Abstract
This paper examines and critiques the “seven pieces of Iran” cartographic scenario — a recurring geopolitical proposition that imagines the fragmentation of the Iranian state into a series of ethnically defined successor states corresponding to its major peripheral communities — from the perspective of the plateau-state model developed across this series of papers. The seven-piece configuration, which typically envisions the partition of Iran into a Persian core, a South Azerbaijani state, a Kurdish state, an Arab Khuzestan, a Baluchistan, a Turkmen region, and a Caspian entity, is argued to rest on a fundamental misreading of plateau geopolitics: one that applies the logic of ethnic nationalism developed in the context of European plain-state geography to a geographic environment whose structural properties are radically incompatible with that logic. Against the fragmentation scenario, this paper advances four structural arguments: that the Iranian Plateau’s geography integrates rather than separates its constituent regions, that its transport networks converge centripetally on the plateau core rather than diverging centrifugally toward peripheral exits, that military power on the plateau is structurally concentrated at the center rather than distributed among peripheral communities, and that the ethnic communities whose separation the map imagines are in practice so geographically intermixed as to render clean ethnic partition cartographically and demographically impossible. The paper concludes that the seven-piece map is best understood as a product of propaganda or speculative geopolitical analysis rather than as a realistic structural model of Iranian political geography, and that its persistence reflects the ideological needs of its proponents rather than any serious engagement with the plateau’s structural properties.
1. Introduction
Maps are not neutral representations of geographic reality. They are arguments — visual propositions about how space is organized, how political units are constituted, and how the future might differ from the present. Among the most politically charged categories of cartographic argument is the partition map: the representation of an existing state as a collection of ethnically or culturally distinct units whose separation would constitute a more natural or just political arrangement than their current unification. Partition maps have appeared throughout modern political history as instruments of imperial policy, nationalist aspiration, and geopolitical speculation, and their relationship to the actual geographic and demographic realities they purport to represent has been, in many cases, tenuous at best.
The “seven pieces of Iran” map belongs squarely within this tradition of politically motivated cartographic argument. In its various versions — circulated in think-tank publications, intelligence community analyses, and online geopolitical forums over several decades — this map proposes the decomposition of the Iranian state into a series of ethnically defined successor entities: a reduced Persian Iran occupying the plateau’s central and southern regions, a South Azerbaijani state in the northwest, a Kurdish state in the west, an Arab entity in the oil-rich southwestern province of Khuzestan, a Baluch state in the southeast, a Turkmen entity in the northeast, and some configuration of Caspian coastal statehood in the north. The implicit argument of the map is that Iran’s ethnic diversity constitutes a structural fragility — that the state is held together by coercion rather than geographic logic, and that its natural trajectory, absent the suppressive capacity of the central state, would be dissolution into its ethnic components.
This paper argues that this implicit argument is wrong — not merely politically inconvenient or strategically undesirable, but structurally mistaken in its understanding of plateau geopolitics. The seven-piece scenario misreads the relationship between ethnic diversity and political integration on the Iranian Plateau, applies an inappropriate geographic model derived from the very different structural conditions of European plain-state nationalism, and ignores the integrative forces that the plateau’s geographic structure consistently generates. The map is, in the analytical vocabulary established across this paper series, a fundamentally anti-plateau argument: one that treats the plateau as if it were a collection of separable regional units rather than a structurally integrated geographic whole.
The paper develops this critique across six sections. Section 2 describes the typical configuration of the seven-piece scenario and its intellectual genealogy. Section 3 examines the first structural objection: that plateau geography integrates rather than separates its constituent regions. Section 4 analyzes the centripetal logic of the plateau’s transport networks. Section 5 addresses the structural concentration of military power on the plateau. Section 6 examines the demographic reality of ethnic intermixing that renders clean partition impossible. Section 7 considers the ideological functions of the seven-piece map as propaganda and speculative geopolitical analysis. Section 8 offers conclusions.
2. The Seven-Piece Scenario: Configuration and Genealogy
2.1 The Typical Configuration
The seven-piece fragmentation scenario for Iran, while varying in its precise cartographic details across different versions, follows a consistent basic logic. The Iranian state, in this scenario, is imagined as a collection of ethnically distinct territorial units whose current unification is a product of central state coercion rather than geographic or cultural coherence. Remove or sufficiently weaken that central coercion, the scenario implies, and the state would disaggregate along its ethnic fault lines into something approximating the following configuration.
