ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - Deepening divisions between the ruling Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) are directly weakening Kurdish political influence in both Baghdad and Washington, a senior KDP official warned, saying US officials are increasingly linking future support to Kurdish unity and institutional reform.
Speaking to Rudaw's Diyar Kurda during a visit to the United States on Saturday, Hoshyar Zebari said he and his team spent nearly two weeks holding high-level meetings with Trump administration officials, Congress, and policy think tanks, where the message was consistent. “They prefer the Kurdistan Region to be a strong region within the framework of a strong Iraq,” he said, adding that Washington sees a stable Kurdistan as aligned with its strategic interests.
However, Zebari said frustration is growing over political stalemate in the Kurdistan Region, especially the failure to form a government 18 months after elections.
He argued that internal Kurdish division is now the core issue shaping both Iraq’s political process and international engagement. “The reason is the Kurdish division and disunity. If we can solve that, I think all the other problems will be solved as well,” Zebari said.
The Kurdistan Region held long-delayed parliamentary elections in October 2024, in which the KDP won 39 of the 100 seats, while the PUK secured 23. With no party holding an outright majority, government formation negotiations have dragged on for months, recently stalling over disputes related to governance mechanisms and key cabinet posts.
Despite tensions, Zebari insisted communication channels with the PUK remain open.
He also confirmed that both Kurdish parties are receiving identical warnings in Washington. “Here, they gave us the same message. Mr. Bafel and Mr. Qubad are also in Washington, and the same message will be given to them,” he said, referring to PUK president Bafel Talabani and KRG Deputy Prime Minister Qubad Talabani.
Below is the full transcript of the interview with senior KDP official Hoshyar Zebari:
Rudaw: Mr. Hoshyar. I want to start with this: you have been in Washington for a while and have had numerous meetings and discussions with current and former officials, as well as with think tanks. Based on your understanding, how are the relations between the US and the Kurdistan Region, or specifically the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), and at what stage are they?
Hoshyar Zebari: Thank you very much. Yes, that is correct, it is going to be nearly two weeks since we are in Washington. We have had many meetings with officials of President Trump’s administration. We have met with State Department officials at the White House, the National Security Council, the Treasury Department, the Congress, and we have met with about seven or eight important think tanks, in addition to our old and new friends in the US.
The entire goal was to explain the situation in Kurdistan Region to them directly, not through the media or other messages. So far, what we have truly felt is that this administration reaffirms its commitments and relations toward the Kurdistan Region. They prefer the Kurdistan Region to be a strong region within the framework of a strong Iraq. They identify a strong Kurdistan Region as being in their own interest. Undoubtedly, the region, as you mentioned, is living in extraordinary circumstances - the entire region, all nations in the region - due to this war by the US and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and it is still unclear where it will stop. In our view, from today until tomorrow, it will become clear whether the war will resume or if there will be a temporary peace.
I will come to the war between Iran and the US, but let's keep the focus on the Kurdistan Region for now. The Kurds have many allies in the US, but they also have many concerns. Recently, the US waited a long time for the Kurdistan Region to unify the Peshmerga forces, waited for the parliament to be activated, and waited for an active and unified government. Can you tell me if any concerns were conveyed to you during the meetings? What are those concerns?
Yes, as friends, they certainly express concern and also criticize. We probably do the same. They are truly concerned due to the lack of formation of the Kurdistan Regional Government 18 months after the elections. Naturally, it doesn't matter to them who is guilty or who is blocking it; they think that way. Although we explained the facts to them - that as the KDP we have made every effort, done what we could, and shown flexibility to form the KRG so its institutions can regain legitimacy and become active - we haven't succeeded yet. This is the reality, but we are not hopeless either. The KDP and the PUK are still working together in a caretaker government in some joint areas, but we haven't been able to do it fully.
Regarding the Peshmerga forces and their reforms, it's true there has been some progress, but it has not reached the level of becoming a single army. We did a big campaign here in Congress so that the financial rights the US previously provided to the Peshmerga, which generally weren't mentioned this time, we truly worked hard to ensure that assistance for the Peshmerga forces continues once again.
On the Peshmerga, there is a memorandum of understanding between the KRG and the US Department of Defense (or War). This memorandum expires in September. According to my information, the US has not agreed to renew it yet. Is this non-approval a form of pressure aimed at making the Kurdistan Region unify the Peshmerga? How do you understand the US not allocating aid for the Peshmerga in next year's draft budget, while it did designate it for Iraq?
