Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander, Brigadier General Esmail Qaani, has advised the Jews of Israel to “go back” to “your houses” in Europe and the United States, while there is time, because, he says, the Jewish state is sure to be destroyed. After all, didn’t Hamas just win a great victory, proving it can remain standing after all the IDF threw at it? Like Hamas itself, General Qaani has a rich fantasy life.
But Iran may soon find that it is not the Israelis, but the Iranians themselves, who are going to have to “go back” from where they are now. That would mean, first of all, that Iran end its interference, by providing money and weapons, to help the Shi’a in Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon. The economic cost of such foreign adventures may simply become too much for the Iranians to bear. The political cost is also great: Iran has made itself detested by all of its Gulf Arab neighbors; Syria is Iran’s only Arab ally, and that is not worth very much, for Syria needs $375 billion in reconstruction aid just to be put back into the position it was in before the civil war began.
Along with this economic misery leading to popular disaffection with the regime in Tehran, there is another weakness that must worry the Iranian mullahs. It threatens not only the regime, but the very existence of the country within its current borders. That internal weakness is the result of the ethnic divisions within Iran that threaten the rule of the majority Persians. For fewer than half of the Iranian population of 82 million consists of Persians; there are also Azeris, Baluchis, Kurds, and Arabs, all of whom harbor, with various degrees of fervor, and violence, separatist hopes. Each poses a threat to Iran’s continuance as a state within its present borders.
After World War I, the Kurds were promised by the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) a large degree of autonomy, with the promise of future independence. But Ataturk managed to undo that promise in the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), and the Kurds — who number about 45 million people — were instead split among Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran.
There are about ten million Kurds in Iran, more than 12% of the population. Iran must worry that any success by Kurds in Syria, Iraq, or Turkey to achieve greater autonomy will only encourage Kurdish separatists in Iran. A few years ago, it seemed that the Kurds in Iraq, having enjoyed autonomy under American protection during the last years of Saddam Hussein’s reign (when American air cover prevented Saddam’s air force from bombing the Kurds), and during the first years after his overthrow, might be moving toward independence. It hasn’t happened; the regime in Baghdad has so far managed to keep the Kurds from rising in open revolt.
In Turkey, Erdogan’s army has been suppressing the Kurdish PKK, and in recent years the Turkish military has established bases in both Syria and in northern Iraq to keep the local Kurds in check; this has naturally discouraged the Kurdish separatists in Iran. But their failure to obtain greater autonomy in Iran, much less independence, has not reconciled the Iranian Kurds to their situation. They are waiting for a more opportune time. Their threat to the Iranian state remains. And the rulers in Tehran remember with dread the last violent uprisings by Iranian Kurds, in 1979, which were ferociously crushed, with at least 30,000 Kurds killed. Iran has to keep troops in the Kurdish areas, and must continually worry about help arriving from Kurds elsewhere, and the possible threat of peshmerga volunteers from Turkey, Syria, and Iraq, who might make their way to join their Kurdish brothers in Iran.
There are 20 million Azeris in Iran, or about 23% of the population. There are, in fact, twice as many Azeris in Iran than in Azerbaijan itself. They, too, chafe under the rule their Persian masters, so that they might join an enlarged state of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan’s recent military victory over Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh has been a source of encouragement for the Azeris in Iran wishing to join Azerbaijan. If they rose in rebellion, they would be hard to suppress, given their numbers, especially if they could call on Azerbaijan, just next store, to supply them with weapons and fighters.
The Azeris in Iran have not been well treated. The Iranian government has banned the teaching of the Azeri language and literature in Iranian schools. When, in 2015, the Iranians broadcast programs that mocked the Azeri accent and language, this alone led Azeris, already on the edge, to demonstrate in many cities, shouting such slogans as “stop racism against Azeri Turks,” “long live Azerbaijan,” and “end the Persian racism,” in Tabriz, Urmia, Ardabil, and Zanjan, and even Tehran itself. Civil unrest among the Azeris is a given. And independent, newly victorious Azerbaijan, full of Azeri fighters, is just on the other side of the porous border with Iran.
The Baluch people in the east of Iran, bordering the Province of Baluchistan in Pakistan, are Sunni, and have suffered terrible discrimination in Shi’a-ruled Iran. Only 2,000 of the 3.3 million college students currently in Iran, for example, are Baluchis. On the other hand, Baluchis make up 55% of those who have been executed in recent years by the Islamic Republic. The last execution of a Baluchi militant in Iran took place this past January: “Iran hangs Baloch militant for killing of two Revolutionary Guards,” Reuters, January 30, 2021 :
Iran executed on Saturday an ethnic Baloch militant convicted of killing Revolutionary Guards members, the judiciary’s official website reported, a day after the United Nations urged Iranian authorities to spare his life.