The Persian core — reduced from the current Iranian state to a more narrowly defined entity centered on the plateau’s historically Persian heartland of Fars, Isfahan, and the central plateau — would constitute the residual successor to the Iranian state. Surrounding this core, the scenario imagines a series of ethnically defined peripheral states: South Azerbaijan in the northwestern plateau, constituted from the Azeri-speaking provinces of East and West Azerbaijan and potentially linked to the Republic of Azerbaijan to the north; a Kurdish entity in the western Zagros ranges, potentially contiguous with Kurdish-majority areas of Iraq, Turkey, and Syria to form the long-imagined greater Kurdistan; an Arab state in Khuzestan, the oil-rich southwestern province whose significant Arab-speaking population and proximity to Iraq have made it a recurring subject of irredentist claims from Baghdad; a Baluch state in the southeastern arid zone, potentially linked to the Baluch-majority areas of Pakistan; a Turkmen entity in the northeastern Kopet-Dag region; and some form of autonomous or independent entity in the Caspian coastal zone of Gilan and Mazandaran (Razoux, 2015).
2.2 Intellectual Genealogy
The intellectual genealogy of the seven-piece scenario is traceable to several converging streams of geopolitical thought. The most immediate is the tradition of ethnic cartography developed in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the context of European nationalism and imperial competition, in which the mapping of ethnic distributions onto political boundaries was used to argue for the revision of existing state arrangements in favor of nationally homogenous successor states. Applied to the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires, this tradition produced the post-World War I partition settlements of the Paris Peace Conference — settlements whose mixed results have been extensively analyzed in the subsequent scholarly literature (Macmillan, 2001; Keegan, 1998).
A second stream is the American strategic analysis tradition of the post-Cold War period, in which the internal stability of states in geopolitically significant regions became a primary subject of intelligence and policy analysis. Peters (2006), in a widely discussed article in the Armed Forces Journal, proposed a redrawn map of the Middle East that included a fragmented Iran as one of several states whose current boundaries he argued were the product of imperial imposition rather than demographic reality — an article whose cartographic proposals attracted considerable attention and controversy in both policy and academic circles. The Peters map represented the most explicit recent formulation of the seven-piece logic, though variants of the argument had circulated in think-tank and intelligence community contexts for decades before its publication.
A third stream is the Iranian opposition political tradition, within which various ethnic nationalist movements — Azerbaijani, Kurdish, Arab, Baluch — have advanced territorial claims that, taken together, approximate the seven-piece configuration. These movements have, at different historical moments, received varying degrees of support from external powers with interests in Iranian destabilization, providing a political infrastructure for the circulation and elaboration of fragmentation scenarios that extends beyond academic or strategic analysis circles into active political organization (Sinkaya, 2011).
3. Geography Integrates: The First Structural Objection
The first and most fundamental objection to the seven-piece fragmentation scenario is that the Iranian Plateau’s geographic structure integrates its constituent regions rather than separating them — that the mountain systems, ecological zones, and hydrological networks of the plateau create structural connections among its diverse communities rather than the structural separations that the fragmentation scenario requires.
3.1 The Integrative Function of the Mountain Rim
The mountain systems of the Iranian Plateau — the Alborz, the Zagros, the Kopet-Dag, the ranges of Khorasan — are, in the seven-piece scenario, implicitly treated as separating barriers between the plateau’s ethnic communities: the ranges that confine Kurds to the western mountains, Azeris to the northwestern plateau, Baluch to the southeastern arid zone, and so on. This interpretation inverts the actual structural function of the plateau’s mountain systems. As the previous papers in this series have demonstrated, the mountain rim functions primarily as an external barrier separating the plateau from the surrounding lowland world — not as an internal partitioning system separating the plateau’s communities from each other.
Within the plateau, the mountain systems create ecological gradients — zones of transition between highland, piedmont, and interior basin environments — that generate the complementary specializations driving intra-plateau trade and economic integration. The Zagros ranges do not separate Persians from Kurds and Lurs; they create the highland pastoral zone whose products the Kurdish and Luri communities supply to the lowland agricultural and urban communities of the Persian core, creating the economic interdependence that has historically sustained the imperial bargain between core and peripheral communities. To read the mountain system as a partitioning barrier rather than an integrating gradient is to misread the fundamental geographic logic of the plateau environment (Hambly, 1964).