We followed up closely and made many contacts regarding this issue. We hope to have those Peshmerga rights designated in the budget again. What was the other part of your question? The memorandum… the memorandum is true; it has its duration. What we heard from the US officials is that they have great respect and honor for the Peshmerga forces as an ally that has proven itself in the field and is an unparalleled partner. Even a day or two ago in Congress, the US Deputy Secretary of War spoke well of the Peshmerga. This was truly due to our lobbying; it was part of our team's work here in Washington, where these questions were raised to them.
There is hope, and we know the entire region is heading toward an unknown situation; it is all interconnected. Do not forget, the presence of US forces, as it is decided that by the end of September - the Operation Inherent Resolve, which was established to destroy ISIS - will end. This was also a main point in our talks, that their presence and continuation at this time are very, very important, because there is no place left for US forces to base themselves except Kurdistan. Iran's demand is also that all US forces and bases be removed from the region, in all of West Asia. This is one of the points I believe we focused on and worked on.
I will ask another question regarding the US and the region, and the US relationship with the new Iraqi government: Donald Trump was initially very unhappy about who the candidate would be, but later he said, "I selected this person, he is a strong figure, and he is scheduled to be invited to the White House." Is the US satisfied enough with the Iraqi government that Donald Trump speaks this way about the new Iraqi Prime Minister?
The new Iraqi Prime Minister, Ali al-Zaidi, came to us in Kurdistan. He came to President [Masoud] Barzani, and an open, positive, and friendly negotiation took place with him. He said all good things. He asked the President to be a referee between Baghdad and Erbil. The Kurdistan Region's problems are salaries; it has its financial rights and entitlements, and he doesn't mix them with politics. He resolves technical and practical problems. He wants the relationship to normalize.
Do you know Ali al-Zaidi closely?
I was in that meeting; I have seen him once, but not closely. He is a businessman and has come from outside the political system.
Is this good for the Kurds, someone who is non-political?
You have the experience of President Trump here; it is the same experience.
But President Trump has power.
I know.
Does Ali al-Zaidi have that power?
I mean, as a phenomenon, he is also a businessman, and he also came from outside the political establishment. I mean it in that aspect; otherwise, we know the extent of his power.
Are you optimistic about him?
Let me finish it for you… don't rush. He says good things, Mr. Diyar, his direction is good, and he has good intentions. But we have seen other people who made promises and had good intentions, but did not commit to them. We have good intentions toward him and have supported him. The Kurdistan Region Prime Minister is in Baghdad today just to sustain these relations. Here, the US supports him. As President Trump said, "We support him." He spoke with him the day before yesterday and invited him here. However, the US is concerned about several problems in Iraq, especially the issue of armed militias, whether affiliated with Hashd [Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)] or independent. These have become a threat not only to the US but to the whole region - against the Gulf countries, against Jordan, with missiles and drones. Even the person arrested in Turkey was like a warning bell for the US, showing that there are people engaging in terrorist activities on their land. They are very concerned about these things. I believe this US support for the Iraqi government can be very helpful, especially economically and financially, but it won't be open-ended.
Is it conditional and limited?
It will be calculated, but they will give him time. Certainly, in these meetings, we also explained the entire situation of Iraq and the new government to our US friends and officials. We said that we also support it to succeed so that no constitutional vacuum occurs in Iraq. Iraq's situation is weak, and it has no stance. Truly, no one takes it that seriously.
As you mentioned Iraq, let's talk about Iraq. The Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Region had a number of meetings in Baghdad today. A while ago, the President of the Kurdistan Region was also in Baghdad. I want to know if the KDP is absent in Baghdad. Why is the KDP not in Baghdad? What is the reason for this?
In the past, the KDP leadership, President Barzani, and the Political Bureau felt that this year's events in Baghdad did not hold positive indicators for the KDP. Therefore, an internal review was done, and we reached some conclusions. Yes, the KDP must have a greater presence…
Are you saying you were absent in Baghdad?
Yes, yes, yes... This was the opinion of our people, those who worked in Baghdad, whether now or before; they identified this shortcoming. Even here, in the US...
Are they not in Washington either?
No, no, you are rushing too much... Here too, they expressed the complaint to us that our presence in Baghdad is not at that level, not with that strength. In Washington, too, this is something necessary and will be resolved. As you mentioned, Mr. Nechirvan was there previously, and today Mr. Masrour went to hold negotiations with Ali al-Zaidi and the new Iraqi officials. After Eid [al-Adha], it is decided that he will complete his cabinet and start his work.
Including the KDP's minister?
God willing... yes.
So why wasn't the KDP minister chosen? Or who are you complaining about?
There was an alliance against the KDP, and not only against the KDP, but against al-Maliki and Muthanna al-Samarrai as well. It was planned for Ali al-Zaidi's entire 19-minister cabinet to pass all at once, but truly, that alliance acted treacherously against the representatives of the other parties.