The Mizan site said Javid Dehghan, who it said was a leader of the Sunni militant group Jaish al-Adl, or the Army of Justice, was hanged for shooting dead two Guards five years ago in the southeastern Sistan-Balochistan province….
The impoverished Sistan-Balochestan province, which borders Afghanistan and Pakistan, has long been the scene of frequent clashes between security forces and Sunni militants and drug smugglers. The population of the province is predominantly Sunni Muslim, while most Iranians are Shi’ite.
Jaish al-Adl, which says it seeks greater rights and better living conditions for ethnic minority Balochis, has claimed responsibility for several attacks in recent years on Iranian security forces in the province.
The Baloch separatists in both eastern Iran and western Pakistan are fighting to create an independent Balochistan on land carved out of both countries. While Jaish al-Adl says it merely wants to improve living conditions and greater rights for the Baloch people, this understates the threat to Iran; Jaish al-Adl’s ultimate aim is to create an independent state. The authorities in Tehran know this perfectly well.
The Iranian regime has forbidden the exclusive use of the Baluchi language in writing — that means any Baluchi text must always include a Farsi translation. It’s a way to keep track of what the Baluchis are saying to one another, a part of intelligence gathering. In 2002 Baluchis founded the Jundullah, a religious and political organisation that has claimed rights for the Baluchis in eastern Iran. It has carried out both attacks on the Iranian military, and suicide bombings of Shi’a mosques. It is also suspected of kidnapping an Iranian nuclear scientist. Like the Kurds and the Azeris, the Baluchis can count on aid, including men, money, and materiel, coming from the other side of a porous Iranian border. In the case of the two million Baluchis in Iran, there are another nine million Baluchis in Pakistan, who are keenly aware of the mistreatment of their fellow Baluchis — all of them Sunnis — by the Shi’a government in Iran.
The final minority that has been mistreated by the Persians are the Arabs in Khuzestan, the oil-producing southern province on the Gulf that was devastated in the Iran-Iraq war, with much of the area left in ruins. The Iranians claim there are only two million of them; the Arabs claim there are five million Arabs in Khuzestan. Whatever their number, the Khuzestanian Arabs have long complained of discrimination by the Persians. In 2005, there were mass riots and mass arrests of 25,000 people in Khuzestan, and many Arabs were summarily executed. Arrests, torture, and executions have continued to imperfectly keep the peace. There were more riots in 2007, followed by more repression; in 2015, there were a wave of arrests made so as to head off any tenth-anniversary revolt; the rage remains. But if those Khuzestanian Arabs were supplied directly with arms, and with the money to buy additional arms, and to pay Arab fighters from outside, they could cause a great deal of destruction to the oilfields and thus to the Iranian economy. Given that Iran has sent arms to the Houthis in order to establish an Iran-backed Yemen that would serve as a base for anti-Saudi activities (including whipping up the Shi’a in Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich Eastern Province), why should the Saudis, and other Arabs, not do likewise, and supply the Khuzestanian Arabs with weapons and “volunteers” to fight their Persian masters?
Were Iran to lose control of Khuzestan, it would also be losing the region from which 85% of its oil, and 60% of its gas, is produced. In other words, the loss of Khuzestan would likely destroy the Iranian economy. And even if the territory were not lost to separatists, if the Arabs of Khuzestan rose in revolt, armed with weapons bought or supplied by Saudi Arabia and the other oil-rich Gulf Arab states, the destruction unavoidably wrought on the oilfields and pipelines, either by the Arabs in revolt, or by the Iranians fighting those Arabs, could put much of Iran’s oil production out of commission for years. The prospect of this is no doubt causing nightmares in Tehran. From the viewpoint of the Arab members of OPEC, there’s an added bonus to a heavily-armed insurrection in Khuzestan, which is that even when the American sanctions are lifted – which kept sales of Iranian oil low — Iranian oil production could still stay way down as a result both of deliberate sabotage of the oilfields and pipelines, and from interruptions in the flow that would be the result of armed conflict between Iran’s army and the Khuzestanian separatists.
Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis, Arabs make up half – a disgruntled half – of Iran’s population. Beyond Mossad agents running circles around the intelligence services of the Islamic Republic, Iran has much else to worry about. This brief response to IRGC commander Essam Qaani fits the bill: The real food for thought, General Qaani, is not that that Jews should leave their tiny state now because “Israel Will Not Survive” – we’ve seen how the Jewish state has managed for 73 years to survive everything its enemies have tried to do to it, and even to thrive. No, a different question is more to the point. And that question is: “Can the Islamic Republic of Iran Survive To 2030”?
Raja says
Another masterpiece from Hugh Fitzgerald. Moral of the story: Iran should not be flinging rocks on Israel when it is living in “glass house”
In Iran, the most googled name was Richard Dawkins recently..The Christian house-congregations are also mushrooming in Iran. There may a significant number of atheists and some Christians that can be added to Iran’s cup of woes !!!!
