Engineered Division: How Iran Exploits Ethnic Tensions

Iranwire – Recent clashes between Kurdish and Azeri Turk communities during the Nowruz celebrations in northwestern Urmia reveal a deliberate pattern of ethnic manipulation by the Islamic Republic.

What appears to be natural ethnic conflict results from decades-long government policy designed to create division and prevent unified opposition.

The Islamic Republic systematically uses ethnic differences as tools of control, fostering tension where coexistence once prevailed.

During the Nowruz celebrations, many Kurds in Urmia – as in other Kurdish cities and villages – took to the streets with dancing and celebration to welcome the ancient holiday.

However, this presence provoked a reaction from Azeris in the same city, and suddenly, images of dancing and celebration were replaced by club-wielding individuals – among them the political figure Nader Ghazipour, a former representative of Urmia and retired IRGC member.

Following is an article by Elaheh Ejbari, a Gen Z human rights activist and a Baluch woman who has been raising her voice against ethnic structures and discrimination for several years.

—

This article is an attempt to reduce the fear and threat that some of our compatriots, especially in Urmia and similar regions, feel regarding recent conflicts.

I have tried to show that this contradiction is not an authentic ethnic reality, but a product of the government’s divisive policies.

Iran has long been a multicultural and multi-ethnic country. From Turks and Kurds in West Azerbaijan to Baluch and Lors in the south and west of the country, this diversity has always been part of the Iranian national identity.

Unfortunately, at certain critical moments, this diversity becomes a spark for conflict. Are these differences real? Or are they constructed by government policies?

The truth is that ethnic contradictions in Iran are often fueled by government institutions. Repressive policies and the centralization of power – by denying ethnic rights and engineering differences – deepen social divides.

A clear example of this situation was the protests of Turkish speakers in 2006 in response to the publication of a cartoon in a government newspaper, which clearly showed how ethnic provocation can arise from an official action.

The government uses these contradictions as a tool to divert public attention from structural problems.

On May 12, 2006, a cartoon by Mana Neyestani, a cartoonist in exile, was published in the Iran newspaper in the “Children and Youth” section, where the cartoonist humorously described how to deal with cockroaches through two characters: a teenage boy and a cockroach.

In one section, the cockroach responded to the teenage boy using the Turkish word namana, meaning “What are you saying?”

The publication of this cartoon caused widespread demonstrations in many Turkish-speaking regions.

Following the demonstrations, the Iran newspaper was suspended and several journalists were arrested.

After five months, the managing director of the Iran newspaper was acquitted, and Mana Neyestani went into exile.

The pressure in the structure of the Islamic Republic is not just a physical tool – it is the main language of governance.

Centralist policies and the suppression of linguistic, cultural, and political diversity have turned the public space into a field of unilateral power exercise.

This process has led to psychological insecurity among people, which itself becomes an excuse for further exercise of repressive power.

Centralist nationalism seeks to define Iran as a single nation with one language, while ethnic nationalism sometimes moves toward exclusivism in response to this pressure.

Both of these forms of nationalism structurally block dialogue and social justice. The result, however, is the reproduction of violence instead of coexistence.

Woman, Life, Freedom: A New Hope for Equality

Against this cycle of violence, the Woman, Life, Freedom movement is a brilliant example of civil resistance.

The movement has risen from oppression and opened a horizon beyond class, people, or gender.

This movement is not for domination, but for reclaiming human dignity in all its dimensions – from language and body to identity and choice.

It is an example of true unity. Slogans such as “Azerbaijan is awake, it is supporting Kurdistan” in recent protests showed that when people free themselves from divisive policies, they turn to solidarity and unity.

On social media, we also saw encouraging messages – both from Azeri Turks and Kurds. For example, Arian, a Kurdish activist, wrote, “As a Kurd, I say: Urmia belongs to the people of Urmia, whether Turkish or Kurdish. We are condemned to coexistence.”

These sentences show that despite divisive efforts, the spirit of coexistence and unity is still alive in people’s hearts.

Our problem is not just in the type of government – it’s in the model of governance. The concentration of power in the capital, the monopoly of resources, and the suppression of diverse identities have created conditions in which differences, instead of being an opportunity, have become a permanent threat.

Federalism as a democratic and decentralized governance model can be an effective solution for rebuilding trust, fair distribution of power, and ensuring equal participation.

Federalism means entrusting administration to the people of each province without endangering the territorial integrity of the country.

Countries such as India and Nigeria, with federal systems, have been able to ensure the coexistence of their diverse peoples.

The experience of these countries shows that the division of power and respect for ethnic diversity not only do not lead to disintegration but strengthen national solidarity.

Coexistence, Not Confrontation

It seems that today, more than ever, we need solidarity. We can understand that making Turks and Kurds enemies is the wish of those who benefit from the distance between people.

If, instead of confrontation, we turn to dialogue, we can stop the cycle of violence.

We have been neighbors for centuries – we have shared bread and salt, and we have been partners in happiness and sorrow.

Today, we can still be together, not against each other. Enemies create differences, but we can create unity ourselves.

Let’s remember that Iranian identity is based on diversity, and no race or language can be considered an exclusive criterion.

In my opinion, accepting this reality and moving toward participatory governance models like federalism is a big step toward justice, equality, and preserving national integrity.