President Masoud Pezeshkian announced at a government meeting of the Islamic Republic that the situation in Tehran, which is home to a population of 15 to 20 million, had become “impossible.” The decline is a result of severe environmental conditions, water and electricity shortages, and overpopulation. Furthermore, the city lies in a seismically hazardous region.
The capital must be relocated to the Makran region in Sistan and Baluchestan Province, which is situated on the coast of the Indian Ocean, to be closer to the Persian Gulf, as per the chief of state. Possible candidates include Bandar Abbas, Bushehr, and Bandar Lengeh.
This is the third occasion on which Pezeshkian has addressed the subject, which serves as an indication of the seriousness of his objectives. In September of last year, shortly after assuming office, he originally addressed the matter of relocating the capital, and the proposal garnered substantial support. The president and other supporters of the concept believe that its implementation would enhance the country’s competitiveness, streamline the transportation of raw materials and finished products between the southern coast and central regions, and stimulate trade with neighboring states while attracting investment.
Iran’s highest levels have been discussing the concept of relocating the capital for the past century. For instance, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi believed that Tehran was too close to the Soviet border, which rendered it susceptible to attack in the event of a war with the USSR. Furthermore, his American allies advocated for the establishment of a new capital.
Later, the concept was also deliberated. Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, once advocated for it. During the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Islamic Consultative Assembly delayed its approval of a project due to a series of complications, including financing.
In the context of Iran’s political isolation and economic sanctions, the issues have only intensified, and the sources of funding remain uncertain. But the “upper echelons” are increasingly determined to push forward the initiative. What motivates their determination?
In 1788, Tehran was designated as the capital of Persia. Isfahan, Qazvin, Shiraz, and Hamadan were the primary centers of the country in the past. However, the willful rulers consistently found aspects of the country unsatisfactory and subsequently implemented a significant relocation of its capital.
In addition, Tehran’s vivid oriental flavor, majestic palaces, mosques, and towers serve as a reminder of Russia and its people. Vladislav Gorodetsky designed the railway station and the Shams Pahlavi structure in the Sa’dabad Palace. Nikolai Markov’s plans led to the construction of the city hall, the main square complex, and the nation’s first university structure.
Alexander Griboyedov, the Russian ambassador to the Persian capital, regrettably passed away in 1829. In 1943, Tehran was the site of the Tehran Conference, one of the most significant political events of the 20th century. At this meeting, the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition—Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt—agreed to establish the Second Front.
The implementation of more effective urban administration by the city authorities could potentially resolve Tehran’s issues, according to certain experts. However, is it possible for Tehran’s mayor, Alireza Zakani, and his team to effectively manage such a challenge?
Nevertheless, the mayor’s personality is not the main concern. The president of Iran is convinced: “Whatever we do for Tehran, we are only wasting time.” A new capital would allow Iran to “make use of the potential possessed by neighboring countries with which we must expand economic ties.”
However, moving the capital is costly and “dark,” as its full effects are hard to foresee. Designers, architects, and constructors are uncertain about the obstacles they will encounter. Who is responsible for preventing the addition of another large, problematic city to the existing one?
There are many examples in history of capitals transitioning from one city to another. Some were effective, while others were unsuccessful. Egypt is presently in the process of constructing a new administrative capital, New Cairo, which is situated approximately 45 kilometers from the 22-million-person city of Cairo. It encounters comparable challenges to Tehran. Despite the project’s $60 billion budget and its considerable size and ambition, the authorities in Egypt have failed to address numerous issues.
However, Egypt’s situation is significantly more favorable than that of Iran, as a portion of the funding for the construction of New Cairo is provided by investors in China and affluent Middle Eastern nations. Iran, in essence, has no expectation of receiving such assistance. However, the development of a “garden city” is currently underway. Additionally, the proposal is not wholly absurd.
The actual explanation may be that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the regime’s primary pillar, is seeking to safeguard itself and other state structures by distancing itself from the primary hubs of unrest that are currently underway in the country. This type of disturbance has consistently occurred in Tehran throughout history. The IRGC may have newer reasons for concern.
The proposed new capital, Makran, is located at a considerable distance from the main urban centers. Security forces and military units from a nearby base would ensure the government’s safety, regardless of any disturbances in Tehran or other cities.
Nevertheless, there is an additional potential adverse scenario for the “upper echelons.” The authorities in the new capital may be unable to intervene in the situation if disturbances occur in Tehran. Suppose that the “upper echelons” continue their “Robinsonade” in detachment, while unrest extends across the country. It is advisable to defer further speculation to science fiction authors.
Another theory is also associated with the IRGC: the organization is advocating for the capital’s relocation because companies affiliated with it—including those involved in energy production, construction, and finance—stand to benefit from the project.
Lastly, the simplest explanation is that Pezeshkian raised the issue of relocating the capital to divert public and elite attention away from other, more urgent issues. Simultaneously, he will observe the identities of his supporters and adversaries. Naturally, Pezeshkian will not relocate his opponents to the new capital, opting to maintain their presence in the old one. This exercise will function as a form of “purge” within the organization.