This post is a response to multiple comments about the durability of the present Iranian government. Contrary to what some of my readers have said, the history of Iran is less one of stability than of change. Without turning this post into a thesis on Iranian history, Iran’s history is of one government replacing another. Individual dynasties and empires have ruled Iran for periods of slightly less than 500 years to slightly less than 50 years. Iranian regimes often appear stable for long periods but collapse suddenly and completely. Sometimes these changes of government were due to internal forces; in others governments were removed by external invaders.
The present Khomeinist government replaced the Pahlavi dynasty a little less than fifty years ago.
Over the last 2,500 years Iran has been ruled by Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Persians, Seljuk Turks, Mongols, Persians again. Afghans, and finally, Persians again from 1789 to the present, first the Qajar dynasty, then the Pahlavi.
The Persians themselves were migrants to the plateau, arriving in the second millennium BCE and displacing earlier populations. In that respect Iran is no different from anywhere else: over long enough time horizons, everyone is from somewhere else.
If you are referring to my comment I specifically kept it to the last 500 years and to the idea that the country might balkanize into a bunch of smaller states. I found one of those maps by the year things going back to 600 BC. In the past there were periods when the geographic area of Iran was divided into multiple smaller entities. There were also times when it was part of much larger empires. At times it was so divided that it was not possible to put all the names on the map. However, for the last 500 years or so the area has pretty much been ruled by a single entity/regime. For a couple of years there might be a transition where a part of the area was ruled by a new group before they went on to rule the entire area. So it would go against trend for the area to balkanize.
Steve
I should amend the above with this comment from Trump with his stable genius mind. “It is the first time that Iran has ever lost, in thousands of years, to surrounding Middle Eastern Countries.”
Steve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman–Persian_Wars
Steve
President Trump’s disdain for history has been obvious since long before he was elected president.
No, Steve. I wasn’t referring to you. I was referring to the claim by CuriousOnlooker that the Persians had retained stable control of the Persian plateau for 2,500 years. That’s true as long as you ignore the Greeks, the Romans, the Arabs, the Mongols, and the Turks.
I think the odds of Iran breaking apart are pretty small.
I’ve also become more convinced that a civil war is also unlikely.
IMO, the two leading political outcomes are regime survival or an IRGC-controlled military government, which could be thought of as a variation on regime survival. The new Supreme Leader is an IRGC-aligned hardliner, which suggests the IRGC is driving the bus in Iran.
But that all depends on the future course of the conflict and the conditions for war termination. This is the thing that concerns me most – the overconfidence of various parties regarding what will happen and how this will play out.
So while I don’t think the US & Israel have the ability to achieve regime change, I still don’t know how this war ends. It’s not a good sign when the US and Israel have such clear differences in goals, but Israel will dance to Trump’s tune. The fact that the Trump admin is all over the map is both concerning and heartening – concerning because it shows they don’t know what they are doing, and the basis for starting the conflict is suspect at best (at least that is the image being projected), and heartening because it gives Trump flexibility to try to end the conflict short of maximalist goals. Like everything else, when things get tough, he’ll just declare victory regardless.
But the problem with war termination is that it takes two to tango. And Iran currently has the advantage of time thanks to the effects on the world economy. The SoH is effectively blocked, not strictly because of Iranian capabilities, but because of insurance and the mere potential for Iran to attack transiting ships.
This also points to the Trump admin’s lack of planning and preparation. We’ve wargamed a conflict with Iran for decades, yet the admin seemed unprepared to deal with so many predictable factors, including the issues with shipping through the SoH. Many thousands of Americans were stranded in the region, and the US government didn’t get evacuation plans and assets in place until several days after the start of the war. The State Department issued departure orders for Americans after it became impossible to leave several countries. Even here in the US, Northcom didn’t increase security measures until a few days after the war started. These are all clear signs of a lack of coordination and competence at the interagency level.
Anyway, for Iran, this war is existential, which means they aren’t going to be concerned about the world economy – quite the contrary, they could escalate to weaponize that. The fact that Iran has already escalated by attacking most other countries in the region (a strategically stupid move IMO) shows they are not afraid of escalation. Historically, in our conflicts with Iran, we’ve been able to out-escalate them, but that might not be the case this time, especially with all the talk of regime change and unconditional surrender.
