Ethnic Pluralism in Iran

Many strategic analysts make a mistake by reducing Iran solely to its Persian identity, failing to highlight the ethnic diversity within and its impact on its internal stability and regional relationships by differentiating between Persia and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iran is not a homogenous state dominated solely by Persian culture as often imagined. While Persians make up about half of the population, Iran is home to various ethnic groups, including Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, Lurs, and Turkmen. These communities are concentrated in border provinces — essentially at the peripheries — and they maintain their own languages, cultures, customs, and traditions, with historical and cultural ties to neighboring countries like Iraq, Turkey, and Azerbaijan. Ignoring this aspect is a significant oversight that prevents a proper analysis of internal Iranian matters, closely resembling Western analyses of the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The policies of the central Iranian government, which promote the Persian language and culture, impose restrictions on minorities, such as banning the teaching of their languages in schools. These policies, which began under the Qajars and then the Pahlavis and continued in the Islamic Republic, have sparked widespread discontent among minorities and subsequently fueled social and political tensions.

Minority regions like Khuzestan (originally named al-Ahwaz, home to Arab Ahwazis), Sistan and Baluchestan face significant challenges, such as poverty, environmental degradation, and energy & water shortages, exacerbating feelings of marginalization and increasing separatist sentiments among them. For instance, Khuzestan, despite being a center of oil production, suffers from poor infrastructure and pollution, leading to frequent and escalating protests.

These protests range from peaceful demands for cultural rights to armed uprisings against the regime, especially in Kurdish and Baluchi regions. Such tensions pose a threat to the stability of the regime, especially in times of crisis, when minorities may exploit circumstances to demand their rights or even seek separation.

The implications of this ethnic diversity extend beyond internal affairs; Iranian minorities such as Azerbaijanis and Kurds have connections with communities in neighboring countries, influencing regional relations. For example, the suppression of Azerbaijani culture may increase tensions with Azerbaijan, especially amidst conflicts like Nagorno-Karabakh. Similarly, disturbances among Kurds or Baluchis could complicate relations with Iraq and Pakistan, a reality already manifesting in various forms today.

These factors facilitate support for minorities from foreign countries or through the diaspora, which may strengthen their demands, making Iran’s ethnic policies a regional and international security issue. However, achieving comprehensive political change requires unity among these groups, which has yet to materialize. This reflects a gap between ethnic minorities and Iranian opposition movements. Many of these movements, such as monarchists and democrats, adopt a Persian nationalist vision, rejecting minority demands for linguistic rights or self-administration.

This stance understandably alienates minorities, as they do not see opposition as a viable alternative that meets their aspirations. For instance, some movements insist that Persian should remain the sole national language, limiting their ability to build a broad coalition.

Here, the Iranian opposition must understand the importance of unifying its ranks with minorities and adopting their demands, which can enhance its legitimacy and broaden its popular base, contributing to achieving comprehensive democratic change.

Additionally, the international community must reassess its perspective on Iran, which will lead to a change in engagement approaches. Instead of focusing solely on the Persian elites in Tehran; Western policies should take ethnic diversity and its role in internal dynamics into account. Strengthening engagement with the diaspora — in its ethnic diversity — and including minorities issues in political discussions, such as American Congressional sessions and the European Union’s deliberations, is essential.

While the aforementioned may be used to justify policies aimed at destabilizing Iran for primarily American or Israeli interests, and secondarily for Azerbaijan, it highlights the need for a framework to develop more effective policies for the Iranian opposition, pointing towards the necessity of adopting a comprehensive vision to unify the Iranian people.

In the face of economic, environmental, and political challenges confronting Iran and the Middle East at large, the ethnic factor remains a critical element in shaping its future. Stimulating discussion on vital issues is crucial to ensure constructive engagement with one of the most complex countries in the Middle East.