By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Iran’s president has stated the country has an obligation to relocate its capital from Tehran to the south due to the city’s overpopulation, dwindling water supplies, and the threat of land subsidence. He highlighted the growing water crisis as a primary driver for this shift, noting significant reductions in rainfall and the high costs associated with water transport to Tehran. The proposed move aims to leverage the Persian Gulf region’s potential for trade and economic growth while addressing the unsustainable resource consumption plaguing the capital. He emphasized that current trends of development without resource management will lead to destruction.
Read the original article here
Iran must move its capital from Tehran, says president as water crisis worsens. The simple fact is, needing to relocate your capital city is rarely a good sign. And with the water crisis gripping Tehran, this move has become a necessity. You start to wonder, what’s the right approach? Build a brand-new capital from scratch, or perhaps relocate the government to an existing, more water-secure city?
Either option is going to cost a lot of money, and that’s a significant hurdle when you consider the financial constraints. Iran’s economic situation, shaped by a history of wasteful spending, particularly on supporting proxy groups and formerly hostile states like Syria, limits their ability to address their domestic needs. It’s not exactly a recipe for stability when you neglect your own people’s basic necessities in favor of destabilizing neighboring countries.
It’s hard not to see the irony here. If only there was a nation in the region with extensive expertise in water management, a country that could potentially assist with this looming problem. Seems like some people think the answer lies in more enriched uranium. But, really, what takes priority? Solving the domestic water crisis or meddling in the affairs of neighboring countries? It’s a tough choice, isn’t it? And it’s even more complex given the geopolitical landscape of the region.
The suggestion to embrace peace with a nation that excels in water management expertise is a sound one. It seems Iran has antagonized these experts for the past 47 years, a situation that complicates any potential cooperation. There are even discussions surrounding a capital move to a location filled with loyal government workers. It’s a tale as old as time, creating a new capital to control your own populace.
Or, the alternative would be to manage water resources more effectively. That might mean implementing oil-backed desalination projects, investing in cloud seeding, or advanced wastewater treatment. These solutions are undoubtedly expensive, but they’ve proven successful in other countries. Of course, there is talk around building a gigantic fake lake. Given the reality of the situation, the likelihood of Iran constructing something on that scale is slim.
Where might they go? The question lingers. Isfahan seems to be the current favorite, but some propose Bandar Abbas or Shiraz. These cities seem to be more strategically viable than Tehran. The relocation of the capital to another location isn’t a new idea; in fact, there’s been chatter about it for decades. A move, though, doesn’t necessarily solve the immediate problems.
What about the practical implications? Does a capital move automatically reduce water consumption in Tehran? Will a move to Isfahan, which already struggles with water access, make things worse? Some suggest that shifting the capital to a more water-secure part of the country is the best solution.
Logistically, the questions continue. Tehran is not going to instantly become a ghost town if the capital moves. However, it doesn’t solve the long-term issues. It’s a bit like Istanbul’s experience after the capital shifted to Ankara. While Ankara became the new center, Istanbul maintained its position as Turkey’s largest and wealthiest city, contributing a significant portion of the GDP.
The capital move isn’t just about Tehran; many cities are facing similar challenges. The water crisis is a harsh reality. Some fear these cities might sink, causing devastating ecological impacts. The fact that this is now a topic of discussion is a testament to the severity of the situation.
A new city means new construction, and new construction contracts can be financially beneficial for certain organizations. It’s a complex web of problems, solutions, and potential side benefits.
If they were to move the capital, they would need the support of a country with decades of experience in advanced desalination technology and who are experts in the export of such technologies. Sadly, they may have to make peace with a certain country.