3.2 Ecological Interdependence
The ecological differentiation of the Iranian Plateau — the distribution of distinct ecological zones across the plateau’s geographic extent — creates patterns of resource complementarity that structurally integrate the plateau’s communities across ethnic boundaries. The highland pastoral zones of the Kurdish and Luri Zagros, the grain-producing intermediate elevations of the Persian heartland, the orchard and garden agriculture of the Caspian littoral, the date palm cultivation of the Arab-majority Khuzestan lowlands, and the camel pastoralism of the Baluch southeastern arid zone all produce goods that the other zones require and cannot efficiently produce for themselves.
This ecological complementarity creates trade relationships that cross the ethnic boundaries the seven-piece scenario treats as natural fault lines for political separation. Kurdish highland communities trade wool, livestock, and dairy products with Persian lowland communities trading grain, craft goods, and manufactured items. Caspian littoral communities trade rice, fish, and subtropical fruits with plateau interior communities. Arab Khuzestan’s date and grain agriculture supplies products that the highland communities cannot produce. These trade relationships are not incidental features of the plateau’s economic life but structural consequences of its ecological geography — and they create material interdependencies that make ethnic separation economically costly for all parties (English, 1966).
The disruption of these ecological trade relationships through ethnic partition would impose severe economic costs on all the proposed successor states. A landlocked Persian core cut off from the Caspian fisheries, the Khuzestan oil fields, and the Persian Gulf littoral would be economically diminished relative to the current integrated plateau economy. A South Azerbaijani state separated from the Persian plateau’s agricultural trade networks would lose the ecological complementarities that have sustained its regional economy. An Arab Khuzestan state separated from the plateau’s highland water sources — the rivers whose headwaters lie in the Zagros ranges inhabited by non-Arab communities — would face severe hydraulic vulnerability. The ecological geography of the plateau makes these interdependencies structural rather than contingent: they are products of the geographic distribution of ecological zones that no political boundary can eliminate.
4. Transport Networks Converge: The Second Structural Objection
The second structural objection to the seven-piece fragmentation scenario concerns the directionality of the Iranian Plateau’s transport infrastructure. The scenario implicitly assumes that the plateau’s transport networks are organized in a way that connects its peripheral regions more strongly to their external ethnic kin — Azerbaijanis to the Republic of Azerbaijan, Kurds to Kurdish areas of Iraq and Turkey, Arabs to Arab Iraq — than to the Persian plateau core. The structural reality is precisely the opposite: the plateau’s transport networks are organized centripetally, converging on the plateau core rather than diverging centrifugally toward peripheral exits.
4.1 The Centripetal Logic of Plateau Transport
The centripetal organization of the Iranian Plateau’s transport networks is a structural consequence of the geographic cascade analyzed in the earlier papers of this series. Rivers originate in the mountain rim and flow inward toward the plateau basin; overland routes follow the piedmont zones between the mountain ranges and the plateau interior; the plateau’s major urban centers — Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Mashhad, Tabriz — are located at the nodes where these routes converge on the plateau core rather than at the plateau’s peripheral margins. The result is a transport geography that systematically connects peripheral communities to the plateau center more effectively than it connects them to each other or to external communities across the mountain rim.
This centripetal transport logic has been reinforced by the deliberate infrastructure investments of successive Iranian state formations. The road and rail networks constructed during the Pahlavi period and expanded under the Islamic Republic connect all major peripheral regions to Tehran and to the plateau’s secondary urban centers through routes that traverse the plateau interior (Bharier, 1971). A journey from Tabriz in the northwest to Ahvaz in the southwest, from Mashhad in the northeast to Bandar Abbas on the Persian Gulf, from Zahedan in the Baluch southeast to Isfahan in the central plateau, follows routes that pass through the plateau core — routes that connect peripheral communities to the center more efficiently than any route connecting them directly to each other or to their cross-border ethnic kin.
