The limited resources of fresh water in the world and the increasing consumption have led to water becoming a source of competition among countries and different groups, playing a crucial role in shaping social and political relations between these groups. In the present century, water scarcity, as the most valuable resource in human life, has posed a threat to the livelihoods of many people in different countries, especially in dry regions of the world.

Changing consumption patterns, pollution, depletion of natural resources, and the increase of deserts are pushing humanity towards a global water crisis. As a result, some believe that future wars and civil and social unrest will largely be caused by water and food shortages. In the 21st century, over 2 billion people still do not have access to safe drinking water, and if urgent action is not taken, it is predicted that by 2025, four billion people will not have sufficient access to drinkable water.

Iran, as one of the dry and semi-dry countries in the world in the Middle East region, is among the countries facing a water crisis. This issue is considered one of the main limiting factors for the country’s development in the coming decades. Research findings and results show that with the increasing trend of population growth and continuous increase in per capita water consumption in the country, by the year 2025, thirteen provinces of the country will face a water crisis.

In this regard, we have consulted with Dr. Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, a geographer, and asked him about the severity of the water crisis in Iran and what efforts the government should make in this regard.

Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh is a successful professor of political geography and geopolitics at Tarbiat Modares University in Tehran. He is a research consultant for the United Nations and the managing director of the Urosevic Research Foundation in London. Mojtahedzadeh has published over twenty books in English and Farsi.

Mr. Mojtahedzadeh, first of all, please tell us what are the factors involved in the water crisis in Iran? Are improving the standard of living and hygiene also among the effective factors in this regard?

At first, I must mention that I have no expertise in the field of physical and environmental geography, and my expertise lies in political geography and geopolitics; however, anyone who has studied geography has some knowledge in these areas and general topics, and I also speak based on that information, not as an expert…

Without a doubt, the improvement of living standards, population growth, and changes in the economy, increases water consumption more and more every day. It is natural that this is a significant factor in our nation’s access to water and water resources. However, the main reason for our country’s situation is its geographical location, which dictates water scarcity and limits water resources.

Another factor is related to the cycles of droughts and floods in terms of precipitation, which we know there are cycles in play that occur every five years, seven years, sometimes ten years, and even sometimes up to 15 years, with periods of drought and floods. In recent history, we have witnessed these periods in our own lives. These are the main factors contributing to the limited water resources in Iran.

This is the reason why the increase in consumption, due to population growth and the rise in our standard of living, has forced us to become one of the major importers of virtual water. By virtual water, we mean that we are forced to import food products and these products use water resources from those countries for cultivation and growth. And when we import these products, we have also imported their water. Consequently, we have become one of the major importers of virtual water and this discussion of virtual water is a new topic and a new theory that has been raised by one of the prominent geographers of the University of London – who was also my professor – Professor Allan. Last year, he presented this theory and theory and actually discussed the situation of virtual water and virtual water consumption in Iran and the Middle East in his own book, which was published under the same title, and this itself requires a lot of study and attention.

In recent years, we have witnessed at least two cases of water disputes on a national scale, one of which resulted in clashes between Isfahan farmers and law enforcement forces. How serious is this potential danger and how can it be prevented?

This potential danger has existed for a long time and has actually happened recently; as you mentioned, the conflict between farmers in certain areas of the country, including the outskirts of Isfahan province, was resolved with the intervention of law enforcement forces and these potentials have turned into realities.

We have been facing this issue for a long time in the dry inland regions and I believe that if this situation is not properly addressed, we will have more problems. Isfahan is a clear example where, as a result of the construction of multiple channels from the Zayandeh Rud water sources, it is used to supply water to the Yazd region and it naturally reduces the available water resources in Isfahan. This is not the only case, as we see this happening in other regions as well, especially in the northern part of Iran where there is a large amount of water. For many years, water has been diverted from the northern Alborz to the southern Alborz due to the construction of channels and tunnels, and in recent years, this practice has expanded, greatly affecting the amount of water used in the northern region (especially in Mazandaran, where measures such as dam construction are being taken to compensate for this water). However, I am sure that this is

It means that you believe one of the possible ways to prevent these problems is dam construction?

Undoubtedly, this is one of the solutions for water scarcity and it has been a well-known method for a long time (over a century) around the world. We have been actively involved in this field for seventy years and have built many dams in the country or are currently constructing them. But my intention in mentioning this is that we are engaging in dam construction and diverting water, and this has been done in many cases. For example, the Jajrood River, which used to flow in its natural path, has been diverted towards Qom due to canal construction. This has helped to provide drinking water for the Qom region, which like other parts of the country, has experienced a population increase, but unfortunately has caused water scarcity in other areas that were naturally located along the Jajrood River. It is exactly the same situation that we see with Lake Urmia. In fact, these diversion dams have significantly diverted the intended paths and compensated for water shortages, but have

My intention is to pay attention to accuracy in calculations. When we build a dam to compensate for water in an area, when we construct diversion channels, we must perform precise calculations so that other areas do not suffer from shortages. It is not right for us to compensate for water shortages in one area at the expense of water shortages in another area.

