Iran is experiencing a surge in ethnic tensions, following policies that critics say undermine national cohesion by promoting minority languages and separatist sentiment. A recently published letter, divided into six core points, warns that the government’s emphasis on regional identity and language education, as well as a muted response to external provocations, is inspiring unrest that could threaten the country’s stability and unity.
The letter’s first point addresses the transformation of Noruz—the ancient Persian New Year—from a unifying national celebration into ceremonies marked by ethnic symbolism, particularly in the provinces of Kurdistan and West Azerbaijan. The authors claim these events are increasingly shaped by customs adopted from countries not traditionally associated with Noruz, introducing elements that encourage ethnic separatism. Official silence from Iran’s leadership over these symbolic shifts has emboldened local officials and added to public anxiety.
Tensions have escalated further due to remarks from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who asserted Noruz as a holiday belonging to the “Turkic world” and described Tabriz, a major city in northwest Iran, as part of Turkish heritage. Iranian leaders have failed to publicly contest these claims, generating concern among citizens who fear foreign influence in Iran’s Azerbaijani and Turkish-speaking regions. This silence, the letter states, is both dangerous and humiliating, signaling an erosion of national resolve in the face of regional power rivalry.
Inside Iran, the current administration’s own rhetoric has evolved. As highlighted in the letter, President Pezeshkian and other senior officials have championed ‘ethnic rights’ as a political priority. Critics argue this shift detracts from the pursuit of universal civil rights and injects a potentially destabilizing identity politics into the fabric of the state, encouraging communities to assert their differences rather than shared citizenship.
Linguistically, Iran’s constitution names Persian as the official state language; however, a push to introduce and expand local language instruction is gathering pace. By allowing instruction and use of minority languages in schools and public offices, critics claim the government is undermining national identity, and warn that this could lead to greater polarization and possible secessionist movements, as regional communities may drift further from the Persian-speaking mainstream.
Concerns also focus on the growing use of minority languages at official ceremonies. For instance, the governor of Khuzestan recently delivered Eid al-Fitr greetings in Arabic, which detractors argue reframed a religious occasion into one of ethnic celebration. The letter warns that such policies risk balkanizing Iranian national life along ethnic lines.
Amid these divisive social policies, Iran faces persistent economic challenges: high inflation, unemployment, and the threat of war all loom large. Despite the urgency of these problems, the letter accuses the government of prioritizing federalist and separatist policies. Key government positions, according to the letter’s authors, are increasingly held by officials committed to ethnically aligned political agendas, further eroding confidence in the national government.
Historically, Iran’s diverse ethnic makeup—the presence of Kurds, Azeris, Arabs, Baluchis, and others—has presented both cultural richness and political risk. While central governments have alternated between repression and cautious accommodation, neighboring states like Turkey and Azerbaijan have at times sought to exploit discontent to advance their influence. The current blend of economic struggle and regional rivalry, however, constitutes one of the most pronounced threats to Iranian unity in decades.
This internal tension is playing out as Iran continues its well-documented efforts to expand regional influence through proxy organizations, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hamas, and Hezbollah. As the backbone of the so-called ‘Axis of Resistance,’ the IRGC drives Iran’s involvement in military operations and terrorist campaigns that destabilize neighboring countries and threaten Israel’s security. Israeli officials and analysts suggest that the weakening of Iranian national cohesion could curb Tehran’s ability to project force and maintain its regional alliances. Yet greater instability might increase the regime’s reliance on aggression abroad to distract from domestic crises.
The warning conveyed in the letter—signed by influential, though unnamed, Iranian figures—is clear: Should current policies persist, Iran could dissolve into a patchwork of competing ethnic states. The authors call for a renewed national focus on economic management, broad-based reform, and the reaffirmation of Persian identity as the core of the state. Absent such measures, both the internal solidarity of Iran and the security balance of the region are at risk.
For Israel and its allies, Iran’s instability presents both a challenge and an opportunity. As Tehran’s internal fractures deepen, the regimes in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the region must prepare not just for continued hostility from Iranian-backed groups, but also for a potential shift in the nature—and the locus—of the threats that arise from within Iran’s borders.
In summary, Iran’s experiment with ethnic policy and weakened national institutions highlights how authoritarian neglect of unity and susceptibility to foreign agitation can imperil a state. As the Islamic Republic supports terrorism abroad, its own cohesion may yet become its greatest vulnerability—and the future of the broader Middle East will be shaped by the outcome.
