Will Iran ever break up the way the Soviet Union did?

Great Debates
1

Inspired by this thread on China: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=368072

We think of Iran as a conventional nation-state, but this map – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iran_ethnoreligious_distribution_2004.jpg – suggests it always has been a multinational empire, with a lot of obvious potential fracture points. The Kurds everywhere have always been restive under non-Kurdish rule. The Arabs of Arabistan/Khuzestan/al-Ahwaz have had a secessionist movement for a long time. http://www.al-ahwaz.com/ (Site mostly in Arabic but there’s a map.) The Balochis of Pakistan have a secessionist movement – I don’t know if they make any claims to Iranian Baluchestan, but the potential is obvious. http://www.balochvoice.com/ And since there’s already an independent state of Azerbaijan, I’d be suprised if a few nationalists on both sides of the border were not thinking, now and then, of uniting it with all Azeri regions of Iran.

What are the chances of Iran breaking up along ethnocultural lines – on its own, due to domestic unrest, without any foreign invasion?

What are the chances that if the U.S. does invade Iran, it will have a plan in place to separate all ethnically non-Persian regions from the core state?

2

Modern propaganda. Salah Eddine al Ayoubi was a Kurd, the Kurds were once backbones of the Islamic empires.

I have never heard the Iranian Kurds were unhappy, I think they are Shia rather than Sunni like their western brothers. Maybe I am wrong.

Maybe but since Azerbaijan can not even beat poor Armenia, to win back its western lands I do not think the Azeri republic is eager to fight Iran or make it mad.

Very small, it is mostly Shia and that is more important.

Americans seem to be very stupid when it comes to other countries, perhaps they will have a plan. It may be as successful as the plans for Iraq.

3

Pretty tiny, IMunsupportedO. Iran is indeed a multiethnic state with some separatist movements, but then so are Spain, Canada, and Israel. While Iran retains a strong central government, which barring war or invasion seems pretty likely, I don’t see it fragmenting.

I do know some non-Kurdish Iranians who seem receptive to the idea of letting the Kurdish part of Iran join the Iraqi Kurdistan if it ever achieves formal recognition as a state; but naturally these are not Iranians who are actually in charge of deciding such things.

Outside of the Kurds, I don’t think any other Iranian separatist movements will come to much. To break up a recognized nation, ISTM, you have to have either an internal collapse as the USSR did, or vigorous pressure from a neighboring state that lays claim to a border region. I don’t see either a hypothetical Baluchistan (which I doubt Pakistan will ever permit to exist anyway, short of its collapsing internally) or Azerbaijan leaning on Iran to that extent.

Maybe twenty-thirty years down the line Iran might negotiate some border tweaking with one or more of its neighbors, most likely the hypothetical Kurdistan, but my money says there will be no general fragmentation of the state.

In the case of a major war or invasion by the US, though, all bets are off.

4

Well I’ll flat out say this is totally off base. The Kurds in Iran, like in Iraq and Turkey are an oppressed minority that have occasionally fought back.

They most certainly are mainly Sunni’s and have suffered in Iran because of that

Wiki has a not too bad and concise History of the Kurds in Iran under the Shiite Regime – Openly fought 1979-82, since 83ish have fought underground.

Amnesty International regularly talks about the abuse of the Kurds in Iran. A google search using these terms will return may hits

As to the OP – I guess it could happen - but really you have to ask yourself how Iran is all that much different than Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan et al - one ethnic group ruling/dominating a culturally diverse country. It *could * - but the reasons given for it happening exist in many other places as well.

5

I am always doubtful of the claims of “oppressed minorities” by nationalists. History shows that much in lies and made up history is sold by nationalists for their politics.

So, this cite does not impress me:

As it is clearly by a Kurdish nationalist.

However, this is better, although I have not much trust in wikipedia

and would like better objective reference from author with a good sense of ethnic groups (the human rights groups in my opinion write much rubbish on ethnic group histories, told to young researchers, which is why I would like reference to objective historian).

But I also note by the map of the wiki article it shows the southern portion of the Kurdish region as Shia and the northern portion as Sunni - here again it seem to me it is necessary to have a non-nationalist view of the situation.

6

[QUOTE=maziiadar
and would like better objective reference from author with a good sense of ethnic groups (the human rights groups in my opinion write much rubbish on ethnic group histories, told to young researchers, which is why I would like reference to objective historian).

.[/QUOTE]

Dude I can provide many cites will you hand wave them all away? That is absurd.