Against this clock is the US and Israel’s ability to destroy Iran’s military capabilities. That is progressing, but at some point, there will be diminishing returns.
If I were Iran, I would keep the pressure up on oil prices and the world economy to put pressure on Trump, but thus far, the Iranians have not been very smart.
My comment was more concerned that while Iran has had different rulers in its history — as you noted the Achaemenid, Macedonians, Seleucids, Sasanian, Islamic, etc — the Iranian plateau has never been the dividing line between competing powers for long. Examples of places which are dividing lines between great powers are the Balkans, the Levant — where borders and multiple states have been the norm for hundreds and thousands of years. For 2500 years the norm is Iran has 1 ruler of the whole plateau at a time.
Its to dismiss the idea that anyone can “fracture” Iran into a bunch of ministates and keep it that way. If the current government falls, pretty soon a victor will reconsolidate Iran back into 1 political entity.
Andy:
That’s pretty much my take, too, Andy. I just don’t see any likely scenario that’s in the U. S. interest.
Furthermore, I don’t see any humane resolution that discourages Iran from seeking a nuclear weapon. That just goes to an observation I made a long time ago: I don’t think Iran is deterrable.
CNN has the only Western journalist in Iran – I think this interview is instructive:
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/09/world/video/frederik-pleitgen-kamal-kharazi-iran-digivid-intldsk
At least this person openly says that Iran sees economic pressure as the means for them to survive/stop/win this war.
Maslow’s Hammer
“but Israel will dance to Trump’s tune.”
Not sure that isn’t backwards. Outwardly it will be all Trump but given that we had no reason, and he cant articulate a consistent, clear one, to want to go to war with Iran I have to think Israel is pretty good at getting Trump to do what they want. I also suspect that the Gulf states in which Trump is building or those investing with Trump and family are also exerting influence successfully.
Steve
“Not sure that isn’t backwards. ”
It’s not backwards. It is true that Israel advocates and has influence, but having influence is not the same thing as Israel driving the bus in this war. When Trump decides he wants to end this war, Israel will have to go along.
As one example, at the end of the 12-day war, Trump told Israel to call off an attack that was already in progress, and they did. Israel did not want that early of a ceasefire, but they had to stop because Trump said so. Israel is a client state – it cannot afford to ignore the desires of the President – this was true under Biden too.
A client state doesnt interfere with the internal politics of its benefactor, which Israel in the form of Netanyahu has done quite freely. Also, what are the chances of the US attacking Israel the first time or now without Israeli influence? You are correct that Israel cant actually force Trump to do anything and if he makes a specific demand they will immediately kowtow. How can they not when he does alsmot everything they want him to do? Trump ended the first war too soon? Big deal, just tell him/convince him to go back a second time and do it on a larger scale.
Really, just look at your example and tell me who ended up getting what they want.
Steve
“A client state doesnt interfere with the internal politics of its benefactor”
What do you mean by interfere? IOW, what, exactly, has Israel done that other governments have not done? There is a lot of foreign “interference” activities that do not get reported because of the obession with Israel, AIPAC and Jews. The same reasons why Israeli get heavy coverage while something like the direct US support for Saudi Arabia’s war agains the Houthis received little coverage.
“Really, just look at your example and tell me who ended up getting what they want.”
It’s not exactly a secret that there is a large faction of the American elite who have wanted to attack Iran for a very long time. And Israel has wanted that for a very long time too. The reason it’s happening now and not previously is because of an alignment of factors and circumstances; it’s not because those wily Jews finally got their tentacles in the right places.
Andy, you arent that obtuse. Netanyahu has clearly sided with he GOP against the Democrats. Netanyahu and his faction have made allies with the right evangelicals that make up Trump’s base. Netanyahu made videos bragging about lecturing Obama. Let’s not forget that Israel paid Pollard, and probably others, to spy on the US.
Before you say Netanyahu isn’t the same thing as Israel remember that they keep electing him. You could also note that prominent US leaders have publicly stated that there should be no separation between the US and Israel. It should also be noted that both D and R presidents have been supportive of Israel dn D and R presidents have imposed redlines on Israel. However, Israel has identified that the GOP and specifically Trump will provide them nearly open ended support so they, Netanyahu, have openly supported Trump. Please remember that Trump only represents the preferences of about half the country so Israel is pushing to help that half of the country to attain and retain power.
Steve