Discussion of self-government in Nineveh and northern Iraq should begin with the rights of the people whose lives, homes and futures these decisions concern. From the perspective of defending Kurdish rights, any proposed boundary should be judged through participation and civilian security. That standard applies equally to Assyrians, Arabs, Yazidis, Turkmen, Shabak and other residents. This article argues that no community should become a tool for containing another; self-government is defensible when it strengthens residents’ voices.
The writer’s proposal and the focus of criticism
In an opinion article published by The Assyria Post on 2 February 2026, Namrod Khoshaba advocated Turkish backing for an Assyrian autonomous region in northern Iraq. He proposed that it extend along the entire Iraqi–Turkish border and presented interrupting the geographical continuity of Kurdish areas as one of its functions. This is that author’s proposal, not a decision by the Turkish government or the opinion of all Assyrians. Khoshaba’s article on Turkish support for an Assyrian region.
The central criticism concerns that objective. If an administrative unit is designed to separate people of one ethnicity from one another, where do residents’ own interests and wishes fit? How should outside backing answer to local choice? These questions call for clear political answers. Nevertheless, the proposal alone does not establish that forced displacement has occurred or that a military operation has been decided upon. Concerns about a policy’s implications must remain distinct from unproven assertions about events.
Different constitutional questions
Iraq’s constitution recognises the Kurdistan Region (117), provides a referendum route for forming regions from one or more governorates (119), and guarantees communities’ administrative, political, cultural and educational rights, regulated by law (125). UNAMI translation.
In this article’s analysis, any proposed map should answer clear questions: What would the plan change in people’s daily lives, and how would opponents be heard? Advocates of Kurdish self-government should apply the same standard of clarity to their own proposals. Political assessment should not rest only on military balances or support from a foreign capital; citizens’ free participation should be central.
Redressing injustice and life after displacement
Human Rights Watch’s 2009 report described the expulsion of Kurds and other minorities under former Iraqi governments’ Arabisation policies. It also stressed that redressing past injustices did not justify one ethnic group’s exclusive control over disputed territories. For this critique, the distinction matters because rights to return and redress should not become a privilege that removes others’ right to participate. Human Rights Watch’s report on Nineveh’s disputed territories.
The International Organization for Migration’s August 2023 study of durable solutions to displacement in Ninewa Governorate identified damaged housing and a lack of livelihood opportunities as important barriers to return. Among the displaced households studied, 70 per cent cited house destruction and 65 per cent cited a lack of livelihood opportunities as reasons for not returning. These findings belong to that study and period; they show why discussions of the region’s future must also consider living conditions. IOM, Progress Toward Durable Solutions in Iraq, August 2023.
This article proposes testing every plan through practical questions: How will homes be kept safe? Where will ownership disputes be heard? How will peaceful opponents have a voice? Defending Kurdistan’s position should accompany support for neighbours’ equal rights. Assyrians should also be able to express administrative and cultural demands without their identity being belittled. Discussion of boundaries and self-government is worthwhile when no family must deny another’s rights to preserve its own home, language or vote.
Editorial note: This version was rewritten using the linked sources. The political proposal’s attribution was checked against the original article. Unverified allegations, ethnic generalisations and unverified images have been removed.