But look, I was GD’ing your statement "I have never heard that the Iranian Kurds were unhappy … .
and now you have. So it is a good day for you, in that you learned sumpin’. Besides my previous Cites here are some more:

Within the past month those “Nationalist Lovers” at Rueters reported the Iranian army - pursuing presumably unhappy Iranian Kurdish rebels shelled inside Iraq

Even though this is an enthralled Human Rights Org the events are reported on ABC, Reuters and Yahoo and show, I think, “unhappiness” on the part of Kurds

10/2005
Arab and Kurdish provinces rocked by escalating bloodshed as state security forces stamp out surge of protest
link

Nationalist Loving Human Rights Org – building on the UN (Nationalist lovin’? UN)report
8/2005
The Kurds are one of Irans many ethnic minority groups, and number around 10% of the population. They mainly live in the province of Kordistan and neighbouring provinces bordering Turkey and Iraq. A UN report released last week said authorities were denying basic amenities to Iran’s ethnic and religious minorities and in some cases seizing land.
link

Now there was a second part of your post that was why I characterized it as “off base” rather than wrong - because that is what it was : I think they are Shia rather than Sunni like their western brothers. Maybe I am wrong.

University of MD says
Most Kurds are Sunni Muslims (CULDIFX4 = 2), but there is a minority of Shi’i Muslim Kurds in Iran, primarily in the western province of Kermanshah (GROUPCON = 3).

7

Calm yourself, you provided one cite to wikipedia, and one link to a rambling personal website which is no cite. Now you provide some real citations, thank you.

I have learned to distrust the claims about Kurds and others national minorities like situations, maybe I am wrong but it seems to me Americans have lapped up much nonsense in this area. Nationalists make many claims and lie greatly to promote projects, believing them foolishly gets people into trouble.

The University cite is a good one, but it would be interesting to know the breakdown of Shia versus Sunni among Kurds in Iran by real numbers.

8

Jeez, you really love this question Brainglutton - I think it is at least the third time you’ve posed it. Not criticizing, mind you. It deserves its own thread if it interests you this much :).

But sadly my very nature leads me to respond to it again in essentially the same way, just as yours compels you to keep asking it. We’re all slaves to our impulses ;).

Pretty close to nil.

WAG obviously, but pretty low. Maybe. Kurdistan might prove an interesting temptation/exception.

As to why:

Lurs, Mazandarani, Gilaki, Bakhtiyari - From a nationalistic POV about as distinct from Persians as the Provencals are from the French. Luri/Laki and Bakhtiyari are both pretty close to Farsi ( though the mutual intelligibility is apparently limited ), Mazandarani and Gilaki a bit less so, but all of these populations are functionally bilingual. None of them are particularly restive that I’ve heard, other than perhaps the normal mild resentment at cultural domination from the center. Heck the Pahlavi Shahs originated in Mazandaran.

Azeri, Turkmen, Qashqai - The co-dominant Turkish minority. Essentially the same folks with marginally different dialects at best, in different regions and in the case of the Qashqai a somewhat different cultural milieu ( the Qashqai, to some extent like the Bakhtiyari, is a young cultural grouping, not so much an ethnic one - a nomadic tribal confederacy that formed in the 18th century ). All with significant investment in Iran as a state, many of them bilingual. The old ruling dynasties of Persia were Turkic and descendants of the old Qajar house ( whose tribe was deliberately divided among both the “Azeri” in the west and the “Turkmen” in the east ) and their relatives proliferated and formed a good chunk of the Iranian upper-class even under the Persian Pahlavis. Azeris hold high positions, still, in the government.

Granted there has been some regional restiveness revolving around issues of Persian chauvinism. There was also some related tension between the dueling Grand Ayatollahs of Khomeini and Shariatmadari ( an Azeri ), who did not get along theologically. But they’re dead now. Overall my impression is that accomodationists are still far more significant than secessionists.

Baluchis - Not strong enough to go it alone in Iran and U.S. ally Pakistan would foam at the mouth at any such suggestion.

Arabs - Oddly enough the rise of an Shi’a Arab theocracy in southern Iraq might strengthen secessionists in Iran. There has been some limited signs of growing restiveness ( or at least more active PR - sometimes it is hard to tell the difference at such a distance ), again probably mostly a reaction to Persian chauvinism. However they were notoriously unresponsive to SH’s attempt to rally them under the banner of pan-Arabism back in the Gulf War, so one wonders how widespread any resentment might actually be towards their co-religionists and countrymen.

Beyond that apparently the ethnic populations are heavily intercalated in Khuzestan, so teasing that apart would doubtless be rather messy.

Kurds - They most historically restive population, but considerably more marginal than in Iraq or Turkey. Very unlikely they could pull off any sort of secession on their own. The U.S. might be tempted to merge it with Iraqi Kurdistan ( assuming it would and could successfully invade Iran and bring about such a drastic partition - something that at the moment at least I rather doubt ), but I dunno if they’d actually go through with it.

  • Tamerlane
9

:dubious: Ermm . . . We wouldn’t be verging on Armenian-Holocaust-denial here, would we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)#Turkey_and_the_Armenian_genocide

10

Indeed it could. IIRC, there used to be a movement to united the ethnically Pashtun regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan into a new “Pashtunistan.” But I don’t recall the idea coming up at any time since the U.S. invaded (not surprising, if we want Pakistan for an ally).

11

I don’t recall that (during the Gulf War), but I do recall that Hussein’s main pretext for invading Iran in 1980 was to “liberate” the Arabs of Khuzestan (coincidentally Iran’s biggest oil-producing province) from Persian rule.

