There is a dangerous, academic notion currently haunting the halls of Washington and Tel Aviv: the idea that a fractured Iran, carved into a half-dozen ethnic mini-states, would be safer than the one we have known. It is a theory that has clearly found a home in the Trump Administration. But as the current strikes across Tehran and the Natanz facility show, it is a theory that is already crumbling under the weight of a violent reality.

The whispers of CIA-backed Kurdish insurgents—PDKI, PAK, and PJAK—operating from the mountains of northern Iraq have moved from the shadows to the headlines. In the southwest, Arab militias like the Mobarizoun Popular Front have turned the heat in Khuzestan into a second front, forcing the IRGC to scramble its command and control. Whether this fragmentation is a deliberate US policy or merely the chaotic fallout of “maximum pressure” pushed to its breaking point, the architecture of collapse is being built in real time.

This ideology isn’t homegrown in America.

The vision of a “New Middle East”—where borders are erased, and rivals are pulverized into ethnic fragments—is a vintage Israeli strategy, a staple of Benjamin Netanyahu’s playbook for thirty years.

The vision of a “New Middle East”—where borders are erased, and rivals are pulverized into ethnic fragments—is a vintage Israeli strategy, a staple of Benjamin Netanyahu’s playbook for thirty years.

What has changed is the man in the Oval Office. President Trump’s foreign policy has always been driven more by instinct than ideology, yet he has become the ultimate vessel for this fragmented agenda.

The fatal flaw in this logic is the assumption that collapse leads to “manageable” states. It doesn’t. It leads to warlordism, loose nuclear material, and “guns in motion” wielded by groups whose names we can’t even pronounce. As Sanam Vakil of Chatham House has rightly warned, there is no “government-in-exile” waiting in the wings. There is no institutional scaffolding to catch the falling pieces. To assume that fragmentation equals stability is to ignore every blood-soaked lesson of the post-Cold War era.

The Kurdish powderkeg and the looming refugee crisis

The Kurdish variable alone should serve as a stark warning to anyone attempting to draw neat lines on a map.

If Iranian Kurds were to carve out even a semi-autonomous territory in the wake of the current vacuum, the re-emergence of the PKK’s struggle with Turkey wouldn’t just be a possibility—it would be an absolute certainty.

If Iranian Kurds were to carve out even a semi-autonomous territory in the wake of the current vacuum, the re-emergence of the PKK’s struggle with Turkey wouldn’t just be a possibility—it would be an absolute certainty.

Ankara has already signaled, with increasing force, that it will not tolerate a Kurdish statelet on its borders, whether in Iraq, Syria, or now, a fragmenting Iran. As Michael Knights of the Washington Institute has noted, the “Greater Kurdistan” scenario is the single most destabilizing variable in the region, capable of dragging Turkey, Iraq, and Syria into a combined conflagration.

READ: White House denies reports Trump approved arming Kurdish groups against Iran

The stakes reached a fever pitch yesterday when Tehran, reeling from five days of the relentless US-Israeli air campaign known as Operation Epic Fury, issued a chilling ultimatum: it will target the Israeli nuclear site at Dimona if the drive for regime change continues. This isn’t just rhetoric anymore. With the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei confirmed and the IRGC scrambling to install his son, Mojtaba, in a wartime succession, the “regime change” that Washington and Tel Aviv have long encouraged is no longer a talking point—it is a chaotic, unfolding reality.

But as I have often argued, a broken Iran will not stay neatly tucked inside its borders. We are looking at a state-collapse scenario that analysts at Brookings estimate could displace between four and eight million people in the first year alone. This would be a refugee crisis that makes the 2015 European wave look like a minor ripple. For the Gulf states, any initial sense of schadenfreude at seeing the “Axis of Resistance” dismantled will quickly evaporate. In its place, they will find themselves bordering not a weakened rival, but an ungovernable wasteland—a “Libya on the Gulf” where borders dissolve into a permanent whirlwind of chaos and disorder.

The dark irony of order

There is a dark irony lurking beneath the rubble of this conflict. By any objective measure, the Islamic Republic is a repressive and destabilizing force. But such regimes possess one advantage that the West often fails to appreciate until it has been vaporized: they maintain a monopoly on violence. They keep borders intact and prevent the kind of sub-state chaos that, once unleashed, is nearly impossible to put back in a bottle.

The Iraqis who endured Saddam Hussein’s brutal grip may not have felt a shred of fondness for him in 2003, but today, many look back on that era with a grim, desperate nostalgia for simple stability. If we follow this current path to its logical conclusion, the people of Iran in 2035—looking out over a landscape of fractured provinces, ruined infrastructure, and endless militia warfare—may find themselves looking back on the Islamic Republic with a similar, tragic sentiment.

The hardest part of statecraft is resisting the seductive pull of a “simple” answer. Fragmentation is tempting because it promises a quick end to a long-standing rival. But in reality, it is the birth of a crisis so deep and so long-lasting that future generations may not even remember what it was originally meant to solve.

Washington and Tel Aviv have walked this path before—in Baghdad, in Tripoli, and now, it seems, in Tehran. If there is a moral to this unfolding story, it is not that Iran is beyond redemption. There are no better alternatives to a contained, negotiated, and yes, imperfect Iran. There are only worse ones. The whirlwind has arrived; the only question left is who will inherit it.

OPINION: The General who swallowed his truth

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor