In his September 30, 2024, video message, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the Iranian people, emphasizing the Persian identity and the geography of the country. This focus was neither coincidental nor unintentional, particularly regarding the distinctions and connections between “Persia” and “Iran.” While this emphasis may evoke historical significance, it also reflects Iran’s century-long political landscape.
Reza Khan gained prominence and rose to power by crushing uprisings among Persia’s nationalities. In 1925, he declared himself shah and founder of the Pahlavi dynasty. When he renamed Persia “Iran” a decade later, it was more than a symbolic shift—it marked the beginning of a policy of subjugation, assimilation, and suppression of Iran’s diverse national and ethnic groups. The Pahlavi monarchy imposed Persian identity, Farsi as the sole official language, and Shi’ite Islam on the entire population, erasing recognition of the country’s rich cultural mosaic and silencing other nationalities such as Baluchis, Kurds, Qashqais, Armenians, Azeris, Arabs, Turkmens, Gilakis, Tabaris, Talyshis, and religious groups including Jews and Bahais. Some suggest Adolf Hitler proposed the name change to emphasize Iran’s “Aryan nation” lineage, implying racial purity. What is certain is that Hitler proclaimed Iran an “Aryan country.”
Today, many Iranians abroad identify themselves as “Persian.” However, when it comes to the rights of other nationalities within Iran, they resort to statements like “We’re all Iranian,” to downplay their significance. This contradictory attitude was underscored in Netanyahu’s message when he referred repeatedly to the “Persian people” without mention of other nationalities or ethnicities. Although the prime minister knows that Iran is a multi-national state, his focus on the Persians mirrors a broader and longstanding pattern of excluding and overlooking the country’s ethnic diversity. While he did mention Tabriz, a majority Azeri city in northwestern Iran, the rest of his speech emphasized the central Persian cities, implicitly reinforcing the dominance of the Persians in Iranian politics.
[A] focus on the Persians mirrors a broader and longstanding pattern of excluding and overlooking the country’s ethnic diversity.
Defaulting into Persian dominance is not rhetorical oversight; it has been political and social reality for nearly a century. Under both the Pahlavi regime and the Islamic Republic, Persians have monopolized political and economic power and routinely slighting other nationalities. That Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is an ethnic Azeri is not a meaningful exception because the Islamic Republic leadership, unlike many nationalities, prioritizes religious over ethnic identity. The Islamic Republic continued the Pahlavi’s dynasty’s ethno-centrism.
The September 2022 protests that began after the regime’s murder of a Kurdish woman exposed ethnic fault lines for those primed to see them. Many Iranians—and the international news media—followed the Persian lead and called the murdered woman Mahsa Amini, when her real name was Kurdish: Jina Amini. In both Kurdistan and Baluchistan, no one beyond regime implants made similar mistakes. Likewise, while Kurds describe the events as the “Jina Revolution,” Iranian activists purposely downplayed this angle when they rebranded the protests as the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement.
The 1935 name change symbolized more than a national rebranding; it also reflected a persistence of imperialist ambitions, aimed at projecting false unity on a fragmented geography. It is this illusion of unity that the West must confront. Today the imposition of a dominant Iranian ideology contributes to the rise of anti-Western sentiment as non-Persian nationalities interpret a Western embrace of Persians only as an endorsement of the Persian supremacy that came to define the state. Historically anti-Western, Persia as a unified state has shaped Iran’s identity in opposition to liberal democracy, with its intellectuals in the modern era accusing its leaders of Westoxication. Nor is Iran alone in this regard. A similar dynamic occurs in Pakistan, where many Pakistanis from non-Punjabi communities resent the growing association of the state with a single ethnicity.
Iran’s involvement in the Middle East—through its proxy interventions in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen—is an extension of these imperialist ambitions. Export of revolutionary Shi’ite ideology while oppressing other religious and national groups within its borders is just a new patina on the old imperialist approach intertwined with Persian nationalism.
If Netanyahu seeks regime change in Iran but seeks peace only between the “Jewish people and Persian people,” he will miss the mark. Iran is much more than the “noble Persian people.” Transformation requires an inclusive approach that embraces and values diverse voices. At issue is not only freedom inside Iran, but its peoples’ broader approach to the West and their adherence to global principles of international engagement.