12

I screwed up and didn’t take a decent shot at the OP

**PRO: **

There are Kurds with guns actively trying to achieve this. They have safe havens on the border, some level of international support, are part of a pan-Kurdish movement and whatever happens in Iraq are likely to get stronger not weaker as a movement and are being repressed by the Mullah Government (i.e. there is nothing that is enticing them to stop)

CON:

The Iran Mullah Government are in a unique position with an improbably strong structure of Revolutionary Guards that are absolutely loyal to the regime controlling ground troops* (And having its own Navy and Air force). This group force is also responsible for Iran’s missile forces which the regular army has no control over.

One piece of the ground troops group is the fanatical Basij (wiki so shoot me) that are even MORE * fanatically loyal to the government and well organized.

All this and Iran has a large professional army that has been vetted, trained and grown in Ideological purity. I can’t spin the semi-realistic scenario where they voluntarily decide to turn on their Mullah masters (and spark a civil war vs. the Revolutionary Guards as I think the Revolutionary Guards throwing in the towel in the facer of that is unlikely).

To be honest I think a Pakistan style Military takeover (that for the OP’s sake devolves into the break-up of the country) is actually less than unlikely. What scenario I think, as a thought exercise, might be more possible (but still a pretty tiny chance) is a glasnost style meltdown after the Mullahs try to let up a bit. That is things just spin out and the people rise up… maybe say there is about a 15% chance to pull a number from my butt vs. about a 5% of a successful military coup. Either one of which could conceivably, but would not necessarily, in turn lead to a break-up of the country.

Can’t believe it will happen in the next 2 decades – if it ever does

(Would have said the same about the USSR in 1986 and here we are)

13

Three bombs went off in Kermanshah this week. This is seen as retaliation against Iran by the Kurds for the shelling Iran has been doing to Kurdish postitions accross the border. Yep, it’s a love fest.

According to Mrs. Murdoch the Kurds are second-class citizens in Iran. Officially, however, the state media always plays them up as brothers in Islam.

Persians rule the roost in Iran, though half the country isn’t Persian. Afghanis are the bottom of the food chain. They are widely seen as being untrustworthy criminals.

Almost all the power in Iran belongs to Persians. Anyone trying to buck the state will be doing so from a postion of weakness.

Some of the groups seem unlikey to start nationalist movements anyway. I mean why would the Turkmens want to unite with Turkmenistan? There are a good number of Armenians in Iran, but they are pretty spread out. I see no nationalist movement coming from that.

There are some nationalist movements mainly the Arabs and the Kurds. There have been recent demonstrations in Iran for Arab autonomy which were cracked down upon fast. In the event that the IRI melted down somehow they might take it upon themselves to try and establish self rule. I don’t think, however, that Iran is a house of cards just waiting to break up.

14

Hmm? What Afghanis?

15

Most nations sport this kind of diversity. There are very, very, very few monolingual monocultural countries, especially in an area with as long and rich a history as the middle east. I challenge

Remember, it was only in 1861 that Italy was united for like a dozen nations.

16

If you looked at Europe the same way, you’ll find plenty of countries that have the same sort of diversity. France has Savoyards, Bretons, Basques and Catalans. Spain has Catalans, Basques. Belgium is obvious. Germany and Austria are divided despite a shared ethnicity. And on and on. And everyone has migrant populations from former colonies and other third world countries.

The big difference is that european countries have gone through a few hundred years of “nation building”, ethnic cleansing, forced assimilation, and suchlike. There’s a language called “Italian”, yet the Italian spoken in Milan is more different than the Italian spoken in Sicily than Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish are from each other.

Monolingual, monoethnic, monoreligious, and geographically unified states are the exception, not the rule. Heck, even famously homogenous JAPAN has Korean, Okinawin, and Ainu minorities. Expecting every multiethnic state to self destruct is not consistent with history.

17

According to the UNHCR, there are around 1.7 million displaced Afghanis in Iran. That number only counts refugees, however. There are lots more people of Afghan descent living in Iran.

18

The reason should be obvious. The European and European-derived states have been through a centuries-long process of nation-building that finally, in the late 20th Century, produced a state system in which most ethnocultural nations have their own states, and stateless national minorities are few and, in most cases, not especially troublesome. The process of achieving this was in many cases bloody and destructive (viz. the post-WWII expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia, East Prussia, etc.), but it achieved what amounts to a more or less stable, harmonious and peaceful Western world. Where the process remains to be completed – e.g., Yugoslavia – its achievement almost certainly will bring the people greater prosperity and security in the long run, and better relations with their neighbors. But there remain many regions in the world where this process has not yet been completed – or where, as in Africa, it has been short-circuited by the imposition of modern states on ethnic protonations, with no rational relationship between the two – most African states encompass several nationalities and many nationalities are divided by state borders. It is a problem of immense interest and profound political implications wherever you may find it. Iran is just one example – but the most salient, because we might soon be at war with it, and our government might conceivably try to weaken the state by promising independence or autonomy to its national minorities.