From time to time, voices in the West call for carving Iran into small, ethnically defined states — a proposal that betrays both a misunderstanding of Iranian identity and a dangerous naiveté about the likely fallout.
Far from undermining Tehran’s grip, such plans would only rally Iranians of every background around the ruling regime and risk unleashing sectarian violence that could draw foreign powers deep into the region.
Iran is not a mono-ethnic nation-state. Its identity is multi-layered, built over more than 2,500 years of shared history, language, and culture.
Persians make up roughly half of the population, while the other half comprises Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, Balochs, Lurs, Turkmen, and several other communities. These groups speak different languages, practice various faiths, and maintain vibrant cultural traditions. Yet most have no desire to secede or recreate arbitrary borders based on ethnicity.
In fact, Iran’s highest authorities underscore this unity. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is of Azeri origin.
And Ali Shamkhani is from Iran’s Arab minority, and the Larijani brothers are Mazandaranis. Their very appointments testify to the inclusiveness — if imperfect — of the Iranian state.
The regime is a religious dictatorship and often imposes inequality based on religion and not ethnicity. For example, Iran’s long-term culminates in Bijan Zangeneh, a Shia Kurd, while the regime discriminates against Sunni Kurds. Baloch are the target of harassment mainly because they are Sunni.
Minorities do suffer economic neglect, concentrated in poverty-stricken provinces far from the investment funnelled into Tehran and its environs. Sanctions, corruption, and the regime’s choice to divert resources into proxy warfare have only exacerbated these grievances. However, their response has overwhelmingly been calls for rights, dignity, and the rule of law, rather than secession.
Splitting Iran into ethno-states does more harm than good
History warns us: balkanization often sparks civil wars and empowers extremist factions. The vacuum created by hastily drawn borders can make room for local strongmen, ideological militias, and criminal networks. A fragmented Iran would be prey to outside powers eager to carve up influence along sectarian lines, a replay of colonial-era power plays with even more lethal weaponry at hand.
The human cost would be staggering. Imagine internally displaced populations caught between rival “mini-states,” with no functioning national government to deliver healthcare, education, or basic services. Borders drawn to appease one group invariably leave minorities stranded, fueling cycles of retribution and terror. Chaos without clear lines of accountability would invite external intervention, as each entity pursues its own agenda.
Beyond the immediate tragedy, a broken Iran would shatter regional stability. The Middle East’s balance of power is already precarious. From Turkey’s Kurdish dilemma to Gulf Arab anxieties, neighboring capitals would scramble to secure ethnic kin across new borders. Armed conflict between Iran’s successor states could spill into Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond, risking conflagration on an unprecedented scale.
Instead of fantasy maps drawn in Western conference rooms, we should chart a path that empowers the Iranian people, all of them, to reclaim their country. For centuries, Iranians have weathered foreign invasions, dynastic upheavals, and revolutionary zeal. The current ruling clique has occupied the seat of power for only 46 years. What Iranians need now is a government that invests in their welfare, respects human rights, and allows free expression, a true national renaissance, not a hasty partition.
Solidarity among oppressed peoples must be based on shared values of dignity and freedom, not on redrawing borders that have long ceased to reflect the realities on the ground.
The Iranian people deserve international support in their pursuit of political reform and human rights. That means pressuring Tehran’s rulers with targeted sanctions, supporting civil society initiatives, and amplifying voices calling for accountability.
It does not mean indulging fantasies of carving Iran into a mosaic of micro-dictatorships. Ultimately, true liberation comes from within, from the unity of purpose among Iranians who strive for a democracy that serves all, regardless of language or lineage.
Iranians are, more than anything, afraid of civil war, and this narrative, which promises a civil war, will help the Islamic regime.
The author is a researcher at Tel Aviv University’s Alliance Center for Iranian Studies