Presented and written by Dana Ahmadi (Arif Bawecani), Chairman of The Abrahamic Movement Norway.

Introduction: From Regional Transformations to a Strategic Kurdish Position

Over the past several decades, the Middle East has become an arena of complex competition involving international interests, rivalries among regional powers, security crises, and peoples’ aspirations to determine their own political destinies. Within this context, the Abraham Accords emerged in 2020 as one of the most significant diplomatic initiatives of the period. Their primary objective was to normalize relations between Israel and several Arab countries and to expand political, economic, and security cooperation.

The significance of these agreements lies not only in the establishment of new diplomatic relations but also in their potential to reshape approaches to alliances, peace, national interests, and the regional balance of power.

In my view, the essential question for the Kurdish nation is not simply whether to support or oppose these agreements. Rather, it is how the Kurds can assess their implications in a scientific, realistic, and forward-looking manner, identify emerging opportunities, understand potential risks, and safeguard their national interests amid the region’s transformations.

For the Kurdish nation, which lives across the territories of several states and still lacks a unified, independent state, adapting to international developments must not mean abandoning its identity or national rights. Instead, adaptation should mean strengthening the Kurdish people's political, diplomatic, economic, and social capabilities.

How the Abraham Accords Came into Being

To understand the significance of the Abraham Accords, it is necessary to examine their historical background and the stages leading to their establishment.

Before 2020, Egypt had signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, followed by Jordan in 1994. However, during that period, many Arab countries did not maintain open diplomatic relations with Israel, while the Palestinian issue remained central to regional diplomacy.

On August 13, 2020, the United States, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates announced the normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE. Subsequently, on September 15, 2020, agreements associated with the normalization process were signed in Washington, with Bahrain also joining the initiative. Later that year, Morocco announced the normalization of its relations with Israel, while a related process involving Sudan also began.

This process was facilitated by the United States during Donald Trump's first presidential administration.

Following Donald Trump's return to the presidency of the United States in 2025, expectations grew regarding renewed momentum in the Abraham Accords peace process and the expansion of normalization agreements across the Middle East.

The activation and expansion of the Abraham Accords have been discussed in numerous meetings between the presidents of the United States and Israel.

Consequently, various institutions and organizations have intensified their efforts to promote this important initiative internationally. One such organization is the Abrahamic Movement, which has established several international branches and appointed numerous active figures to advance its work in this field.

Why Was the Name “Abraham” Chosen?

The name Abraham is more than a historical reference; it symbolizes a shared religious and cultural heritage among Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Abraham holds an important place in all three major monotheistic religions. For this reason, the use of his name can convey a message of dialogue, respect for differences, and efforts to reduce religious hostility.

However, two distinct aspects must be distinguished: first, the symbolic and religious significance of the name; and second, the political and strategic objectives of the agreements.

The Abraham Accords are fundamentally diplomatic, political, and economic agreements, rather than religious agreements in the full sense of the term. Therefore, their shared religious symbolism must not replace a rigorous assessment of their interests and their consequences for the peoples and states of the region.

Furthermore, if Abraham's name is invoked as a symbol of peace and shared heritage, these principles should extend to all peoples and communities, not merely to the states participating in the agreements.

The Main Strategies of the Abraham Accords

The principal strategic dimensions of the Abraham Accords include:

The Geopolitical Dimension: Reshaping the Regional Balance of Power

From a geopolitical perspective, the Abraham Accords form part of broader efforts to establish a more extensive network of regional cooperation.

This process can strengthen Israel's relations with Arab countries, create new trade routes, and expand security cooperation. In some strategic assessments, the agreements are also viewed as an attempt to balance Iran's influence and reduce the threats posed by armed groups associated with regional powers.

The Kurdish Nation and the Abraham Accords: Why Does This Matter?

Readers may ask: What connection does the Kurdish nation, which lacks a unified independent state, have with the Abraham Accords? Could this process have a direct or indirect impact on the future of Kurdistan?

To answer these questions, the Kurdish position must be considered within a broader regional context.

The Kurdish nation, estimated at more than 60 million people, lives across its ancestral homeland in the region, with millions more residing in the diaspora. Because of its geographical position, social presence, natural resources, and political history, the Kurdish nation is an integral part of the Middle East's balance of power and occupies a significant geographical position within the broader regional landscape in which these important agreements operate.

Therefore, the Kurds should engage actively with these developments, assessing their implications for security, the economy, national rights, and Kurdistan's political capabilities.

The Kurds and the Palestinian Question: Humanitarian Standards Must Be Applied Equally

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has its own historical, territorial, political, security, and legal dimensions. Similarly, the Kurdish question concerns national rights, identity, language, political participation, the right to self-determination, and the legal status of the Kurds across several states.

If Palestinian demands to protect their rights and human dignity are assessed according to principles of justice, the same humanitarian and legal standards must also apply to the Kurds and all other peoples.

The fundamental rights of peoples must not be measured according to religious proximity, the interests of governments, or temporary political relationships.

Likewise, the Kurds should assess every regional actor on the basis of its specific actions and policies, rather than categorizing it in advance as a permanent friend or an eternal enemy.

National Interests Must Take Precedence Over Political Slogans

One of the most important lessons of international relations is that states' foreign policies frequently change under the influence of security, economic, and strategic interests.

Some countries adopt a strongly confrontational public position toward another state, yet later pursue dialogue and cooperation because of their commercial and political interests.