4.2 Infrastructure as Political Integration
The centripetal transport infrastructure of the plateau does not merely facilitate economic exchange between peripheral and core communities; it creates structural dependencies that make peripheral access to the plateau’s central economic and administrative system a practical necessity for peripheral communities’ material welfare. The oil pipeline infrastructure connecting Khuzestan’s petroleum fields to the plateau’s refineries and export terminals, the electricity grid connecting the plateau’s hydroelectric generation capacity to its urban and industrial consumers, the natural gas distribution networks serving peripheral communities from centrally managed plateau reserves — all of these constitute infrastructure systems whose centripetal organization makes peripheral communities structurally dependent on the plateau’s central administrative and technical capacity (Metz, 1989).
The seven-piece scenario imagines that peripheral communities could establish viable independent states by redirecting these infrastructure connections from the plateau center toward external partners — piping Khuzestan oil directly to Arab markets, connecting South Azerbaijan’s economy to the Republic of Azerbaijan, linking Baluchistan to Pakistani transport networks. This redirection is not structurally impossible, but it would require the construction of entirely new infrastructure systems across the mountain rim — systems whose cost, technical difficulty, and timeline would dwarf the resources available to any nascent peripheral state. The existing infrastructure’s centripetal organization represents decades of accumulated investment that structurally anchors peripheral communities to the plateau core in ways that cannot be rapidly or cheaply reversed.
5. Military Power Is Centralized: The Third Structural Objection
The third structural objection to the seven-piece fragmentation scenario concerns the distribution of military power on the Iranian Plateau. The scenario implicitly assumes that peripheral ethnic communities possess, or could develop, the military capacity to successfully resist the central state and establish independent territorial control over their regions. The structural reality of military power distribution on the Iranian Plateau strongly contradicts this assumption.
5.1 The Structural Concentration of Military Power
Military power on the Iranian Plateau is structurally concentrated at the center for the same geographic reasons that make the plateau a powerful base for outward imperial projection. The plateau core’s productive agricultural base, its urban industrial capacity, its trade route revenues, and its central position within the plateau’s transport network all favor the accumulation of military resources at the center rather than the periphery. A central authority controlling the plateau core controls the demographic, economic, and logistical resources required to sustain large, well-equipped, and professionally organized military establishments — resources that peripheral communities, dependent on more limited regional economic bases, cannot match.
This structural concentration of military power is not merely a feature of the modern Iranian state; it is a recurring characteristic of all the major plateau-based imperial formations analyzed in this paper series. The Achaemenid, Sasanian, and Safavid empires each maintained centralized military establishments whose power was structurally superior to that of any peripheral community acting independently — and when peripheral communities attempted to assert military autonomy against the plateau center, they consistently found themselves at a structural disadvantage that political grievances and external support could mitigate but rarely overcome (Axworthy, 2008).
5.2 The Modern Iranian Military Establishment
The modern Iranian state has developed a military establishment whose scale and structural depth make the seven-piece fragmentation scenario militarily unrealistic under any conditions short of a catastrophic collapse of central state capacity that the plateau’s structural properties make extremely difficult to produce. The Islamic Republic’s military apparatus — comprising the conventional armed forces, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the extensive Basij paramilitary network — represents a layered institutional system whose redundancy and geographic distribution across the plateau give it a resilience against peripheral challenge that is structural rather than merely dependent on the competence of its leadership (Chubin & Tripp, 1988).
The Revolutionary Guard’s organizational model, in particular, reflects a deliberate institutional response to the fragmentation threat: its corps structure distributes military institutional presence across all of Iran’s major provinces, creating a military infrastructure in peripheral regions that can rapidly concentrate against any peripheral separatist challenge before it achieves the territorial consolidation required for viable independent statehood. This organizational design draws, whether consciously or not, on the same structural logic that has characterized the Iranian plateau’s military geography across its imperial history: the capacity to concentrate force from the productive plateau core against any peripheral challenge faster than the peripheral challenger can develop the independent military capacity to resist.
6. Ethnic Groups Are Intermixed: The Fourth Structural Objection
The fourth and perhaps most practically decisive structural objection to the seven-piece fragmentation scenario is the demographic reality of ethnic intermixing on the Iranian Plateau. The scenario’s cartographic proposition rests on the implicit assumption that Iran’s ethnic communities are geographically segregated in a manner that makes territorial partition along ethnic lines demographically feasible — that Azeris are in Azerbaijan, Kurds are in Kurdistan, Arabs are in Khuzestan, and so on, in sufficiently clean geographic distributions to support the drawing of defensible ethnic boundaries. The demographic reality is far more complex.
