In recent years, border walls have emerged as prominent symbols of state authority, with governments worldwide increasingly turning to physical barriers to assert control over their frontiers. Iran’s ongoing construction of a fortified border wall along its eastern frontier with Afghanistan exemplifies this trend. Officially promoted as a security measure to combat illegal migration, smuggling, and terrorism, this project reflects a broader global shift toward securitized borders.
The construction of these walls is not just a physical undertaking but a deeply political act. Behind the concrete and steel lie intricate dynamics of power, control, and exclusion. Border walls serve as instruments of sovereignty but often at the expense of marginalized communities, amplifying economic disparities and institutionalizing racial hierarchies.
In Iran’s case, the border wall project raises critical questions about its real objectives and implications. Who benefits from this expansive securitization effort? What political goals does it serve? And how does it align with the broader global context of rising nationalism and economic inequality? This article seeks to unravel the political underpinnings of border walls, situating Iran’s approach within a larger narrative of state control and structural discrimination.
A video of the million-dollar project to build a wall along Iran’s eastern borders
with Pakistan and Afghanistan, released by the IRGC’s news agency.
Background on the Iranian Border Wall
Iran’s border with Afghanistan, stretching across challenging terrains in eastern provinces like Khorasan and Sistan-Baluchistan, has long been framed by the Islamic Regime as a zone of vulnerability. The ongoing construction of a massive border wall, spanning nearly 300 kilometers, is promoted as a solution to issues such as illegal migration, cross-border smuggling, and terrorism. This project features a four-meter-high reinforced concrete wall equipped with barbed wire, surveillance cameras, and other advanced security technologies.
The Islamic Regime’s rhetoric around the wall underscores its dual purpose: safeguarding national security and protecting local communities. Officials claim the wall will restrict unauthorized crossings, particularly of Afghan refugees, and curb illegal activities such as the trafficking of goods, drugs, and fuel. Recent government updates reveal that significant progress has been made. Approximately 90 kilometers of the wall are reportedly complete or ready for installation, with additional sections under active development by military engineering units.
Despite these achievements, the initiative has not been without challenges. Harsh climatic conditions, logistical obstacles in remote regions, and the financial burden of such an ambitious project have slowed progress. However, officials insist that the wall is essential to ensure stability and to provide what they describe as a “sense of security” for border communities.
While the stated goals focus on security and order, the project’s broader implications suggest a deeper agenda. As the government emphasizes border fortification, it simultaneously seeks to project an image of control and strength, both domestically and on the international stage. Yet, beneath these declarations lie layers of economic, social, and political dynamics that merit closer examination.
Political Context and Implications
The Iranian border wall project is deeply intertwined with the Islamic Regime’s broader political strategy, both domestically and regionally. Framed as a necessary measure to counter cross-border threats, the wall serves as a tool to bolster the regime’s narrative of sovereignty and control, particularly amidst growing internal dissent and economic instability. By emphasizing border security, the regime shifts public attention from domestic grievances to external threats, consolidating its position as the guarantor of national stability.
Regionally, the border wall underscores Iran’s strategic approach to Afghanistan following the Taliban’s return to power. While Iran has criticized the Taliban’s policies and struggled with the influx of Afghan refugees, it has also sought to balance its political rhetoric with practical considerations. The wall reflects this duality, presenting a hardline stance against uncontrolled migration while allowing the regime to maintain leverage in its relations with Afghanistan and neighboring states.
Domestically, the project has become a focal point for the Islamic Regime to demonstrate its ability to mobilize resources and execute large-scale initiatives. The military’s prominent role in constructing the wall is part of a broader trend of militarizing civil projects, reinforcing the military’s dominance within Iran’s political economy. At the same time, the wall provides a pretext for increased surveillance and control over border communities, many of whom already face economic marginalization and political neglect.
Internationally, the border wall project aligns with a growing trend of securitized borders, echoing similar initiatives in countries like the United States and India. However, Iran positions itself as distinct, portraying its wall as a protective measure rather than an exclusionary one. This framing allows the regime to defend the project against potential international criticism, particularly in light of its ongoing tensions with Western powers.
