The Achilles heel of Iran: Most Analysts speak as if the country were a homogeneous monolith comprising Persians. It is not.

When it comes to Iran, most analysts and commentators speak as if the country were a homogenous monolith comprising Persians. It is not. In fact, the seldom mentioned Achilles heel of Iran is its diverse ethnic and religious make-up. This is highlighted by Brenda Shaffer of Georgetown University, who is a leading expert on Iran's ethnic minorities.

Shaffer projects that Iran's current population of more than eighty-five million is made up of forty-two million Persians, an estimated twenty-seven million Azerbaijanis, and roughly eight million Kurds, five million Arabs, two million Turkmen, and one-and-a-half million Baluch.

So although Persians dominate and are the largest ethnic group in Iran, nearly half of Iranians define themselves as non-Persians. And these non-Persian groups are not happy campers. Each of them has its own customs, history, culture, and often languages. And as Peter Zeihan notes in The Accidental Superpower, Iran's geography does not help solidify the country. It's a country with mountains and highland valleys.

People in one mountain valley do not necessarily identify with those in the next valley over, much less four over. Keeping all these various groups under the same political authority requires a harsh system to induce cooperation, which is why modern Iran has a million-man army. Iran, in effect, occupies its own territory. The existence of a large army is not an option for Iran.

Ilan Berman writes that it is in Iran's provinces, those areas away from Tehran, where ethnic identity and resistance to the central government are the strongest. Every time the center is weak, the periphery rises. Indeed, this is what is happening now.

With the start of the current round of unrest in Iran in December 20127, Iran's ethnic enclaves emerged as the most vibrant center of resistance to clerical rule. In turn, the Iranian regime reserved some of its harshest repression — including mass arrests and state-sanctioned violence — for cities located in provinces

The Shah would not have been deposed without the magic of James Earl Carter. Carter reasoned (in his clearly limited capacity) that the supposed 2000 approximate “political” (deemed by Leftist groups) prisoners made him a despot. And Carter thinking himself a Christian, determined he couldn’t in good conscience support a despot, thus toppling the Shah ushering in an Islamic Caliphate.
.
Iran had adopted Western values to an extent. It’s women wore Western clothes and had elevated rights compared to other regional nations.
.
So Carter set in motion the return of the values of the “Dark Ages” as the lights went out across Iran, with regard to enlightenment.

The Shah wasn’t perfect, but he was far superior to what the people of Iran face now.

And the region now faces a vile regime intent on developing nukes and domination the region through terror.

Iran already has missiles that are nearly capable of hitting Europe.

40 years after Carter, and we’re still dealing with the effects of his screw-ups.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.