Raising the issue of changing Iran’s geographical borders by Donald Trump carries a highly significant message about how certain currents of power in Washington view the dynamics of West Asia. Referring to such a dangerous and insidious scenario indicates that, from their perspective, the matter is not merely about nuclear disagreements, missile issues, or even regional rivalries. Rather, some political circles in the United States still think in terms of the idea of the “structural weakening of Iran” as a path to ensuring Israel’s security and securing Washington’s interests. Yet this path is neither simple nor low-cost; it could in fact produce consequences entirely opposite to the declared aims of those who design it. Examining this approach from both domestic and regional/international perspectives shows how such a scenario could lead to widespread and unpredictable instability.
Domestic and Regional Risks
Raising the issue of Iran’s partition or the alteration of its borders could lead to a phenomenon precisely opposite to what its designers might expect: an increase in national cohesion and solidarity. Iran’s historical experience has shown that at moments when the country’s territorial integrity has been threatened, political divisions and internal disagreements have largely been overshadowed by a greater concern—“preserving Iran.” Even broad segments of critics of the existing political structure generally agree on one fundamental principle: a desirable future must take shape within the framework of a unified Iran. In other words, disagreement over the “type of political system” does not in any way mean disagreement over the country’s “geographical integrity.”
For this reason, the explicit or implicit raising of a partition scenario could lead to the formation of a broad national consensus, bringing together various segments of society—from government supporters to its critics—in defense of a shared principle. Under such circumstances, even forces that would normally stand among the critics or opponents may line up against an external threat with stronger motivation. In other words, proposing such a scenario could unintentionally strengthen social capital and further consolidate domestic cohesion in Iran—a result that can hardly be considered aligned with the objectives of those who promote such ideas.
However, the more significant consequences of this approach become visible at the regional and international levels. Even if, hypothetically, a scenario of changing Iran’s borders were achievable, its security consequences would very likely not remain confined to Iran and would rapidly spread across the region. Historical experiences over the past few decades have shown that the collapse or fragmentation of states in sensitive geopolitical regions usually produces a chain of widespread instability rather than stability.
Such developments are typically accompanied by the breakdown of existing security orders, the emergence of power vacuums, the growth of armed non-state actors, the spread of terrorism, and the escalation of border conflicts. Newly emerging political entities often become entangled in intense competition over resources, borders, and ethnic or religious identities. This situation would not only create the conditions for internal tensions within those entities, but would also draw regional and extra-regional powers into new proxy competitions.
A Clumsy Game with Iran
In Iran’s case, these risks would take on much broader dimensions. Iran lies at the heart of one of the world’s most sensitive geopolitical regions and sits at the intersection of several vital transport and energy corridors. The north–south and east–west routes that connect a significant portion of regional and transregional trade pass through this geography. In addition, Iran is adjacent to some of the world’s most important energy resources and plays a key role in the dynamics of the energy market. Widespread instability at such a point in the world could affect not only regional security but also the stability of the global economy, energy security, and international trade routes.
Moreover, any forced change in the borders of a large and historic country such as Iran could become a dangerous precedent in the international system. Such a precedent could stimulate similar demands in other parts of the world and activate waves of identity-based and territorial conflicts. As a result, an issue that may initially be presented as a solution to a specific security equation could in practice become the starting point of a chain of new crises at the regional and even global level.
The reality is that stability in the Middle East cannot be achieved by weakening states but rather through strengthening regional cooperation structures and respecting the fundamental principles of the international order—including the sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries. Any strategy designed around the collapse or partition of states is likely to generate new instability rather than security. From this perspective, proposing scenarios such as changing Iran’s borders may seem appealing in political or propaganda spaces, but in the geopolitical reality of the region such ideas resemble a Pandora’s box whose opening could unleash consequences far beyond the control of any actor.