WI: Modern Safavid Iran

Like the title says, is it possible for the Safavids to survive into modern-day and continued to rule Iran/Persia? If so, can they reclaim its Great Power status as much as their past?

How can they accomplish it?

And how much land you all reckoned the Safavids can hold outside of Iran? Personally, realistically-speaking, I think they can hold Turkmenistan, parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Then again, there's some religious issues in it but it depends on the modern Safavid leadership. Besides, the mentioned countries were once part of the previous Persian Empires and dynasties.

I know it’s pretty difficult since the Safavids is caught in rock and hard places between the Ottomans, Russia, Central Asian Khan and other European powers. Not to mention, the conservative elements of Iranian society like the Shia clerics for example.

I digress, well, I’d like to know your take or ideas on how to make the Safavid-ruled Iran survived as a modern (and if possible, industrialised) country on par with nations of Western Europe.
 
I have some ideas on how to make it happen for Safavid Iran. Well, not much ideas but good ones by these two from a certain thread:

7. Iran's best bet is simply a long strand of effective Safavid leadership, without such a disastrous diplomacy with the Ottomans. Possibly, an Iran that focuses on trade, rather than playing geopolitical games against Ottoman and Russian powers. The Afsharid is an overrated dynasty, whether one likes it or not, the Afsharid is less likely, it was built only off the conquest of a single ruler who got lucky in India, gaining cast riches. The Safavid however, as decadent and intellectually outrageous they were, gave Iran the first serious growth and stability since the 900s.

ways to give the Safavids more of a chance would be:

- lessen the importance of religious legitimacy. The reason this is a problem is that the Safavid throne became exceedingly decadent in its reign leading to a worse and worse relationship with the Ulema and disillusionment. If there is less direct responsibility on the Shah to be so pious, the Shah's decadence can be more easily hidden and not so treasonous.

- the Qizballi should be empowered and given or have certain powers over provinces and have interest in power, more so than otl. This could create a militarist regime that understands disadvantage or the Qizballi becomes overtime, with a peaceful Safavid regime, a trade or cultural entity like the Samurai did in Japan. This could give incentive to locals to accept modernized methods of rule and decentralized trade without the problems found in Durrani and Khiva.

- a relatively peaceful Safavid regime, without atogonizing the Ottomans, the Safavids could avoid conflict with external forces. It then, if decentralized enough with the Qizballi, could focus more on internal issues, like power conflicts, in the same manner as Japan. This would limit the possibility of foolhardy imperialism into backwards lands in Central Asia, which draws Iran into conflict with the heavy hitters (Russia, Mughals, Britain and Qing). Also, once a power struggle is limited, it could be possible for Iran to isolate itself relatively. 6/10

7. But couldn't Nader Shah have had a successor close to his skill? This ruler might've lost a bit of India, but stabilising the Afsharid Empire would produce a real powerhouse. Especially right before the dawn of nationalism, where you could genuinely create a Greater Persian nation using the Persian cultural realm as a nationalistic base of things. And the Persian world united under one ruler would be a regional powerhouse with massive potential. It would at least be as strong as the 19th century Ottomans, and I think if they put aside their rivalry with the Turks to oppose Russia, good things would happen.

Although you are probably right about the Safavids being a better bet long term.

Well, tbh, these ideas are credible as they could get. AFAIK, Safavid seems to be the best bet for stronger Iran.

Tho' I'm aware of the certain Afsharid TL. :3
 
I still stand by my Safavid remarks. Keep the Safavid internally focused and outside of wars with the major powers of the region. It also should be noted that large numbers of Shi'i migrated to Iran due to the Safavids, this migration stopped following the end of the Safavid era.
 
Okay. I'll do that.

Hmm, what did you imagined the modern population of Safavid Iran will turned out, especially with certain amount of PODs happening, Shi'ite immigration to Iran and kept internally focused?
 
It might have helped with the decadence if the tradition of raising the children of the shah in the harem was never established.
 
Okay. I'll do that.

Hmm, what did you imagined the modern population of Safavid Iran will turned out, especially with certain amount of PODs happening, Shi'ite immigration to Iran and kept internally focused?

Maybe around 45 million by 1900 and declining with increased contraceptive use. Assuming everything goes right for the Safavids post 1520 till 1900, there is no reason that they do not greatly succeed and double the population otl of 18 million.
 
As a general remark, I think to keep a dynasty going, it would be necessary to renew the idea of what is a dynasty. One possible option would be to let the son-in-law inherit the throne instead of the son. That way the monarch could pick an able person to take over. That person would then marry the earlier monarchs daughter, and would become part of his family. Since Islam allows four wifes, he could even marry up to four of his daughters. This system would have some of the advantages of the system used in much of the second century of the Roman Empire, when the emperor adopted his successor, but here he would also make sure that his biological descendants would have a central position.
 
Top