Michael Axworthy (
the leading scholar on Iranian history) actually speculates that Persia under the Afsharids could have underwent a Military Revolution if Nader had a suitable successor. At the height of his conquests, Nader's army boasted 375,000 fully-equipped men; larger than the armies of Prussia and Austria combined. Persia's population at the time numbered 6 million. Supporting an army of that size in proportion with Persia's population would have required administrative and societal transformations equivalent to what occurred in Europe in the 18th century. In
the conclusion of his paper regarding this topic,
Michael Axworthy said:
If Nader had reigned longer and more wisely and had passed on his rule to a competent successor, the drive to pay for his successful army could have transformed the Persian state administration and, ultimately, the economy (as happened in Europe), as Parker and others have argued. Like it or not, military absolutism was often the precursor to economic and political development in this period. It could have brought about in Iran a modernizing state capable of resisting colonial intervention in the following century. If that had happened, Nader might today be remembered in the history of Iran and the Middle East as a figure comparable with Peter the Great in Russia: as a ruthless, militaristic reformer who set his country on a new path.
Turko-Iranian conquerors often founded vast empires centered around Iran such as Sabuktigin, Timur, and Nader across history. Unfortunately, these empires almost always ended up collapsing into civil war once the military genius who established the empire dies, which can be seen in the demise of the Ghazanavids, Timurids, and Afsharids. Iran's geography, which isn't conducive to centralized states, will be a major obstacle which much be considered. The question I have been unable to find an answer to is whether or not Nader's descendants can escape this fate and continue his legacy.
As for it's effects on the region, Nader himself had always been keen on normalizing relations with the Ottomans in an attempt to return the stability of the Safavid era. In the east, it seems that he had been interested in furthering Persian influence in the Subcontinent, essentially subjugating the Punjab, although I personally doubt as to if his empire could exert influence across the Indus without his threatening presence. As the British begin to close in from India and the Russians from the north, Persia could potentially avoid colonialism altogether and take a path resembling Japan, given that the society develops an adequate method of education in order to keep up with western powers.
Something that has been shrouded in mystery is Nader's attempt to found another school of Islamic law, which is discussed in depth
in this paper. Upon his coronation, he had Persian notables ostensibly vow to turn the country back towards Sunni Islam, representing a break from the
ancien regime of the Safavids. At the same time, he tried to develop this school of law around a Persian identity. This unnatural, combobulated origin and its rejection from the Ottomans most likely contributed to its eventual abandonment by Nader shortly before his death. However botched it was, in my opinion this was the next step in bringing Persia into modernity. Likewise with the Ottomans, the Persian
ulema had become stiff, backwards, and ultimately stifled development—they had become more of a wealthy upper-class rather than intellectuals as they were in the past. Nader's confiscation of their wealth would have forced Persian society to develop an alternative, perhaps more modern education system to develop in stead of the traditional methods provided by the scholarly class.
@John7755 يوحنا has some knowledge regarding the Afsharids and Safavids,
@Nassirisimo has written a
lengthy timeline regarding this scenario, and
@Koprulu Mustafa Pasha has extensive experience with the Ottomans, so they could chime in if they want to.