Iraq’s Development Road faces political, security and regional challenges involving Kurdistan, Türkiye, Iran and Baghdad’s state capacity. The Development Road is not simply as an infrastructure or trade project, but  a geopolitical corridor whose success depends on unresolved Kurdish, Turkish, Syrian and Iranian dynamics. One can identify three Kurdish-related issues as particularly important to the corridor's political viability: Baghdad–Erbil disagreement over the northern route through the Kurdistan Region. The Türkiye–PKK peace process and its implications for northern Iraq. The future status and integration of the Kurdish-led SDF in Syria. In this article I also examine Iran's position, arguing that Tehran has so far avoided outright opposition partly because Iraq presents the project as potentially compatible with Iranian connectivity through the Basra–Shalamcheh rail link. Iraq and Türkiye completed a framework draft agreement on transport infrastructure on September 21...

Iran-aligned militias threaten Iraqi airports over suspended Iran flights, raising aviation security risks and tensions with Washington. As flights between Iraq and Iran, including those to and from Najaf International Airport, come to a halt amid U.S. sanctions on Iran's aviation industry, Iran-aligned militias are leading the loyalist camp's rejection of the suspension. DEVELOPMENT Borderline Advisory Services has reported that At 2100 local time on 25 September, Akram al-Ka'abi, Secretary-General of Harakat al-Nujaba (HAN), issued a statement threatening to mobilize supporters for sit-ins at Iraqi airports unless the suspension is lifted. Ka'abi also called for breaking U.S. hegemony and rebuked the governing parties for acquiescing to Washington's demands. Earlier, at 1830 local time, Kata'ib Hezbollah (KH) said that any ground handling company complying with the U.S. decision "has chosen for itself the role of a submissive backer of the U.S. and Zionis...

The UN as the world’s “World Cup of diplomacy,” its evolving role, and how AI is reshaping global diplomacy and international security. Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj A year ago, it looked like the United Nations was coming to an end. Funding was cut by the United States, it constantly appeared to be an ineffective institution, and there were fears that Donald Trump would withdraw the United States from the United Nations, which he founded and mainly funded. There was even talk that Trump's “peace board” could become an alternative or rival to the United Nations. But this week, as world leaders met again in New York, there was a new energy palpable. The first meeting on artificial intelligence in the history of the UN Security Council was held. Trump, although still as violent and threatening as ever, did what should be done at the United Nations: he used diplomacy. What has happened at the United Nations in recent days deserves careful attention and research. People talk a lot about how ineff...

Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj Trump’s UN address signals coercive diplomacy toward Iran, raising questions about escalation, deterrence, and the limits of pressure. Addressing the United Nations General Assembly , US President Donald Trump delivered a 37-minute speech that fused maximum-pressure rhetoric with a transactional timeline for regional diplomacy. Positioned between ongoing military friction in the Middle East and domestic political calculations, Trump framed Washington’s strategy toward Tehran in stark binary terms: total destruction or a sweeping economic deal. Beneath the theatrical ultimatum lies a complex geopolitical calculus where domestic American politics, multilateral institution-building, and high-tech defense priorities intersect. For Tehran and regional capitals, the address signals both the limits of American interventionism and the precarious window for post-election negotiations. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | ...

Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj How can Kurdish society build a modern army while balancing history, politics, technology, civil authority, and the Peshmerga's legacy? This may appear to be a straightforward institutional question, but it is not. The question of how to create an army in the Kurdistan Region is ultimately a question about political authority, social organization, historical experience, technology, and the relationship between the state and the forces that defend it. At the most basic level, there are two ways of thinking about this problem. We might call them thin theories and deep theories. Thin theory assumes that institutions can be separated from the societies that produce them. Under this approach, armies are broadly comparable institutions that can be constructed according to common models in different places. The assumption is that what works in one environment can, with sufficient administrative effort, be reproduced somewhere else. A similar logic is particularly domina...