6.1 The Geography of Ethnic Intermixing
Iran’s ethnic communities are not geographically segregated in the manner the seven-piece scenario requires. While certain regions are indeed characterized by ethnic majorities — Azeri speakers predominate in the northwestern provinces, Kurdish speakers in the western Zagros, Arab speakers in much of Khuzestan — no region of Iran is ethnically homogenous in a manner that would permit the drawing of ethnic boundaries without encompassing significant minority populations on the wrong side of any proposed partition line.
The city of Tehran alone illustrates the demographic impossibility of clean ethnic partition. As Iran’s primate city and the administrative, economic, and cultural center of the plateau, Tehran has attracted migration from all of Iran’s ethnic communities throughout the modern period. Its population of over fifteen million includes among the world’s largest urban concentrations of Azeris outside Azerbaijan, as well as substantial Kurdish, Luri, Gilaki, Mazanderani, and other communities whose integration into the city’s economic and social life over multiple generations has produced patterns of residential mixing, intermarriage, and cultural hybridization that no ethnic boundary could cleanly separate (Abrahamian, 1982).
The pattern of ethnic intermixing in Tehran is replicated, at smaller scales, throughout the plateau’s urban system. Isfahan, Tabriz, Mashhad, Ahvaz, and Shiraz are all ethnically diverse cities whose populations represent migrations from multiple ethnic communities drawn by economic opportunity and administrative centralization. The rural ethnic distributions that the seven-piece map represents are, moreover, themselves less cleanly bounded than the map suggests: the transition zones between ethnic majority regions — the areas where Kurdish and Persian communities intermix in the western piedmont, where Azeri and Persian communities overlap in the northwest, where Arab and Persian communities coexist in Khuzestan — are broad and demographically complex rather than sharp and cartographically manageable (Windfuhr, 2009).
6.2 The Partition Violence Problem
The demographic reality of ethnic intermixing on the Iranian Plateau means that any attempt to implement the seven-piece partition would face, in acute form, the partition violence problem that has characterized every major attempt at ethnic territorial separation in the twentieth century. Where ethnic communities are geographically intermixed rather than segregated, the imposition of ethnic territorial boundaries creates minority populations on the wrong side of every proposed line — populations that, in the historical experience of partition, face the choice between migration, accommodation, and violence.
The partition of British India in 1947, the division of Cyprus in 1974, the fragmentation of Yugoslavia in the 1990s — each of these partition episodes generated mass population displacement and communal violence precisely because the ethnic communities being separated were geographically intermixed in ways that made clean territorial partition impossible (Kumar, 1997; Kaufmann, 1996). The Iranian case, with its far more complex pattern of ethnic intermixing across a larger geographic area, would replicate and likely exceed these experiences of partition violence if the seven-piece scenario were ever attempted.
This is not a marginal consideration for the scenario’s analytical credibility. A fragmentation scenario that could only be implemented through mass population displacement and communal violence of historic proportions is not a realistic structural model of Iranian political geography; it is a fantasy of ethnic cartographic tidiness that ignores the human and political costs of its own implementation. The seven-piece map, presented as a representation of latent structural realities, is in fact a proposition for the forcible reorganization of a demographically complex human geography into a cartographically convenient but humanly catastrophic simplification.
7. Propaganda and Speculative Analysis: The Map’s Ideological Functions
Having established that the seven-piece fragmentation scenario is structurally implausible on four independent grounds, this paper turns to the question of why the scenario persists and circulates despite its structural implausibility. The answer lies in the ideological functions the map serves for its various proponents — functions that are political rather than analytical in character and that explain the map’s persistence as a geopolitical artifact regardless of its analytical inadequacy.
7.1 The Map as Instrument of External Policy
The seven-piece map, or variants approximating its logic, has served as an instrument of external policy for states with interests in Iranian destabilization or territorial revision at various points in the modern period. The map’s utility as a policy instrument lies precisely in its claim to represent latent structural realities: it presents the proposition of Iranian fragmentation not as an externally imposed outcome but as the natural expression of suppressed ethnic aspirations that external actors are merely facilitating rather than creating.