This reality demonstrates that political slogans alone cannot replace careful analysis and strategic decision-making in international relations.

The Kurds must take this lesson seriously. Their foreign policy and international relations should not be based solely on fear, pressure, temporary emotions, or historical hostility. Instead, they should be built upon long-term interests, risk assessment, the protection of rights, and the identification of available opportunities for cooperation.

This does not mean offering unconditional support to any government. Diplomatic and economic relations must never become an excuse for remaining silent in the face of injustice, repression, or violations of fundamental rights.

On the contrary, a mature policy is one that can strengthen relationships, manage disagreements peacefully, and safeguard national rights and interests at the same time.

The Absence of an Independent State Must Not Become an Obstacle to Diplomacy: How Can Opportunities Be Utilized?

It is true that the Kurdish nation currently lacks a unified independent state capable of participating formally in the Abraham Accords as a single sovereign entity. Each part of Kurdistan, however, is governed within the distinct political and legal framework of a different state, and its authority over foreign relations is subject to the applicable laws and constitutional limits.

Nevertheless, the absence of an independent state must not result in the exclusion of the Kurds from regional and international dialogue and engagement.

Relations can be expanded through parliamentary diplomacy, academic partnerships, civil society organizations, diaspora communities, commercial ties, and cultural dialogue, provided that these activities are conducted within the relevant legal frameworks and authorized areas of responsibility.

In my view, even if formal Kurdish participation in an agreement is not currently feasible because the Kurdish nation lacks an independent state, this does not mean that opportunities for engagement and cooperation are entirely unavailable.

These efforts can be pursued across several key areas.

Every international relationship should be assessed through several fundamental questions:

This approach helps the Kurds avoid emotional and short-term decision-making while strengthening their ability to assess complex situations.

Adapting to change does not mean accepting every policy. Rather, it means understanding realities, evaluating available options, and identifying the best course of action to protect national interests.

The Responsibilities of the Abraham Accords Member States Toward the Kurds

If the objective of the Abraham Accords is to expand peace and regional cooperation, these principles should not be confined to relations among the signatory states. Instead, they should encourage broader dialogue and greater respect for the rights and interests of other peoples and communities across the region.

Despite lacking a unified independent state, the Kurdish nation possesses considerable human, cultural, and social resources. At the same time, the legal and political circumstances of different parts of Kurdistan vary, and every relationship must be assessed within the relevant legal framework and the limits of the authority concerned.

Therefore, the states participating in the Abraham Accords process, together with international institutions, should give due consideration to the Kurdish position and its aspirations in initiatives related to peace and development, particularly in the areas of security, economic progress, cultural rights, and political participation.

The Kurds should not become a subject of international discussion only during wars and crises. They should also have an influential role in development projects, investment, science, peace initiatives, and regional cooperation.

Conclusion: Sustainable Peace Requires the Participation of Peoples

Genuine peace does not simply mean that states reach agreements with one another. Sustainable peace also requires peoples to feel that their rights, identities, and futures are being taken into account in peace and development processes.

In my view, sustainable peace in the Middle East must not be defined solely by the normalization of relations between states. Rather, it should create opportunities to advance justice, protect human dignity, reduce violence, and respect the rights and interests of oppressed nations, particularly a great nation such as the Kurds.

If the Abraham Accords can serve as a foundation for establishing a new framework of relations across the region, the Kurds must also find their rightful place within that future through lawful, responsible, and strategic engagement.

For the Kurdish nation, the most important lesson is that historical transformations must not be observed passively from the sidelines. Through scientific assessment, effective diplomacy, political unity, and the strengthening of domestic capabilities, opportunities must be identified and risks managed.

The Kurds must not rush to align themselves with any regional bloc. Equally, they must not allow fear, pressure, or political slogans to isolate them from international dialogue and cooperation.

The right strategy lies in preserving independent decision-making, developing balanced relationships, and defining the long-term interests of the Kurdish nation.

Dana Ahmadi (Arif Bawecani)

Chairman, The Abrahamic Movement Norway · Special Envoy to the Kurdish Community in Iran

Dana Ahmadi (Arif Bawecani) is a Kurdish political leader, human-rights activist, writer, translator and organizational specialist born in 1971. He holds Norwegian citizenship and has lived primarily in Oslo since 1997, while also maintaining residence in Erbil, Kurdistan–Iraq since around 2019.

For more than three decades he has worked at the intersection of refugee support, Kurdish political organizing, international diplomacy and media. He currently leads the Zagros Liberal Alliance, the World Kurdish Friendship Association (WKFA) and Party Serbesti Kurdistan (P.S.K.). Earlier roles include membership of Oslo City Council (2003–2007), leadership of Eastern Kurdistan asylum-support structures, and extensive service as a lay judge, refugee advisor, multi-language interpreter (Kurdish dialects, Arabic, Persian, Norwegian, English) and journalist.

Ahmadi has published extensively on Kurdish history, politics and identity, including multi-volume works on East Kurdistan, deportations to Khorasan, and personal memoirs spanning 1979–2019. He has participated in international conferences across four continents and received several awards, including an honorary doctorate in 2022. Fluent in all major Kurdish dialects as well as Norwegian, Arabic, Persian and English, he continues to combine practical organizational leadership with advocacy for Kurdish rights and cross-cultural dialogue.