Very well. The problem between Erbil and Baghdad previously involved Article 140 and a set of much larger subjects, but now it has come down to salaries. When will this end? What is the clear policy of the Kurdistan Region? Who is responsible to end this?
No, the Kurdistan Region's problems remain as they are. Within the framework of that review, we identified all the problems between the Kurdistan Region and Baghdad one by one and presented them [to the government]. The problems of the Peshmerga, Article 140, the oil and gas law, the election law, the Federal Court, and judicial reform - all problems have been identified. But the truth is, the main reason the Kurds' situation is not as before and they are not as strong. The reason is the Kurdish division and disunity. If we can solve that, I think all the other problems will be solved as well.
Let’s talk about those problems, let's return to Kurdistan. Is there a chance left between you and the PUK? Why don't the Kurds talk to each other?
We talked for a year and five or six months. How can [you say[ we haven't talked?
Then why aren't you talking to each other and meeting now?
I don't know, after the events that happened in Baghdad. But we had dialogues for a year and a few months with the PUK friends to reach a solution to the problems. Recently, there might not have been meetings and such, but there was contact.
There is an initiative from the Kurdistan Islamic Union (KIU); they met with the President of the PUK, then came and met with the vice presidents of the KDP and with the Kurdistan Region Prime Minister. How do you view this KIU initiative, and what does the KIU want to do?
Any initiative is good; from whatever side it comes, we welcome it. After the Kurdistan Region elections, the election results came out and were approved. At that time as well, we tried with all forces; truly, we marginalized no one. With the KIU, with the New Generation, with anyone who had one seat or several seats, without discrimination, we visited all sides so they would come and we could form our government, reactivate our institutions, and start. At that time, they did not come. Truly, they could have played a decisive role between the KDP and the PUK, to be with the right, with the majority, or with both sides.
Does being with the “right” only mean being with the majority?
No, there could be another side. But why is democracy democracy? Why are elections elections? One wins, and another might also win, but not in first place.
Is there a chance left with the PUK?
There is, and there always will be. But truly, there is nothing left that we haven't discussed with the PUK during this year and the few months of negotiations, but of course, it still remains.
Then why do you not accept the alliance between the PUK and the New Generation?
Who?
The PUK and the New Generation.
They are free; there is no problem if an alliance is formed.
Are you ready to receive them together, as they say, "We have one alliance to form the government,” or you want to deal with them separately?
Previously, we dealt with each one according to its size. Alliances form, of course, but the election results are the primary judge.
Does the KDP intend to reactivate the parliament? With whom?
Options exist. For example, as the KDP, if the PUK doesn't come, isn't ready, increases its demands, or doesn't want to play - in political terms, not sports - then naturally alternative options are considered. The thought is to respect the election results and form a majority government, or go to early elections. Some options are being considered; the fate of these people and this Region, and the expression of their will, must not be wasted.
If elections are held, will anything change in the outcome?
It has not happened yet. Let’s wait. If there’s such a decision…
There are a few swing areas in the Kurdistan Region. If elections are held, the results would likely remain the same.
We don't know. There might be some changes in the balance of forces. New people might run. This is also possible.
Why isn't the KDP ready to give the Ministry of Interior to the PUK? Is the problem trust?
The issue truly isn't the Ministry of Interior. We considered the PUK as a partner.
But they say, "We are not partners."
I was in these negotiations; I am more knowledgeable than you are.
Of course! Do they believe your argument?
We cut off all their excuses. The Ministry of Interior is in exchange for the Ministry of Peshmerga.
Why didn't you make the exchange?
To satisfy the PUK, we said, "Let the general director of the Kurdistan Region Asayish [security forces] be yours."
Why didn't they agree?
They didn't accept.
Do you think they are just making up excuses?
They didn't step forward with the required seriousness. A person should always think well of his partner, but we could have formed the government together and been stronger, both in Baghdad and in Washington.
Is there still a chance?
There is still a chance.
We are approaching the end of the interview. I want to ask this question. As the KDP and the PUK, do you understand how much damage your disunity causes in Baghdad and Washington?
Yes, by God... Here, they gave us the same message. Mr. Bafel [Talabani] and Mr. Qubad [Talabani] are also in Washington, and the same message was given to them.
Then why don't you listen to your friends?
We do listen, and we respect them, but we are our own main decision-makers; it is our own leadership.
Will your meeting here, and the meeting of Mr. Bafel and Mr. Qubad here in Washington, create something so that when you return, you sit together and form a government?
Of course, they have a message for the leadership of both sides, and it is friendly: We want our allies and friends to be strong and united, so that we can help you more.