By AHMAD OBALI - The writer is a South Azerbaijani dissident journalist and the head of Gunaz TV, a South Azerbaijani language TV channel based in Chicago.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, a regime that routinely chants “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” while building up terror proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and elsewhere across the Middle East, poses an existential threat to the State of Israel and a major threat to the United States, Europe, and the broader free world.

The most effective strategy to confront the Islamist regime would be to weaken the country from within, striking the Iranian regime where it is most vulnerable.

Iran is an extremely diverse country composed of numerous ethnic groups. Some estimates suggest that fewer than 40% of Iran’s population is actually Persian. The rest of the country consists of Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Ahwazi Arabs, Baloch, Turkmen, Lors, and Tajiks, many of whom demand either independence or a federal system that would grant them greater influence over political affairs.

Notably, 80% of Iran’s oil and 60% of its natural gas reserves are located in Khuzestan, home to Iran’s largest Arab minority, the Ahwazi Arabs. Prior to 1924, the Ahwazi Arabs maintained an independent emirate, but Reza Shah Pahlavi dissolved it.

Ever since, many Ahwazi Arabs have opposed what they view as Persian hegemony over their region. In their view, the Iranian regime has mismanaged the area, contributing to widespread unemployment and severe water shortages.

Tensions within Iran are not solely ethnic. According to Iran’s constitution, Sunnis cannot become President of Iran or Supreme Leader. Sunni Muslims are also barred from building mosques in Tehran.

Membership in the Baha’I faith is effectively criminalized, despite the fact that BahaʼI’s constitute the largest non-Muslim religious minority in Iran and that the faith originated in Persia. BahaʼI holy sites are frequently vandalized, and BahaʼI individuals are often arrested, imprisoned, or otherwise persecuted.

Evangelical Christians are forced to establish house churches because the Iranian regime does not officially recognize their religious rights. In the eyes of the regime, only Armenian, Assyrian, and certain Orthodox churches are permitted to operate openly. As a result, grievances among Iran’s religious minorities continue to grow.

Nationwide protests challenge regime

Since the Green Movement erupted in 2009, many Iranians have demanded freedom from the rule of the clerical regime. In recent years, five major nationwide protest movements have challenged the government. These protests heavily involved the country’s ethnic minority regions.

Washington has searched for a unified opposition movement capable of toppling the regime, but such a movement has not emerged, largely because Iran is a multi-ethnic nation with competing political visions.

While some Western leaders have rallied around Reza Pahlavi, it is important to recognize that he has limited support among Iran’s ethnic and religious minorities, which together comprise a substantial portion of the population. Consequently, relying solely on him as the face of opposition may be strategically flawed.

Instead, Washington should consider supporting a broader coalition made up of Ahwazi Arabs, Kurds, Baloch, Lors, Azerbaijanis, Turkmen, and Tajiks in order to build a united front against the clerical regime.

The future of Iran may lie not in the continuation of the Islamic Republic, but in a federal or confederal system in which ethnic groups are granted meaningful autonomy. Some groups, such as Azerbaijanis, may even seek the option of closer political alignment with neighboring Azerbaijan. Proponents of this view argue that anything short of structural decentralization could result in a prolonged conflict between Iran and the West lasting generations.

Persian nationalists often point to events from 2,500 years ago, including the long wars between the Romans and the Persians, arguing that foreign powers historically failed to conquer Iran despite prolonged military campaigns.

However, supporters of decentralization argue that Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula succeeded in transforming Iran not merely through conquest, but by replacing the Sassanid ruling order with new local structures.

From this perspective, empowering local ethnic groups represents the most viable path toward lasting political change. Anything else, they argue, risks creating a prolonged and unresolved struggle.

Until 1925, Turkic dynasties mostly from South Azerbaijan ruled large territories including present Iran for nearly a millennium. The dominance of Persian nationalism is therefore viewed by some as a relatively modern phenomenon.

Iran’s ethnic groups each possess histories of self-governance and remain wary of centralized Persian authority. Many retain nostalgia for earlier eras in which Persian dominance was less pronounced. Advocates of decentralization argue that Iran should revive forms of governance that historically accommodated its ethnic diversity, rather than continue repeating unsuccessful attempts to reform or replace the current regime through centralized opposition movements.

Iran is not a monolithic nation-state but a deeply diverse society made up of numerous ethnic and religious communities, each with its own history, identity, and political aspirations. The tensions that exist within the country today are not merely political disputes with the ruling regime, but also reflect long-standing grievances over centralization, discrimination, and unequal representation.

Any serious attempt to reshape Iran’s future must take these realities into account. A political structure that recognizes regional autonomy, ethnic diversity, and religious freedom may offer a more sustainable path toward stability than continued centralized rule under either the current regime or another Persian-Shia-centred, heavily nationalist government.

Source: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-897972