By John Q. Hosedrinker Iranian President has stated that relocating the capital is now unavoidable due to overcrowding and dwindling water resources. The government is considering the underdeveloped Makran region in southeastern Iran as a potential new location for the capital. However, no specific timeline for the move has been publicly disclosed. This decision comes amidst growing internal pressures regarding resource management and urban planning within the country.
Read the original article here
Iran’s president calls capital move ‘unavoidable’ amid overcrowding and water shortages, a decision that feels like a monumental shift in the nation’s focus. The primary drivers are clear: Tehran is buckling under the weight of its own success, grappling with issues of overpopulation and a crippling water crisis. The solution? A move to the Makran region, a sparsely developed area in the southeast. It’s a bold move, and the reasons behind it are multifaceted, sparking a whirlwind of speculation and concern.
A crucial aspect of this decision is the underlying crisis facing Tehran. The city, a bustling metropolis of nearly 10 million people (or more, if you include the surrounding areas), is facing immense challenges. The existing infrastructure is strained to its limits, water is a constant struggle, and the risk of earthquakes in a city with a lot of old buildings is always a threat. It’s a city that seems to be reaching a breaking point, and the government’s response is to look for a fresh start. Whether that is with or without a large portion of the population.
The choice of the Makran region as the new capital is, at least on paper, a calculated risk. The Makran is an undeveloped area, which means the government starts with a clean slate. The downside is that it is also a region known for its harsh, unforgiving environment, with limited resources, especially water. History suggests this area is a formidable challenge; one of Alexander the Great’s armies barely survived marching through it, and that’s a concern. But perhaps the government has an ace up its sleeve, or perhaps it feels like the current crisis necessitates a move like this.
The question of why this move is taking place becomes interesting when considering the potential motives beyond just the practical necessities of water and space. This is not the first time a nation has considered moving their capital city. In a time of unrest, concentrating government functions and high ranking officials into one location and away from potential rebellion becomes a focus. With the move to Makran, and a new city built from the ground up, the government could create a space away from public transport, where mass protests are more difficult. It’s a move that echoes similar decisions made by other governments in recent times, like Egypt’s ambitious plan to build a new administrative capital for the same reasons.
The implications for the people of Tehran are also a major concern. Will the government move the entire population to Makran? Probably not, since that would be a logistical nightmare. But the shift in resources, the focus on building a new capital, could inadvertently leave the existing population of Tehran further burdened by shortages, creating a social divide. It is a long-term project. The construction of the new city would take decades, if ever.
The timing of this decision also provokes questions. Tehran’s problems didn’t materialize overnight, and the government has faced scrutiny for its handling of resources and public concerns. Some people see this as a sign of desperation or a last-ditch effort to salvage a failing system. It’s also interesting to consider the political and security considerations. Moving the capital further away from potential threats, while at the same time consolidating power in a new, controlled environment, reflects the government’s priorities.
Of course, a move of this magnitude is going to be expensive. Building a whole new city is a massive undertaking that will require significant investment. The high ranking officials will move, and likely start buying up land. In fact, if the government were to attempt to move the population of Tehran, they wouldn’t even have enough housing to facilitate it. But, this isn’t an overnight project. The core infrastructure and government buildings will be constructed first, then lower level functions and workers will relocate, while a city springs up around them.
The comparison to Brasilia is also appropriate. When Brazil moved its capital, they did not move the entire population, but there was a migration of people seeking the employment and opportunity available in the new capital. While it may not solve the immediate water shortage in Tehran, it could alleviate some pressure by attracting some of the population.
In conclusion, Iran’s decision to move its capital to the Makran region is a complex and multifaceted one. It’s driven by serious issues facing Tehran, but the implementation is risky. It brings to light questions about the government’s priorities, its ability to execute such a massive project, and, ultimately, the fate of the people of Tehran. While the future is uncertain, one thing is clear: This move is going to be a long process.