Robert D. Kaplan views Iran as a distinct and strong state in the Middle East due to its cohesive history and geographic position, unlike many Arab nations with artificial borders created by European imperialism. He argues Iran's long history provides a cultural foundation that has resulted in a more institutionalized and potentially democratic society than its Arab neighbors. While currently ruled by a disliked regime, Kaplan suggests a potential internal political shift in Iran could have a massive impact on the entire region, making it a potential future dominant power.


Comparison of Iran to other Middle Eastern countriesUnique historical cohesion: Unlike countries with borders drawn by European powers (like Iraq or Libya), Iran's borders are more historically and geographically coherent. This has led to a more unified sense of identity and a stronger state structure.
Potential for internal stability: Kaplan argues that Iran's sophisticated society and existing infrastructure mean any potential transition away from the current regime could be more similar to a relatively smooth political shift (like in Poland) rather than the chaos seen in states like Iraq, he notes in this YouTube video.
Cultural and human potential: Kaplan emphasizes Iran's human potential, citing its educated and urbanized population and high literacy rate. He believes this potential is stifled by the current regime but could be unleashed if the country were to become more integrated into the global economy, as discussed in this Bloomberg article.
Geopolitical importance: Situated between the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf, with its own oil reserves, Iran is a strategically vital location. Its future development, whether democratic or otherwise, could dramatically alter the regional balance of power, possibly leading to new security frameworks and regional normalization with countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel, notes Iran International.
Contrast with Arab states: Kaplan's analysis often contrasts Iran with many Arab states, which he views as having less historical depth and being more susceptible to internal fragmentation due to artificial borders and competing tribal or sectarian identities, as he explains in this Foreign Affairs article. He suggests this comparative weakness is why many Arab regimes have historically relied on repression to maintain control.