Balkanizing Iran? US Strategy Risks Protracted Ethnic Conflict – Analysis

File photo of Iran's IRGC. Photo Credit: Tasnim News Agency

March 9, 2026 0 Comments
Geopolitical Monitor
By Jack Roush


While the ongoing campaign by the United States and Israel has relied primarily on aerial strikes to degrade the Islamic Republic’s leadership, infrastructure, and military capabilities, recent reporting suggests the White House is also searching for partners on the ground. This would be a necessary step if Washington ultimately hopes to produce a political transition in Iran. However, if the US chooses to support insurgencies among Iran’s minority populations as part of that strategy, it risks fueling ethnic conflict with potentially serious regional consequences.

Need for Local Partners

Though the Trump administration has been criticized for its unclear strategic aims in Iran, US and Israeli decapitation strikes appear to indicate that political transition is a preferred outcome. If the Islamic Republic fails to produce a leader amenable to US interests during its succession process, a more complete overthrow of the regime may be required – something that may be impossible through an aerial campaign alone. Though the administration has expressed openness to placing boots on the ground in support of its aims, factors such as Trump’s promises of peace during the presidential campaign and the immediate unpopularity of the conflict during a midterm year likely limit its willingness to launch a direct regime change operation.

Therefore, an approach in which the US cooperates with local allies to topple the regime or pressure reform within the Islamic Republic may appear logical. Reportedly, efforts have already been made to promote defections from within Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and conventional armed forces (Artesh) or encourage a popular uprising. However, both of these approaches are relatively uncertain and have proven difficult to orchestrate during previous crises in Iran.

In the absence of widespread defections or the formation of a cohesive, national opposition, policymakers may instead look toward armed groups operating along Iran’s periphery as potential partners. These include capable militant organizations from among the country’s minority communities, particularly the Baluchis and Kurds – both of which are predominantly Sunni. Organizations from both of these communities have waged low-grade insurgencies against the Islamic Republic for decades, with varied success. Cooperating with such groups would parallel previous US assistance to the Kurds during the Syrian Civil War or support for Berber rebel groups during the Libyan Civil War.


The situation is rapidly evolving, but the strategy of instrumentalizing local partners already appears to be taking shape. According to reports, US officials including Trump are in direct contact with Kurdish militias in western Iran, and have discussed mounting a coordinated offensive. US and Israeli strikes have also been concentrated in Kurdish-majority provinces, degrading IRGC and other Iranian security infrastructure and facilitating cross-border contact with Kurdish militants in Iraq. The picture is less clear in Baluchistan, where militant groups recently formedan umbrella organization to coordinate operations. While Washington has not moved to overtly coordinate with Baluchi insurgents, the US has been long accused of supplying arms and other support to these groups. As conditions on the ground change, this could evolve into a more significant partnership, as some analysts have speculated.

Unintended Consequences in Iran

Providing air support, intelligence, and arms to Baluchi and Kurdish militant organizations would likely support US aims in the short run, by undermining the Islamic Republic’s control of Iran’s periphery and further degrading its security infrastructure. In a best-case scenario for the Trump administration, this could potentially hasten the regime’s capitulation or outright collapse.

However, this strategy brings several risks for Iran’s long-term stability. These insurgencies do not have the military capability or political will to march on Tehran, and both the Kurdish and Baluchi minority communities comprise comparatively small fractions of the overall population. As a result, they are apt to primarily focus on consolidating control over their local regions. With US support and a weakening central authority, this could harden into protracted tension and conflict with Iran’s Persian-majority core, potentially worse than has been seen in recent Iranian history. Rather than producing a cohesive political transition, the result would resemble the fragmented political geography seen in parts of the Middle East. One example of this is Syria, where confrontations with minority enclaves continue even after the fall of the Assad regime.

Such an outcome could leave Iran divided between rival authorities, localized militias, and competing political movements. In this environment, clashes between national forces and Baluchi and Kurdish insurgents could persist even after the Islamic Republic reforms or falls. What begins as a strategy to pressure the regime could therefore evolve into a prolonged struggle over territorial control and ethnic interests along Iran’s eastern and western borders. Unclear or open-ended commitments by Washington to support partners on the ground could drag the US into this struggle for an indeterminate period.