This framing — external destabilization as the liberation of suppressed ethnic identities — is a classic feature of partition propaganda. It serves to legitimize external interference in a target state’s internal affairs by representing that interference as responsive to internal dynamics rather than productive of them, and it creates a political infrastructure of ethnic grievance that can be activated, amplified, and directed in service of external strategic objectives (Gause, 2010). The seven-piece map provides the cartographic expression of this political infrastructure: a visual proposition that channels ethnic grievance into the specific territorial configurations that serve external strategic interests rather than necessarily reflecting the actual political aspirations of the ethnic communities involved.
The gap between the map’s cartographic propositions and the actual political aspirations of Iran’s ethnic minorities is significant and analytically important. Surveys and political analyses of Azerbaijani, Kurdish, Arab, Baluch, and Turkmen communities in Iran consistently reveal that demands for greater cultural recognition, linguistic rights, regional autonomy, and political representation significantly outnumber demands for outright independence or territorial union with external states (International Crisis Group, 2013). The seven-piece map’s proposition of full territorial fragmentation maps onto the maximalist positions of small minority factions within each ethnic community rather than onto the mainstream political aspirations of those communities — a discrepancy that reflects the map’s origins in external strategic calculation rather than in any serious engagement with the actual political preferences of Iran’s ethnic minorities.
7.2 The Map as Speculative Geopolitical Analysis
Beyond its function as an instrument of external policy, the seven-piece map circulates in the context of speculative geopolitical analysis — the genre of strategic forecasting that extrapolates from current political tensions and ethnic distributions toward hypothetical future scenarios of state dissolution or territorial reorganization. In this context, the map functions as a thought experiment rather than a policy prescription: an analytical device for exploring the potential consequences of Iranian state failure rather than a serious prediction of Iran’s likely political trajectory.
As speculative analysis, the seven-piece scenario has a legitimate, if limited, analytical function. It draws attention to the ethnic diversity of the Iranian state and to the political tensions that exist between the central state and various peripheral communities — tensions that are real, politically significant, and worthy of serious analytical attention. The scenario also highlights the potential regional consequences of Iranian state weakening: the implications for neighboring states of a fragmented Iran, the geopolitical opportunities such fragmentation might create for regional powers, and the humanitarian consequences of the communal violence that partition would likely entail.
These are legitimate analytical concerns, and their exploration through hypothetical scenarios is a recognized and useful method of strategic analysis. The problem arises when speculative geopolitical analysis loses sight of the distinction between a useful analytical thought experiment and a realistic structural model — when the scenario is presented not merely as an exploration of contingent possibilities but as an account of Iran’s structural vulnerabilities that misrepresents the plateau’s actual integrative logic. In this misrepresentation, speculative analysis shades into the same territory as propaganda: both present the seven-piece scenario as a natural expression of structural realities that the plateau’s actual geography consistently contradicts.
7.3 The Misapplication of European Nationalist Cartography
At the deepest analytical level, the seven-piece scenario’s structural error is its misapplication of a cartographic logic developed in the specific geographic context of European plain-state nationalism to the radically different structural conditions of plateau geopolitics. The ethnic nationalist cartography of nineteenth-century Europe was developed in a geographic environment — the North European Plain, the Danube basin, the Balkans — where the relative flatness and openness of terrain created geographic conditions genuinely compatible with the drawing of ethnic territorial boundaries. Where terrain does not create strong structural integration among communities, ethnic distribution patterns can, at least in principle, serve as the basis for defensible territorial boundaries.
The Iranian Plateau is not the North European Plain. Its geographic structure, as this paper and its predecessors have demonstrated at length, creates the opposite of the conditions that make ethnic territorial partition feasible. The plateau integrates its communities through shared geographic infrastructure rather than separating them through open terrain. Its transport networks converge centripetally rather than diverging toward ethnic homelands. Its military power is structurally concentrated at the center rather than distributed among peripheral communities. And its ethnic communities are geographically intermixed rather than segregated in a manner compatible with clean territorial separation.
Applying European nationalist cartographic logic to the Iranian Plateau is, in structural terms, a category error — the application of an analytical tool designed for one type of geographic environment to a fundamentally different type, with predictably misleading results. The seven-piece map is, at its analytical core, the product of this category error: a European cartographic concept imposed on an Asian plateau geography whose structural properties systematically defeat the logic on which the concept rests (Elden, 2013).
