Iran’s “Balkanization” Is Unlikely But Still Can’t Be Ruled Out

Azerbaijan, Turkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, all of which have been Iran’s “frenemies” since 1979 and whose military-strategic interests are increasingly converging, are expected to exploit any large-scale instability that could follow another potential round of US strikes if Trump changes his mind.

The Wall Street Journal recently published a provocative piece by Melik Kaylan about how “A Fractured Iran Might Not Be So Bad”, with the subtitle claiming that “Its borders are artificial, and a breakup would frustrate the interests of Russia, China and others.” He argues that “there’s a distinct possibility of civil war after regime change as well as interference by outside interests”, which could presumably be brought about by a Color Revolution and/or US strikes, though he doesn’t explicitly write that.

The apparent purpose of his piece is to inform his assumedly unaware audience that a huge share of Iranians are Azeris and Kurds, who he claims became part of Iran due to its borders allegedly being drawn arbitrarily, which isn’t factually true since they’ve been part of Persian Civilization for millennia. Iran’s current borders are due to the wars it lost to its more powerful neighbors in recent centuries, not arbitrarily drawn like colonial-era Africa’s were, which some might imagine from what Kaylan wrote.

Having clarified that, the rest of his piece predicts that Iran’s “fracturing” would reduce Russian influence in Central Asia and lead to lost Chinese investments, foreseeably ending with an appeal to arm secessionists in order to bring this about. Although this scenario is unlikely, it still can’t be ruled out since Trump might go through with bombing Iran once the US’ regional naval forces are built up and more interceptor missiles are sent to Israel, which could result in regime change and then “Balkanization”.

That’s not to imply that this will occur, just that it’s possible, and the regional context works against Iran’s national unity interests. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which have been Iran’s “frenemies” since 1979, entered into a mutual defense pact last September that its other “frenemy” Turkiye now reportedly wants to join. Iran would then be surrounded since Turkiye already has mutual defense obligations to Azerbaijan, which could lead to an Azerbaijani-Iranian conflict drawing in Turkiye and then the others.

If US strikes greatly destabilize Iran, then Azerbaijan might militarily support its co-ethnics, which could lead to Turkiye intervening too, possibly on the pretext of quashing new Kurdish separatist threats. Saudi Arabia backed Iraq’s attempt to annex Iran’s Arab-majority Khuzestan Province during their war in the 1980s so the precedent exists for it to resume such meddling while Pakistan could get involved in Iranian Balochistan on anti-terrorist pretexts of the sort that it relied on to bomb Iran in January 2024.

Iran’s arguable defeat during the 12-Day War with Israel, which was the climax of the West Asian War that followed October 7^th, might have prompted those four to perceive it as “the sick man” of the region like how the Ottoman Empire was perceived from the 19^th century till its collapse. Likewise, there might also be concerns among some of them about the consequences of Iran’s collapse, thus contextualizing why Turkiye and Saudi Arabia reportedly warned Trump against dealing his planned deathblow to it.

Nevertheless, those two, Azerbaijan, and Pakistan are expected to opportunistically exploit any large-scale instability in Iran that could be caused by a Color Revolution and/or US strikes. If any of them makes a military move there on any pretext, then it could embolden the others to as well, especially if Iran’s missile capabilities are radically degraded by US (and/or Israeli) strikes and there are serious problems with command and control. To be clear, this isn’t likely, just possible, but it can’t be ruled out.