An overlapping risk worth considering is what happens if the overarching conflict ends in a negotiated settlement that enables the regime to reassert its hold over Iran. If it reaches an acceptable arrangement with the Islamic Republic, the Trump administration could suddenly abandon its enhanced support for minority insurgencies, as has occurred in other conflicts. Should this occur, ethnically-targeted reprisals against Kurds and Baluchis would likely be significant, with the US shouldering much of the blame. Iranian officials have long accused Sunni minorities of collaborating with the US and Israel, especially amid protests, international conflicts, or other crises. After the previous round of US strikes, thousands of Kurds and Baluchis were arrested for alleged espionage. During the protests in recent months, Sunni minorities were accused of fomenting unrest and committing acts of violence by the regime. If an overt US partnership were to end unsuccessfully, it would not be difficult to see these accusations descend into mass violence.

Creating conditions for ethnic conflict in Iran would also undermine US credibility among Iran’s mainstream opposition. Most prominent opponents of the Islamic Republic oppose ethnic separatism and policies that could fracture Iran’s long-term stability and territorial integrity. Moreover, the most prominent Baluchi militant groups – like Jaish-al-Adl and its predecessor, Jundallah – have waged fearsome campaigns of terror over the last two decades. While most attacks have targeted security personnel, the groups’ use of tactics such as mass-casualty suicide bombings and hostage taking have been greatly unpopular with most Iranians. Therefore, tying Washington’s interests to those of such organizations may damage US influence both in Iran and among the influential Iranian diaspora.

New Regional Hazards

Aside from bringing risks for US policy toward Iran, intensified and protracted ethnic conflicts also create new threats to regional stability. This could undermine the strategic benefits perceived by the Trump administration to collapsing the Islamic Republic and its network of proxies and partners.

Both the Baluchi and Kurdish insurgencies in Iran are transnational in nature. Kurdish groups operate between Iran and the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq – with links to Kurdish communities throughout the region. Meanwhile, Baluchi separatists have long maneuvered across the Iran-Pakistan border. These activities have aided militant organizations in securing funding, arms, and refuge, but they have raised the ire of other regional actors. The mobilization of Kurdish groups could provoke intervention by Turkey, as has occurred recently in Iraq and Syria. Likewise, Pakistan has proven willing to conduct operations on Iranian soil countering Baluchi insurgents during periods of comparative strength for the Islamic Republic. All this indicates that ethnic fragmentation in Iran could escalate into a wider conflict. Furthermore, Turkey and Pakistan are both close US regional partners and would likely be incensed by more overt US support for Kurdish and Baluchi militancy in Iran.

Aside from conflicting with the interests of Turkey and Pakistan, potential US support for these groups presents additional security threats. Jaish-al-Adl, which has emerged as the preeminent militant organization in Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan Province, espouses radical Salafi and Deobandi doctrine, and is reportedly affiliated with Al-Qaeda. This could become a regional concern, as Iranian Baluchi insurgents have already attempted to operate in the Gulf states and Central Asia. Additionally, both Kurdish and Baluchi militants have targeted regional energy infrastructure in the recent past, including attacks on critical oil and gas pipelines. Inadvertently facilitating such actions would prove counterproductive for the Trump administration, as it seeks to manage international economic fallout from its confrontation with Iran.

Implications for US Strategy

While Iran’s Kurdish and Baluchi communities have demonstrated the ability to wage insurgencies and pressure the Islamic Republic, the Trump administration faces serious risks in seeking to use such minority groups as its primary partners on the ground. If Washington wishes to avoid these risks, it must clearly define the extent and purpose of its cooperation with local partners. Its apparent coordination with Kurdish groups may prove tactically advantageous in degrading Iranian security infrastructure, but such engagement should remain tightly bounded and focused on specific objectives. At the same time, Washington should make clear that it will not cooperate with Baluchi militant organizations, particularly those espousing extremist ideologies. Drawing such distinctions would reassure regional partners, especially Turkey and Pakistan, that US actions are not intended to widen or perpetuate its conflict with Iran. Ultimately, the success of US policy will depend on demonstrating the strategic clarity necessary to maintain credibility and prevent a dangerous cycle of fragmentation and ethnic violence.

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

Geopolitical Monitor

Geopoliticalmonitor.com is an open-source intelligence collection and forecasting service, providing research, analysis and up to date coverage on situations and events that have a substantive impact on political, military and economic affairs.