However, while the construction of dams continues in Iran and large budgets are allocated to this industry, in many advanced countries, dam construction is becoming obsolete and some even demolish dams…

The countries that you mention and refer to as advanced countries, are definitely European and American countries, and far eastern countries that we can see at a glance are not countries with low water and dry conditions like us, and their water facilities and resources are much more than ours, so it can be concluded that they take measures to prevent dam construction and use other sources for water supply and storage.

We can import these technologies, but do we have the capabilities for them? This is a topic that requires further research.

In any case, countries cannot follow a single pattern due to different geographical conditions, and for our country in the current situation, the issue of dam construction and water storage cannot be a negative matter.

“The crisis of Lake Urmia has been one of the major environmental problems in our country in recent years, to the extent that some believe it is not salvageable and should be turned into a park. What suggestions do you have for resolving this crisis, considering the available resources?”

I do not agree with the statement “Lake Urmia is not salvageable” because in our natural life, we cannot disregard environmental phenomena, including lakes, as a historical period and say that after this period, nothing can be done. This is not true. What exists is that this gradual death of the lake is caused by the diversion of water resources to other cities and now it is not possible to return to the previous situation because those cities will face water scarcity and drought.

We should use new resources. If we can use the Aras and our own water rights and pipe it to Lake Urmia, why not!? It may take many years for the water level in the lake to reach its normal level, but why not? This is technically and technologically possible. Since the Aras is a border river between Iran and its northern neighbors, the amount of water usage is determined. According to agreements that we have had in the past with the Soviet Union and later with the Republic of Azerbaijan, Nakhchivan, Armenia, and even Georgia, which is not our neighbor, the water rights of each country are determined. We can use our own water rights and pipe some of the water to Lake Urmia; of course, this should be done with careful studies.

This discussion is by no means acceptable that we let a lake disappear, or help it disappear and instead make a park! This discussion requires some thinking. If we want to make a park, we have much better natural resources throughout Iran to build a park. Lake Urmia is a salt lake. The salinity level in it is very high and now that the water level has risen, we see only salt flats and a lake that is heavily salted. When it dries up, it doesn’t mean that there was only salt on the surface of the lake and we see that there is water both on the surface and in the depths of the lake. Well, what’s the point of bringing all the bulldozers in the world and digging up a large portion of the lake bed and removing the salt to make room for a park? Why do we even need to do this? And if God forbid it dries up, what remains is a salt flat, a white desert of salt

We must consider the balance in nature and the environment. Instead of acting emotionally.

Undoubtedly, I think that we are emotional in these discussions. I have witnessed these emotional debates from both near and far. Even at times, it has been suggested that people should go and destroy the corrupt channels that have led to this situation, with axes and hammers. If you destroy them, Lake Urmia may be saved. But what will happen to the fate of those cities? In these discussions, we must base our arguments and judgments on studying and carefully considering the balance and equilibrium in nature. I strongly recommend avoiding emotional debates.

Regarding the drying of Lake Urmia, has the negligence of officials been the cause of this disaster? Who do you believe are the individuals or policies responsible for the drying of this lake?

See, this has been a great work that has happened as a result of a long process and we cannot blame a single person for this incident. What has been proven for us today is that those who planned to divert the water of the rivers connected to Lake Urmia did not do enough research and did not predict such a situation and thought that only a small amount of damage to the lake’s water supply would occur, not that the lake would completely dry up. They did not do enough study and measurement, and if they had, they would have known that such a disaster would happen, and in fact, if we call it an environmental disaster, we are not exaggerating. Yes, a great disaster has happened. If accurate studies were done, it would have been clear that the amount of water taken from the rivers leading to Lake Urmia should have been reduced and other sources should have been sought.

As I mentioned, considering that our country is a water-scarce country and based on the studies that others have discussed and I myself have researched, I believe the best alternative and option is to divert water from the Aras River. Of course, I emphasize and repeat that this also requires careful study because although the Aras is not the main supplier of water to the Caspian Sea, some of its water does flow into the sea and is not insignificant in the fate of the Caspian. In any case, for short-term solutions to this disaster, these measures can be considered. However, we must also think about long-term solutions. For the long-term, I suggest other things; for example, we must study the use of the Caspian Sea water…

This is a caption

This is a caption.
Lake Hamun…

Coincidentally, this is my area of expertise and I was able to bring global attention to the issue of the Hirmand River even in a paper I presented at the United Nations University in Japan in 1996. Fortunately, I succeeded in raising awareness about the Hirmand River and it was included in the United Nations’ list of endangered waters. This means that the United Nations also has a responsibility to take action in saving the Hamoun Lake.

We know that the country of Afghanistan was founded by Britain during the colonial era, and Britain had interference in shaping the political geography of Afghanistan in all stages, including the formation of government, organization of government, and management of border demarcation with neighboring countries. According to the treaties imposed on Afghanistan and us, both parties were forced to give Britain the authority whenever the issue of borders and border waters was raised. Consequently, in the preparation and approval of border treaties, Britain had more authority and made decisions and imposed them on us. We also know that the country of Afghanistan was founded twice, once by Ahmad Shah Durrani in the late 18th century, which did not last for more than 50 years and was destroyed.

