Other than Anatolia/Anadolu (since OTL Turkey is situated in Anatolia region), I would suggests Rum or Levant.
Why would the name include the Balkans but not the middle east? The Ottomans keeping the latter is far more likely than the former.Agea?
The Kingdom of the Straits.
The Republic of the Balkans and Anatolia.
Baltia-Anatolia.
(Sorry for the double post)
This is somewhat related, but how come the Ottoman Empire collapsed with nationalist revolts but Iran didn't? Ethnic Persians make up barely half of Iranians, and like the Ottomans, Islam was the main unifyer. Yet unlike the Ottomans who crashed down in flames, Iran stayed in one peice despite all the nationalist conflicts going on just west of them. Why was this? Was Iran way more accommodating to ethnic minorities or was it simply because the western powers didn't forcefully rip Iran apart like they did with the Ottomans?
They could follow Bolivia's example an name the new republic after the lider of the revolution. If it is Mustafa Kemal it could be a turkish or arabic equivalent of Kemalistan (no idea how to write "country of Kemal" in arab/turkish)? As long as the first years of the new republic is under a popular strongman and he and his regime is more associated with a common muslim identity rather then any ethnic group there should be no opposition. And lets be honest, most geographic named states sound bad until you get accustomed to them.
Hmm. Could this be the reason that of all of Iran's minorities, thw Arab regions seem to have the most unrest?Iranian minority identity isn't national. The Armenians had a tradition of states/cultures independent and distinct from the Turks. So did the Serbs, Bulgarians, Arabs, etc. The minorities in Iran don't have a similar tradition, and so perceive themselves as somewhat different but essentially similar to the Persians. The effect is something like the attitude of the Southern Chinese dialect groups toward the concept of Chinese nationhood--they perceive it as something that includes them, because all their moments of past greatness were accomplished within its framework. The effect is strengthened by shared cultural tendencies (like celebrating Nowruz and other holidays, even the Sunni Kurds do it), and by the fact that most of Iran's languages are in the same language family as Persian, and their literary forms borrow heavily from Persian convention (even Azeri). Way easier to cast the minorities as "weird cousins, but part of the same family" than it is for the Turks to do the same to, say, the Kurds.
(Sorry for the double post)
This is somewhat related, but how come the Ottoman Empire collapsed with nationalist revolts but Iran didn't? Ethnic Persians make up barely half of Iranians, and like the Ottomans, Islam was the main unifyer. Yet unlike the Ottomans who crashed down in flames, Iran stayed in one peice despite all the nationalist conflicts going on just west of them. Why was this? Was Iran way more accommodating to ethnic minorities or was it simply because the western powers didn't forcefully rip Iran apart like they did with the Ottomans?
snip