Iran’s President, Masoud Pezeshkian, has been in office for less than four months, a time dominated by Israel’s war in the region, including its direct exchange of fire with Iran. But last week his government put the focus on an evergreen domestic issue: the changing of Iran’s capital city.
Every single Iranian administration in the past four decades has mused over taking the capital out of Tehran and Mr Pezeshkian is one of those most enthusiastic about it. It fits well with his theme of tackling regional inequality in Iran and overcoming the marginalisation of Iran’s border regions. Last week, Mr Pezeshkian showed some seriousness by announcing that his Vice President, Mohammad Reza Aref, had been handed the task.
Mr Pezeshkian had raised the matter a few weeks ago, when he listed Tehran’s lack of sufficient water resources, subsidence problems and air pollution as factors that necessitated the move. He also suggested that the capital must move south, close to Iran’s lengthy coastal shore, something he has also brought up in meetings with MPs from coastal provinces such as Hormozgan and Sistan and Baluchistan. As these are two Sunni-majority provinces, such support also fits well with Mr Pezeshkian’s attempt to tackle discrimination against ethno-religious minorities in the country.
The problems Mr Pezeshkian cites are well-known. Tehranis consume an astronomical amount of water – more than 6.5 million cubic metres a year, which is twice that of New York City, a city with about the same population. The consumption increases by almost 3 per cent every year without Tehran’s water resources getting any bigger.
The city has difficulty providing enough water and electricity to its ever-ballooning population. Currently, the city’s population increases to as much as 15 million during working hours, when commuters arrive from surrounding areas.
Proponents of the move also see it as a way of decentralising governance and the economy. Around 25 per cent of the Iranian economy is concentrated in Tehran.
If Iran were to make this move, it would be hardly unique. Dozens of countries have done the shift before, and others, such as South Korea, Egypt and Indonesia, are working on it. Iran itself has had dozens of capitals throughout its long history, with Tehran having served in this role only since the late 18th century when the then village of only 15,000 people was picked by the founder of the Qajar dynasty, Agha Mohammad Khan, as his capital.
Will Tehran’s time in the sun finally come to an end after more than two centuries? It doesn’t appear likely in the medium-term, at least, since there are many obstacles that cannot be tackled by Mr Pezeshkian’s enthusiasm alone.
One problem is picking the next capital. Mr Pezeshkian’s suggestion is the southern coast, perhaps the Makran region of Baluchistan, where the port of Chabahar links Iran to the Gulf of Oman. But Chabahar is a whooping 1,800km away from Tehran and organising such a move would be a logistical nightmare.
Others suggest Isfahan, perhaps the best-known historical capital of the country (during the Safavid era from 1598 to 1736). But the city is already Iran’s unofficial second capital and such a move wouldn’t bode well for decentralisation. Isfahan is in Iran’s central, desert-heavy areas, which means it’s not much better placed for water resources. Hamedan, another historic city that has been populated for several millennia, has a similar problem, as does Yazd. Cities closer to Tehran, such as Arak or Saveh, share one major problem with the capital: susceptibility to earthquakes.
In short, although every single president raises the possibility of changing the capital, there has never been a consensus on its replacement. In the 1980s, Prime Minister Mirhossein Mousavi’s administration suggested a shift to somewhere near Tafresh, a few hours south of Tehran, near Arak. In the 2010s, then-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did the most to make the shift, in line with his love for gimmicky, headline-grabbing moves. His suggestion was the planned city of Parand, a short metro ride away from Tehran.
In the final years of Mr Ahmadinejad’s term, the Majlis, Iran’s Parliament, even tabled a bill that urged the government to seriously consider the move. The bill finally passed in 2014, during the presidency of Mr Ahmadinejad’s successor, Hassan Rouhani. But neither Mr Rouhani nor his successor, Ebrahim Raisi, took it any further because of the price tag.
In 2016, the Rouhani government estimated that the shift would cost $78 billion. Ahmad Vahidi, Mr Raisi’s interior minister, raised the estimate up to $100 billion. This seems a fair estimate since it compares to the estimated cost of South Korea’s capital change. In 2018, the Majlis’s research centre published a detailed report on the issue, which noted many benefits before concluding that Iran was nowhere near being able to afford it.
Opponents of the shift say it’s a distraction from the real problems of the country. Gholamhossein Karbaschi, a popular former reformist mayor of Tehran, has pointed out that the city’s myriad issues won’t go away even if it’s not the capital any more, so the government should focus on the tough job of tackling these problems instead of going after the pipe dream of changing the capital. Mehdi Chamran, a conservative who is current chairman of Tehran’s city council, also opposes the idea.
Ali Eta, a reformist former spokesman of the council, has also reacted negatively to Mr Pezeshkian’s plan. This is noteworthy, considering Mr Eta is a doctoral candidate in urban studies at the University of Strasbourg and was a Pezeshkian surrogate during the presidential election earlier this year.
Mr Pezeshkian has raised the issue of capital shift “too hastily”, Mr Eta recently said. If Vice President Aref were to be tasked with a Tehran file, it should be solving the city’s existing problems rather than creating another city altogether with entirely new problems.
Like many of Mr Pezeshkian’s promises in a country facing many challenges, this one will likely have to wait.