Of course, it should also be mentioned that Britain has always tried to act according to international logic in the issue of Hirmand and Hamoun; meaning that Britain itself agreed that the Hirmand River is an international river.

International rivers have their own specific definition, which includes the Helmand River. This definition states that any river that passes through the border of one country and enters another is an international river. However, Afghanistan has been opposed to this view since the time of Dost Mohammad Khan, especially during the reign of his successor, Sher Ali Khan. They argued that this is not an international river, but an internal river of Afghanistan, and Afghanistan has the right to block the flow of the Helmand River at any time before it reaches Iran. This can easily be done geographically and is currently being done. We know that the Helmand River flows through Sistan and enters Hamun, which are four separate lakes. However, during times of high water, they are connected, but for many years now, due to water scarcity, they have not been connected. During times of high water, when Hamun is full, the remaining water flows towards Gudzareh (in Nimruz province). The

So the main problem related to the discussion of the Helmand and Hamun River has been that the Afghans have never accepted the fact that Helmand is an international river since the time of Sher Ali Khan. Britain, as the intermediary for all the agreements, tried and succeeded in pursuing the matter based on the international concept of the river, but in order to gain the satisfaction of the Afghans for signing the agreement, they greatly reduced Iran’s share of the “water right”. For example, imagine that when the Helmand water enters Iran at the beginning of Sistan, it was initially divided equally (the Afghans could divert half of the water that enters Iran for agricultural purposes and the other half belonged to Iran), but in later agreements – especially the Mcmahon Agreement – the last agreement imposed by Britain in the 20th century, one third of the Helmand water was considered Iran’s share in order to trick the Afghans into accepting the agreement.

Despite signing this agreement, Afghanistan, with the same philosophy that the Helmand River is an internal Afghan river, disregarded all of these agreements. In 1937, we witnessed Iran making great efforts to register a new agreement with Afghanistan in order to officially claim at least one-third of the Helmand River and benefit from it. The government at the time, the Hoveyda government, even traveled to Afghanistan during the time of Mohammad Daoud and gave many privileges, bribes, and gifts to local and government officials in order to persuade the Afghans to accept and sign this official agreement. They even agreed for Afghanistan to have access to the free waters through Iran by creating a railway. With these tricks, the Afghans signed, but unfortunately, they did not adhere to it in practice.

After the revolution, we even witnessed (during Mr. Khatami’s time) a contract being drafted, but it never even reached the signing stage and the Afghans, with the prejudice they had towards Heermand, did not go under the burden of signing the contract. In fact, politically, Heermand became a crisis for the Afghans, similar to the nationalization of oil in Iran, which had caused great sensitivity for us for many years and had turned into the biggest national crisis. The same conditions and sensitivities had arisen for the Afghans. Now, of course, the geographical and political situation of Afghanistan has changed completely and the central government still does not have complete control over all the provinces. Some provinces, like Herat, which is a neighbor of Iran, cause less interference due to close relations with Iran, but even this does not provide any guarantee or credibility. This is one of the cases where politics contributes to the destruction of nature and we are

As for the work that I did, as I mentioned, it was in the studies that I conducted for the United Nations University. Fortunately, it led to the issue of Hirmand being raised at the level of the United Nations University and was able to include the Hirmand River as one of the endangered waters on the United Nations list. However, unfortunately, the policies are so severe that they prevent any action from being taken. In addition, the political responsibilities in Afghanistan, including coups and others, have caused opportunities to be missed for us to collaborate on this issue. In any case, our political relations with Afghanistan have been under severe tension, especially during the Taliban regime. It was so tense that even mentioning it was difficult, let alone addressing the issue of Hirmand and Hamoun.

Now, even after the Taliban in the new government, I have mentioned the same thing, due to lack of sufficient control over all states, this government does not have enough power to enter into this discussion. The United Nations and our government in such a chaotic political situation cannot do anything special…

As a final question, please tell us what are the opportunities and threats of Iran’s hydro-politics? And what successes has Iran achieved in the past 30 years in this regard?

The situation of hydro-politics is exactly what I mentioned. Hydro-politics is only discussed in relation to creating water crises between neighboring countries and is not a priority within the country. We can talk about shared waters with our neighbors and international rivers and lakes, such as the Caspian Sea.

The most critical case of hydro-politics is the issue of Hirmand and Hamoun, which we currently do not have the opportunity to address. What we have is a threat and destruction of the water body, and if we were to use the water from the Aras River or the Caspian Sea in relation to Lake Urmia, we would naturally enter into hydro-political matters with our neighbors. Because the water we want to use is shared water, and in this regard, they have rights and entitlements, and to achieve results, there must necessarily be changes in the country’s foreign policy towards these countries. That is, politics must serve hydro, which is water. Fortunately, we do not have hydro-political problems in other areas.

One of the opportunities that we have ahead of us is if we can sell some of our internal waters (in areas such as Karkeh and Karun where there is abundant water) to water-scarce neighboring countries like Qatar and Kuwait, it will naturally have a significant impact on creating strategic dependency for these countries, and this can be an opportunity.

Thank you for the opportunity you have given us in the monthly magazine “Khat-e-Solh”.