Chances of Safavids holding onto Iraq?

Basically, what do you think are the things needs to be done for the Safavids to hold onto Iraq from the 1510s and on? Considering the natural borders of Al-jazira deserts, do you think Safavids could have held on militarily against Selim and stabilized the border along the lines of Rome-Sassania?

Also if Persia holds on to Iraq (at least southern Iraq) indefinitely, would Iraq be sufficiently integrated into the idea of 'Eran'? What are the chances of some sort of Persian language and culture taking root in Iraq? Seeing that Iraq is quite heavily Shia, would it be considered an integral part of the realm like Azerbaijan?

Seeing that Iraq was some neglected borderlands under the Ottomans, could it regain it's status as the economic engine of Persia like its heyday under the Sassanians?

Finally, after the inevitable collapse of the Safavids some two hundred years later. What are the chances of it's successor state keeping Iraq as an integral part of 'Eran'.
 
Suleiman's invasion

Ok instead of Safavid's holding militarily against Suleiman, how about making the situation in Italy less in favor of the Habsburgs but more favorable in Hungary. Thus the impetus for the Franco-Ottoman alliance is lessened and the situation in the west is less favorable for the Turks. Instead Ibrahim Pasha/Suleiman's campaigns are more focused on Armenia/Tabriz (wanting to knock out Persia) but pressures in the west (Corsica, Algeria, Majorca and Croatia) forces Suleiman to shorten the 1553 campaign.

I concede that the Turks will most likely roll through the Safavids on the field no matter what, but a shortened campaign season could result in little inroads in Iraq (say they fail to take Mosul in time) and thus in the final treaty, Persia will instead cede all of Armenia to the Ottomans as a vassal state (OTL they kept Eastern Armenia), pay an indemnity ala the Perpetual peace of Rome-Persia, and then the Safavids gets to keep Dagestan/Iraq.
 
I believe the best and latest time to do it would be for the Safavids to strike when the Ottomans are at their weakest, 1683 immediately post Vienna, in tandem with the proposed Habsburg - Safavid alliance. However for this to work, you'd have to have a more competent Shah than Suleiman (of Persia). So the POD for this would have to be in the era of Abbas II, most likely with the Shah not keeping his sons in the dark politically to secure prevention of revolt.
The Safavid decline also started with Suleiman, so a more competent Suleiman would also help the Safavids stay around a lot longer in general, not just Iraq.
 
Well 1683 may be the nadir of Ottoman power but the Safavids are already in an advanced state of decay and barring some sustained major structural improvement of the entire Safavid machine (bordering on ASB), they would seem far too weak to wrestle Iraq from the Ottomans.

The conquest of Iraq represents a historic novelty where a regime in Constantinople managed to hold on to Mesopotamia for long periods. I would assume that the Safavids would most likely undergo the same dynastic decay. It just I am wondering if they have any chances of decaying with Iraq considered as a core region of Persia.
 
Top