Tony Naim says
I am a Maronite Christian “PROUD” American who was born in Lebanon. In my Church, the sermon is still served in Aramaic, the language of my ancestors, and the one my Rabbi from Nazareth used to preach the New Testament.
No one can convince me that my Christ did not pray or that he did not preach in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.
The Jews were, are and shall always be an integral part of the Middle East until kingdom come. Jews and Christians living in the Middle East have every right as much as Muslims living there to have an EQUAL POLITICAL VOICE( and rights) with NOT one grain of sand less.
Despite whatever any idiot says.
Infidel says
Much as I admire Hugh, there are holes in this article
Kurds – w/ Turkey going out of its way to ensure that not only is there no Kurdistan within Turkey itself, but neither will there be a Kurdistan within Syria or Iraq, one can be sure that Erdogan will try to crack down on any Iranian Kurdish uprising. That would automatically make Iran and Turkey tacit allies against the Kurds, whatever their other differences may be
Azeris – Although they are Turkic, Azeris are a pretty major part of Iran’s history: the Safavid dynasty, which converted Iran from sunni to shi’a, was an Azeri dynasty, whose first capital was Ardabil and second one Tabriz before it moved to Isfahan. And there is more likely to be suspicions about the motivations of the Turks, who could try to turn them back into sunnis. Note that while Baku identifies w/ Turkey b’cos islam was long suppressed within the Soviet Union and therefore those Azeris don’t identify w/ shi’a islam at all, the Azeris of Iran are pretty proud of their shi’a, as opposed to their Turkic heritage and would never join the Turks
Balochis – while the Balochis in south east Iran may be restive, the same is true about them in western Pakistan, where right now, their biggest issue is CPEC and the Chicoms mining that territory but the locals hardly seeing any benefits. Just like Turkey can’t stand an independent Kurdistan, it’s just as likely that Pakistan would be pretty hostile to an independent Balochistan even in Iran, since that will only inspire their own Balochistan to rebel. So Iran can count on Pakistani and Turkish support for 2 of their restive ethnic rebels, even though both of those rebels happen to be largely sunni
Arabs – the Khuzestani Arabs are shi’a, much like their neighbors in Najaf and Basra. It’s therefore unlikely that the Saudis would support them any more than they support or like the current regime in Baghdad, even when it’s not allied to Iran. Their best hope is to look to Baghdad for inspiration, if not support. If Iran continues to back Kataeb Hizbullah in Iraq, then the regime in Baghdad that’s not a stooge of Iran can in turn back the Khuzestanis, and that will blow up both of them
I do think that what might happen is that Farsis might get sick of the ingratitude of other shi’a be it in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and even within Iran itself (Arabs and Azeris) and start questioning why are they loyal to any sect of islam in the first place. That is what it will take to bring down this regime
But I don’t see it happening during Biden
Ray Jarman says
Infidel,
When I visited Iran in 1968, I learned first hand that the Shah had little control over much of the nation. It was a live and let live situation.
One other note is that I hope that the peanut farmer is put into the lowest depths of hell, even below the ninth ring of Alighieri’s vision of said place. He destroyed Iran which began the internecine that has plagued the Middle East to this day.
Infidel says
Ray
Do you think that the Ayatollahs have that weak a hold on all of Iran as the Shah did? The Shah wasn’t a control freak, SAVAK notwithstanding. The Ayatollahs are
Ray Jarman says
I do agree and that is what I was trying to espouse.
Walter Sieruk says
The foundation of this whole Islamic “Republic “of Iran is based on the “holy book” of Islam the Koran, as in 47;4. Some call this religious book, the Quran. All this leads to a very important question: “Is the Quran the Word of God or is it a fabrication of a man. Thus, is the Quran the truth or a fiction and a hoax ?” The jihadists use many verses from the Quran as the main source of justification for their violence, mayhem and murders. As found in For example, 4:89. 5:33. 9:5,111,123.
The answer is clearly given on pages 145 through 157 in THE ISLAMIC INVASION by Robert Morey in which he wrote a section on the Quran with its self-contradictions. Just two of the many he cited are the following “The Quran differs on whether a day is a thousand years or fifty thousand years in God’s sight’ and “Who was first to believe? Abraham or Moses [Sura 6:14 versus 7:143]? The above is inconsistent and illogical. Further, Morey wrote about “The fact that Judaism and Christianity broke up into different sects was used in the Quran to prove that they are not of God [Suras 30:20-32. 42:13, 14]. Yet Islam has broken up into many warring sects and therefore cannot be true if the Quran is right.” Moreover, Morey in his book shows many more contradictions and absurdities in the Quran, there are and how Muhammad incorporated extra Biblical and Jewish folklore along with pre-Islamic Arabian myth and parts of Zoroastrian and Hindu stories into the Quran. Furthermore, the Muslims claim that “the Quran is the direct, literal word of God unmodified in any way by the Prophet who uttered them at the bidding of God.”
