According to Kurdpress, while the Middle East has entered a new and turbulent phase after the war against Iran, the developments in Syria and the redefinition of regional balances, the Kurdistan Region of Iraq is still one of the few actors that has been able to maintain its political and diplomatic status.

We believe that the London School of Economics (LSE), this apparent stability is based on a fragile foundation; A foundation that is under pressure from the inside more than ever before. The new analysis of the Middle East Center of this university, with a review of 35 years of Kurdish governance experience after the 1991 uprising, warns that the greatest achievement of the region was not only autonomy, but maintaining internal cohesion, but this cohesion is now exposed to erosion once again in the shadow of political impasse, parallel power structures and increasing party divisions.

From the perspective of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), the article "Holding Together: The Kurdistan Region at Thirty-Five" is not merely a political note on the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, but part of a broader analytical framework on "fragile state-building in the Middle East" and the relationship between internal cohesion and survival in the region's turbulent geopolitical environment.

The Middle East Center of the London School of Economics has studied the Kurdistan region in recent years as one of the few semi-successful examples of post-war institution building in the Middle East; A heart that, unlike many governments in the region, has been able to create a relatively stable governance structure from the heart of collapse, civil war and international intervention. For this reason, the article tries to present the Kurdish region not as a mere actor, but as a "surviving political unit" in an environment of successive regional collapses.

According to the London School of Economics, the central point of the history of the Kurdistan region is not "autonomy", but "overcoming fragmentation". The article repeatedly emphasizes that the experience of the civil war between the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union in the 1990s was the biggest threat to the existence of the region, and the Washington Agreement of 1998 was actually a project to save the Kurdish institution. From this angle, what maintained the climate was not simply US support or oil revenue, but the ability to contain intra-Kurdish competition.

This view is exactly in line with the research approach of the London School of Economics about the Middle East; An approach that focuses on 'institutions', 'power structures' and 'governance capacity' rather than just on leaders or ideologies. For this reason, the article sees the current climate crisis not as a tactical difference between parties, but as a sign of the erosion of the Kurdish state-building structure. Repeated references to "parallel security structures", "separate fiscal legacies" and "dysfunctional power-sharing system" suggest that the article is actually describing a state-building crisis, not just everyday political deadlock.

In the eyes of this British university, the Kurdistan region is now in a historical moment similar to the years 1991 and 2003; It means the period when the regional order is being redefined. The article repeatedly mentions that the Middle East has entered a new phase after the war against Iran, the changes in Syria, and the reconfiguration of relations with Baghdad. But unlike 1991, this time the Kurds lack strategic unity. This proposition is the core of the article's warning: geopolitical changes become opportunities only when the actor in question has internal coherence.

From the analytical point of view of the London School of Economics, the importance of the Kurdistan region is not limited only to the interior of Iraq. The article defines climate as a "regional mediator"; An actor with whom Washington, Ankara, Baghdad, Damascus, Brussels and even Tehran still have the possibility to talk. This interpretation shows that the university sees the region as part of the new security architecture of the Middle East, not just a local federal region. But the condition of playing this role is the existence of a coherent decision-making center in Erbil. Otherwise, the climate will turn from a "geopolitical agent" into a "subject of competition for others".

Also, the article reflects the increasing attention of western academic circles to Kurdish studies. The Middle East Center of the London School of Economics has organized several projects, conferences and researches about the Kurds, state-building in the region, Kurdish identity, Kurdish refugees and relations between the Kurds and the governments of the region. In this context, the recent article can be considered as part of the academic effort to examine the question of whether the "Iraqi Kurdistan model" still has the capacity to survive in the new order of the Middle East.

As a result, the main message of the article from the perspective of the London School of Economics is that the survival of the Kurdistan Region is no longer solely dependent on external threats. The main danger is the gradual erosion of cohesion from within. Indeed, the article warns that if internal divisions continue, the climate may move toward a form of functional disintegration and dual governance without war and without official declaration; This incident, from the point of view of this research center, could be the biggest failure of the Kurdish state building project since 1991.