Ways to balkanize Iran?

Warsie

Banned
Well I was wondering how you can balkanize Iran. I know you can have the UK and Russia go and keep on partitioning Persia to the point of non-existence and the Soviet Union sets up nice ethnically homogenous states when its' formed.

Would you say the Caspian peoples (like Manzaderni) to be a unified ethnic group, or able to be classified by one (say the Soviet Union declares them a unified ethnic group)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_languages

Iran-Ethnicity-2004.PNG

Moderniranianlanguagesmap.jpg


EDIT: there was a better map but i cant find it nao.
 
Last edited:
Assuming the light green of the first map represents ethnic Farsis, it looks like Iran is a fairly solid Farsi core (the gap in the middle of the Farsi ring being, I believe, harsh desert hardly inhabited by anyone) with peripheral conquests; the most "balkanizable" region being the northwest, but with pieces more or less ready to snip off on the northeast and southeast too. But that done, the Farsi core remains, unless it is subdivided on sectarian lines.

Which I think unlikely but not impossible; modern Iran can be defined as beginning when a Shah in I believe the 17th century adopted a particular Shi'ite sect as the state religion and imposed it--Farsi Sunnis would have converted or been eliminated but I know rival Shi'ite sects have indeed survived in Iranian territory--while I doubt these divide the Farsi, and assume they are held to by people already ethnically separate from the Farsi, I could be wrong about that.

If the Farsi don't come pre-subdivided, a colonial era partition between the Russians and British could sunder the northern Farsi from the southern, then post-1917, if the Bolsheviks manage to hang on to the northern Farsi province and eventually create a Persian SSR, it would of course by 1990 be culturally very different from the British-dominated part, which might or might not have gone its separate way from the Empire by then (almost certainly, it would hardly be the last bit of Empire! Nor stay in the Commonwealth given a choice, probably) but would surely not let itself get belatedly taken by the Soviets either. So assuming that both British and Soviet empires go the way of the dodo, the splitting of the Farsi nation would still be an accomplished fact and reunion would be problematic.

But all this said, I have to say I find the project rather sad; my impression is that Iran is one of the more impressive examples of successful state-building, with its peripheral minority ethnicities rather more smoothly reconciled to their membership in the larger nation than is generally the case; breaking it up seems a shame.

And the upshot is not so much a broken mosaic as several such lying around a monolithic, or perhaps broken in two, Farsi center that historically subjugated the other pieces centuries ago and might well re-incorporate them once whatever political storm that broke their hold on them has come and gone.
 

Warsie

Banned
Assuming the light green of the first map represents ethnic Farsis, it looks like Iran is a fairly solid Farsi core (the gap in the middle of the Farsi ring being, I believe, harsh desert hardly inhabited by anyone) with peripheral conquests; the most "balkanizable" region being the northwest,

Yes; light green is 'Farsi'/Persians

Nor stay in the Commonwealth given a choice, probably) but would surely not let itself get belatedly taken by the Soviets either.

Are you sure? AFAIK the communist in say the 1970s revolution had a lot of power and influence and even in OTL1920s-40s there were semipopular soviet supported national movements

So assuming that both British and Soviet empires go the way of the dodo, the splitting of the Farsi nation would still be an accomplished fact and reunion would be problematic.

Not sure as well Germany shows. Though I was thinking there might be a 'north' and 'south' Farsistan or something just as if Iranian Azerbaijan broke off there'd be a north/south azerbaijan prolly.

But all this said, I have to say I find the project rather sad; my impression is that Iran is one of the more impressive examples of successful state-building, with its peripheral minority ethnicities rather more smoothly reconciled to their membership in the larger nation than is generally the case; breaking it up seems a shame.

I'm not sure as Kurds and Balochs still fight against the central government. The UK is arguably a better case as welll...Scottish and Welsh don't try to secede everytime the central government is threatened.

And the upshot is not so much a broken mosaic as several such lying around a monolithic, or perhaps broken in two, Farsi center that historically subjugated the other pieces centuries ago and might well re-incorporate them once whatever political storm that broke their hold on them has come and gone.[/QUOTE]
 
I'm not sure it's even possible. That area of the Middle-East seems to be perpetually Persian in terms of language and culture and unified. I've yet to see that area be partitioned at any point in history. :confused:
 

Warsie

Banned
I'm not sure it's even possible. That area of the Middle-East seems to be perpetually Persian in terms of language and culture and unified. I've yet to see that area be partitioned at any point in history. :confused:
Azerbaijan was a part of Iran before the Russian Empire partitioned it off and other parts were pulled away by the british and russians
 
The problem with this is by the 20th century, the Persian language and culture is mostly dominant throughout all of current Iran, except Baluchistan (which Iran only got in the 1860s). It was only in the latter half of the 20th century, that the ideas of Arab, Kurdish, Azeri, and Balochi nationalism became more important, and that was mostly the result of the Islamic Republic's policies regarding non-Shiites (Balochis) and general non-Iranians (other groups).

It's fairly easy for say, the British, to decide to rip off Balochistan (they had the other half in the Raj), or for the Soviets/Russians to take Azerbaijan. The best chance as far as I see is that the Allies decide during one of the peace conferences to make Iran a 'neutral state' in the favor of what OTL Austria would become. However, as this isn't Europe and therefore "less important", there is only a minor complaint when the Soviets recognize the "people's governments" in Mashhad and South Azerbaijan, and perhaps tentatively restore the Gilad SSR, while the British grant the Republic of Balochistan independence (with or without the British half).

Maybe even stretching it, the British back an Iraqi seizure of al-Ahwaz/Khuzestan in order to please some of the nationalists, although that's more ASB.
 

Warsie

Banned
It was only in the latter half of the 20th century, that the ideas of Arab, Kurdish, Azeri, and Balochi nationalism became more important, and that was mostly the result of the Islamic Republic's policies regarding non-Shiites (Balochis) and general non-Iranians (other groups).

AFAIK The Kurds tried rebelling and separating during the revolution, so that predated the rise of the 'Islamic Republic'. Even during the Great Game the local governors used british and russian influence to break off from the central government, which lead to persanizations in 1920s and 30 CE which pissed off the non-persians in persia/iran

It's fairly easy for say, the British, to decide to rip off Balochistan (they had the other half in the Raj), or for the Soviets/Russians to take Azerbaijan. The best chance as far as I see is that the Allies decide during one of the peace conferences to make Iran a 'neutral state' in the favor of what OTL Austria would become. However, as this isn't Europe and therefore "less important", there is only a minor complaint when the Soviets recognize the "people's governments" in Mashhad and South Azerbaijan, and perhaps tentatively restore the Gilad SSR, while the British grant the Republic of Balochistan independence (with or without the British half).

That can work. just meke Truman not give a **** about Iran unlike OTL. Or make that doctrine happen later or not at all

Maybe even stretching it, the British back an Iraqi seizure of al-Ahwaz/Khuzestan in order to please some of the nationalists, although that's more ASB.

The US did in Iran-Iraq War so its not too different. Maybe they did it to keep the Arabs from overthrowing the british. It can be worked in somehow
 
Top