In addition, in the book UNVEILING ISLAM by Ergun Mehmet and Eethi Caner has shown that the Quran was modified in the following account on pages 45. “Muhammad felt the need to improve on the words of Allah, since he changed Allah’s wisdom for his own on several occasions. A hadith tells of the nonchalant emendations of Muhammad:’ On a number of occasions he [a scribe] had, with the Prophet’s consent changed the closing words of verses. For example, when the prophet had said ‘God is mighty and wise ‘ Adbollah b. Abi Sarh suggested writing down ‘Knowing and wise’ and the Prophet answered that there was no objection. Having observed a succession of changes of this type, Adbollah renounced Islam on the grounds that revelations, if from God could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe such as himself. After his apostasy he went to Mecca and joined the Qorayshites.’ Other writers reveal that later Muhammad and his people did go war with the Qorayshites and he personally killed Abdollah. Obviously Abdollah knew too much and Muhammad wanted Abdollah’s knowledge to die with him.” In conclusion, the Quran is not only a fiction, it’s also a hoax and therefore This Islamic regime rests on a “house of cards.” That is total and complete falsehood. Therefore that heinous Islamic regime of Iran might colipase.
Walter Sieruk says
What is called the “Iranian Revolution” turned out to be a hoax. Ayatollah Khomeini before achieving power in Iran in his lying and deceptions presented himself to the Iranian people as if he was someone who would be in power would give freedom to the people of Iran with any tyranny. The reality turned out to be just the opposite. As explained by a former Muslim as well as a man who took part in this Islamic “revolution “ ,who is now a Christian informs the reader of his book that “Prior to the Revolution no one ever imagined that other political parties would be suppressed under the rule of Ayatollah Khomeini. He had promised that all groups would have freedom to run their own campaigns after the Revolution. He even stated that governing system would be based on the decision of the people via a referendum. He never spoke of a system that would be governed by Islam. He even made clear that mullahs would not take part in any political activities, and that they would only be allowed to teach spirituality… Immediately after the Revolution, mullahs rushed into government offices to occupy the most important political l positions, making it difficult for the interim secular government to function … The mullah’s occupation of position was exactly the opposite to what the Ayatollah Khomeini had promised before the Revolution.”. [1]
In other words, the insincere, disingenuous and outright lying Ayatollah Khomeini made many bogus promise he really had no intention of keeping. His lying deception worked, for he achieved great power in Iran.
Furthermore, of the many heinously evils outcome s of that Islamic “revolution” is the extremely cruel, brutal and demonic misogyny of this hideous Islamic regime. Not only against women but even young girls. As explained by a former Iranian Revolutionary Guard member who defected to the West and how now lives in America his book also informs the reader about the malicious and murderous affront girls in Iran’s Evin prison which reads that those in power ,the “paraded teenage girls in front in front of me as they led them to their deaths. These girls were barely out of their childhood, barely old enough to think of themselves, much less form thoughts against the state. They knew nothing about the machinations of politics. They were innocent in every sense of the word and certainty innocent of trumped –up charges that led to their imprisonment. Yet they suffered fates too brutal for even the most vicious criminal. ..Their few remaining moments of life had been filled with the level of abuse that few can imagine…The author further states “They tortured and killed young girls, in God’s name and before their execution they raped them because they believed that if a girl dies virgin, she will go to heaven, and they wanted to deny them this reward.” [2]
This is as malice -filled and viciously wicked as can possibly be. This, very much, reflects the Wisdom found in the Bible which in Proverbs 15:15. For it reads “All the days of the oppressed are wretched. “ and likewise Proverbs 29:2. Which teaches “When the wicked rule, the people groan. “ [N.I.V.]
[1] ISLAM : THE HOUSE I LEFT BEHIND by Daniel Shayesteh . Pages 90, 91
[2] A TIME TO BETRAY by Reza Kahlili. Pages 2,3. 117.
ScienceABC123 says
Totalitarian governments tend to survive until they are violently overthrown.
Infidel says
The Soviet Union was a major exception. But then again, I don’t see an Iranian equivalent of Gorbachev
gravenimage says
Agreed, Infidel.
gravenimage says
Can the Islamic Republic of Iran Survive to 2030?
………………..
Let’s hope not. Good article from Hugh Fitzgerald.
Walter Sieruk says
That Islamic tyranny of Iran is brutal ,cruel and oppressive of the Iranian people
That awful Islamic regime is a very harsh reminder of the wisdom printed by Benjamin Franklin in his periodical :POOR RICHARD’S ALMANAC which is “Those who are feared are also hated.”
No rational man or woman will blame the Iranian people if they overthrow that despicable and murderous “mullah regime” of Iran.