8. Conclusions
The “seven pieces of Iran” map is not a structural model of Iranian political geography but a geopolitical myth — a cartographic proposition that misrepresents the plateau’s integrative logic in service of ideological and strategic purposes that have more to do with the political interests of its proponents than with any serious analytical engagement with the structural conditions of the Iranian Plateau.
The four structural objections advanced in this paper — geographic integration, centripetal transport networks, centralized military power, and ethnic intermixing — converge on a single analytical conclusion: that the Iranian Plateau’s structural properties systematically favor political integration over fragmentation, and that these properties are persistent features of the plateau’s geography rather than contingent products of any particular regime’s coercive capacity. The plateau integrated its diverse communities under the Achaemenids, the Parthians, the Sasanians, and the Safavids not because those dynasties were uniquely powerful suppressors of ethnic separatism but because the plateau’s geographic structure consistently created the conditions under which integration was the rational response of diverse communities to their shared geographic situation.
This does not mean that the Iranian state is without ethnic tensions, political grievances, or structural vulnerabilities. It means that those tensions, grievances, and vulnerabilities are best understood within the framework of the imperial bargain analyzed in the preceding paper — as negotiations over the terms of integration rather than as expressions of a fragmentation dynamic whose natural terminus is the seven-piece dissolution of the plateau’s political unity. The appropriate analytical framework for understanding Iran’s ethnic politics is not the European nationalist map but the plateau-state model: a framework grounded in the structural properties of the geographic environment that has consistently generated and sustained political integration across twenty-five centuries of Iranian imperial history.
The map imagines; the plateau endures.
Notes
Note 1: The Peters (2006) article in the Armed Forces Journal, which provided the most explicit recent formulation of the Middle East redrawing scenario, attracted responses from governments throughout the region as well as from scholars and policy analysts. The Turkish, Iranian, Saudi, and Pakistani governments each formally protested the article’s cartographic proposals, which affected their own territorial integrity as well as Iran’s. The Iranian government’s response was particularly sharp, characterizing the article as a blueprint for American imperial dismemberment of the region. Whatever the article’s intentions — Peters framed it as a normative proposal for more rational boundaries rather than a policy prescription — its reception illustrated the political sensitivity of partition cartography and the speed with which speculative geopolitical analysis is read, by affected governments, as policy signaling.
Note 2: The demographic complexity of Khuzestan deserves special attention as the most geopolitically sensitive element of the seven-piece scenario. Khuzestan’s significance derives from the concentration of the majority of Iran’s petroleum reserves in its subsoil — reserves whose separation from the Iranian state would constitute a catastrophic economic amputation of the plateau’s most valuable single resource. The province’s Arab-speaking population, while constituting a majority in several of its districts, coexists with significant Persian, Luri, Bakhtiari, and other communities whose intermixing with Arab communities makes the province’s ethnic cartography far more complex than the seven-piece scenario acknowledges. Iraq’s long-standing irredentist claims to Khuzestan — articulated under the name “Arabistan” by successive Iraqi governments and serving as one of the stated justifications for Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in 1980 — represent the most historically significant external actualization of the seven-piece scenario’s Arab component, and the failure of that invasion to produce Khuzestani Arab separatism despite eight years of devastating warfare is among the most powerful empirical demonstrations of the scenario’s structural implausibility.
Note 3: The Republic of Azerbaijan’s relationship to the seven-piece scenario’s South Azerbaijani component is analytically complex and warrants careful treatment. The Republic of Azerbaijan, established following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, has at various moments in its political discourse articulated aspirations toward a greater Azerbaijani unity that would encompass the Azeri-speaking provinces of northwestern Iran. These aspirations have been given varying degrees of support by Turkish governments interested in expanding Turkic cultural influence southward. However, the political and economic realities of an attempted union between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iran’s Azeri-speaking provinces — the latter’s deeper integration into the Persian plateau’s economic and administrative system, the religious difference between the Republic’s largely secular Azeri population and Iran’s Shia Azeri community, and the military impossibility of territorial revision against Iranian central state opposition — consistently deflate greater Azerbaijani unionism from a political aspiration to a rhetorical position without realistic implementation prospects.
