Why did Pan-Iranism never catch on?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,924
SoCal
#1
Why did Pan-Iranism--as in, the idea that the various Iranian peoples should be united into one country--never catch on? :

Pan-Iranism - Wikipedia

According to the information above, while this idea was embraced by some Iranian intellectuals, it apparently never became official Iranian government policy. Now, obviously I could see why an Iran led by Ayatollahs wouldn't be very receptive to such a movement--after all, such a movement would tend to de-emphasize religion and instead emphasize ethnic solidarity. However, why did the Shah's Iran never embrace the concept of Pan-Iranism?

Also, what would have happened had Iran indeed embraced the Pan-Iranism concept sometime during the 20th century?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,924
SoCal
#3
Is there any "pan" idea that has actually caught on? The ones I know are complete garbage. Looking at the map suggested in Wiki, I see the pattern of another garbage idea; culturally and linguistically distinct people being in a "ethnic unity".
Pan-Slavism had some temporary successes with the unification of the South Slavs, Czechs and Slovaks, and East Slavic peoples into Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union, respectively. Of course, all of these countries ultimately collapsed and broke up.

Pan-Germanism also had some temporary successes under Hitler but ended up being reversed after Germany's defeat in WWII.
 
Likes: macon
Jul 2014
1,533
world
#4
Why did Pan-Iranism--as in, the idea that the various Iranian peoples should be united into one country--never catch on? :

Pan-Iranism - Wikipedia

According to the information above, while this idea was embraced by some Iranian intellectuals, it apparently never became official Iranian government policy. Now, obviously I could see why an Iran led by Ayatollahs wouldn't be very receptive to such a movement--after all, such a movement would tend to de-emphasize religion and instead emphasize ethnic solidarity. However, why did the Shah's Iran never embrace the concept of Pan-Iranism?

Also, what would have happened had Iran indeed embraced the Pan-Iranism concept sometime during the 20th century?
Could it have been religious difference ? Iran is Shia while almost all iranic people are Sunni.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,924
SoCal
#5
That's very possible. However, this issue could have been minimized through secularization. While the post-1979 Iranian regime would have certainly been opposed to secularization, I'm not sure that the same would have also been true for the pre-1979 Iranian regime. What was the attitude of the Iranian Shah in regards to secularization?
 
Jun 2012
7,138
Malaysia
#6
Would pan-Iranism, if considered in the broadest sense of the term, not have some substantial overlap with pan-Slavism, even perhaps to a certain extent pan-Germanism? Because some ancient Iranic tribes like Scythians, Cymmerians, Sarmatians, Alans etc. gave rise to offspring peoples now grouped under Slavic & Germanic (e.g. like Goths) stock.
 
Dec 2011
4,573
Iowa USA
#7
Pan-Slavism had some temporary successes with the unification of the South Slavs, Czechs and Slovaks, and East Slavic peoples into Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union, respectively. Of course, all of these countries ultimately collapsed and broke up.

Pan-Germanism also had some temporary successes under Hitler but ended up being reversed after Germany's defeat in WWII.
I don't believe the Croats were ever sold on the idea, but yes, without the idea of Pan Slavism the fate of Slovenia and Croatia would have been different in the 1919 peace conference. Was the right "crank idea" at the right "tragic time" you might say.

Not to re-open the scabs from many threads from a Hungarian contributor, but there was no way that the Croats were going to go with the Orthodox mindset of Panslavism.

An "-ism" which was more Dostoevsky than Maria Theresa or Franz Joseph. (And how many Westerners have really read "Brothers Karamazov" and NOT the Cliff Notes? :()
 
Likes: Futurist
Aug 2009
5,219
Londinium
#8
Would pan-Iranism, if considered in the broadest sense of the term, not have some substantial overlap with pan-Slavism, even perhaps to a certain extent pan-Germanism? Because some ancient Iranic tribes like Scythians, Cymmerians, Sarmatians, Alans etc. gave rise to offspring peoples now grouped under Slavic & Germanic (e.g. like Goths) stock.
I think you're overlapping pan-Indo-European with pan-Iranianism a bit too much!
 
Likes: Futurist
Feb 2019
42
Planet Earth
#9
Because modern Iran is largely Turkic (including the former Shah's family) and the current regime is a Shia Islamist theocracy.

Besides, Iranians wouldn't like an even less developed country like Afghanistan to join them.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2012
7,138
Malaysia
#10
hqdefault.jpg.cf.jpg

I do not really think that MRP's facial features can be described as Turkic at all. They can only be described as Iranic. So are the majority of today's Iranians.

Even the Turkic speaking Western Uzbeks still majorly tend to have predominantly Iranic features, even to this day. Ditto among western Turkmen.

The Turkic look, specifically the CA Turkic look, only appears more prevalent on the eastern sides, where the Iranic local populations were relatively much sparser during the waves of earliest & subsequent Turkic arrivals.

The hybrid Irano-Turkic look kind of appears in many regions, though.
 

Similar History Discussions