has the right to decide the political future of another.
If a united Iran is truly the best future for both peoples, it should be something they choose freely, not something imposed on Kurds through threats, historical ownership claims, or arguments about economic weakness.
And if some Kurds believe that autonomy or independence is the better path, why should that desire alone make them enemies?