Note 4: The Kurdish case within the seven-piece scenario requires separate analytical treatment from the other peripheral communities because Kurdish separatism in Iran exists within a broader regional context — the Kurdish political movements of Turkey, Iraq, and Syria — that gives it a cross-border dimension absent from the Azerbaijani, Baluch, and Turkmen cases. The establishment of the Kurdish Regional Government in northern Iraq following the 2003 invasion created an institutional Kurdish political entity on Iran’s western border that has provided both a model and a potential external ally for Iranian Kurdish political movements. Yet even this more favorable regional context has not produced the conditions for viable Iranian Kurdish statehood: the geographic distribution of Kurdish population across the western Zagros ranges, the Iranian military’s consistent capacity to project force into Kurdish areas, and the economic integration of Kurdish communities into the broader Iranian plateau economy have all worked against the development of the independent Kurdish political capacity that the seven-piece scenario requires.
Note 5: The concept of “partition violence” employed in Section 6.2 draws on a substantial scholarly literature analyzing the relationship between ethnic territorial separation and communal violence. Kaufmann’s (1996) influential analysis argued that ethnic partition, though often accompanied by severe short-term violence in the form of population displacement and communal conflict, could in some circumstances produce stable long-term outcomes by eliminating the inter-ethnic security dilemmas that drive communal conflict in mixed areas. This argument has been extensively contested by scholars including Kumar (1997) and Sambanis (2000), who have argued that partition typically fails to achieve the ethnic separation its proponents envision and that the violence it generates is not merely transitional but persistent. The Iranian case, given the scale and depth of ethnic intermixing on the plateau, would fall clearly within the camp of cases where partition would generate severe and persistent violence rather than the stable ethnic separation that optimistic partition advocates envision.
Note 6: The deeper methodological issue raised by the seven-piece scenario’s analytical failure is the problem of geographic model transfer — the application of analytical frameworks developed in one geographic context to the very different structural conditions of another. The history of geopolitical analysis is marked by repeated instances of this error: Mackinder’s Heartland concept, developed from the specific conditions of late-nineteenth-century Eurasian strategic competition, has been applied to geographic and historical contexts where its assumptions do not hold; Mahan’s sea power theory, developed from the specific conditions of Anglo-American maritime dominance, has been imported into contexts where land power dynamics were structurally dominant. The seven-piece scenario’s application of European ethnic nationalist cartography to the Iranian Plateau belongs in this same lineage of geographic model transfer errors — a lineage that suggests the need for greater methodological self-consciousness about the geographic specificity of analytical frameworks and the structural conditions under which they can and cannot be validly applied.
References
Abrahamian, E. (1982). Iran between two revolutions. Princeton University Press.
Axworthy, M. (2008). A history of Iran: Empire of the mind. Basic Books.
Bharier, J. (1971). Economic development in Iran 1900–1970. Oxford University Press.
Chubin, S., & Tripp, C. (1988). Iran and Iraq at war. Westview Press.
Elden, S. (2013). The birth of territory. University of Chicago Press.
English, P. W. (1966). City and village in Iran: Settlement and economy in the Kirman Basin. University of Wisconsin Press.
Gause, F. G. (2010). The international relations of the Persian Gulf. Cambridge University Press.
Hambly, G. (Ed.). (1964). Central Asia. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
International Crisis Group. (2013). Iran’s minorities and the fight for rights. International Crisis Group.
Kaufmann, C. (1996). Possible and impossible solutions to ethnic civil wars. International Security, 20(4), 136–175. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539045
Keegan, J. (1998). The First World War. Hutchinson.
Kumar, R. (1997). The troubled history of partition. Foreign Affairs, 76(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/20047908
Macmillan, M. (2001). Paris 1919: Six months that changed the world. Random House.
Metz, H. C. (Ed.). (1989). Iran: A country study. Federal Research Division, Library of Congress.
Peters, R. (2006, June). Blood borders: How a better Middle East would look. Armed Forces Journal. http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/blood-borders
Razoux, P. (2015). The Iran-Iraq war (N. Elliott, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
Sambanis, N. (2000). Partition as a solution to ethnic war: An empirical critique of the theoretical literature. World Politics, 52(4), 437–483. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100016014
Sinkaya, B. (2011). Revolutionary Guards in Iranian politics: Elites and shifting relations. Routledge.
Windfuhr, G. (Ed.). (2009). The Iranian languages. Routledge.