While the Islamic Regime asserts that the wall is a necessary response to security challenges, its implications extend far beyond its physical structure. It reinforces existing hierarchies, redirects public focus from systemic issues, and strengthens the regime’s grip on power under the guise of national security.
Economic Dimensions of Border Walls
The construction of Iran’s eastern border wall is not merely a security endeavor but also an economic enterprise with significant implications. The project, which involves extensive use of military engineering units and private contractors, exemplifies the regime’s strategy of integrating infrastructure development with military objectives. The financial commitment to the wall, reportedly part of a broader multi-year plan to secure borders, highlights the prioritization of securitization over pressing social and economic needs within the country.
For local communities, particularly those in economically vulnerable border regions like Sistan-Baluchistan and Khorasan, the wall represents both a promise of stability and a potential economic barrier. Many of these communities have historically relied on cross-border trade and seasonal migration for their livelihoods. By curbing informal trade networks, the wall risks exacerbating economic marginalization in regions already struggling with poverty and limited access to resources.
At a national level, the project channels significant state resources into defense and security industries. This allocation not only reflects the militarization of economic priorities but also diverts funds from social services, infrastructure, and economic development programs that could address the root causes of instability. The emphasis on wall construction also raises questions about the transparency of government expenditures and the beneficiaries of lucrative construction contracts.
Furthermore, the economic rationale for the wall often relies on a narrative of protecting domestic industries and jobs from the perceived threat of undocumented migrants. However, this overlooks the structural issues driving unemployment and economic stagnation in Iran, shifting blame onto vulnerable populations such as Afghan refugees. This framing not only obscures systemic failures but also fuels xenophobic sentiments, reinforcing discriminatory labor and migration policies.
The economic dimensions of Iran’s border wall reflect a broader pattern seen globally, where security projects are used to justify significant state spending while disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. As resources are poured into fortifications, the structural inequalities that contribute to insecurity remain unaddressed, perpetuating a cycle of exclusion and instability.
Structural Racism in Border Policies
The construction of Iran’s border wall cannot be understood without examining its role in perpetuating structural racism, particularly against Afghan refugees and migrants. Official rhetoric surrounding the project frames Afghan nationals as sources of insecurity, casting them as scapegoats for issues ranging from unemployment to crime. These narratives reinforce discriminatory policies that systematically marginalize Afghan communities within Iran.
Policies restricting Afghan migrants’ access to employment, housing, and education reflect deep-seated institutional biases. For instance, many provinces have banned Afghans from settling, and restrictions on work permits force them into low-paying, physically demanding jobs. The border wall amplifies these exclusions, both symbolically and materially, by demarcating a physical boundary that underscores their otherness.
Beyond economic exclusion, Afghan migrants are subjected to heightened surveillance and control. The integration of advanced monitoring systems along the border complements domestic policies that target Afghans for detainment and deportation. These measures, coupled with public campaigns linking Afghan refugees to security threats, contribute to a climate of xenophobia that legitimizes their dehumanization.
The intersection of border wall construction and restrictive migration policies highlights how physical infrastructure is used to enforce social hierarchies. The wall is not merely a barrier but a manifestation of a broader framework that seeks to control and exclude specific populations. This approach mirrors global patterns, where marginalized groups are disproportionately impacted by border policies designed to privilege certain nationalities, ethnicities, and social classes.
Iran’s border wall thus reflects the ways in which state policies institutionalize racial and ethnic discrimination under the guise of national security. While officials argue that the wall is a protective measure, its real function is to maintain and reinforce existing inequalities, deepening the divide between the state and vulnerable populations.
As part of the Islamic Regime’s racist propaganda against the people of Afghanistan, Iran’s ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations claimed during a UN Security Council briefing on the “Situation in Afghanistan” that the government spends $10 billion annually on them!
This figure has been widely questioned, as it appears exaggerated compared to the expenditures of other countries, such as Greece, on refugee camps and support for asylum seekers. Critics have raised concerns about the lack of transparency, asking where and how this alleged budget is being allocated.
A local contractor involved in building the border wall with Afghanistan claimed in an interview with domestic media: “Before the wall was built, terrible things were happening in this area. Day and night, they would come across the border, take people hostage, and demand ransoms… Now, it’s the border guards who must assert their authority. If there has recently been any harassment from Taliban forces, they must put an end to it. If the border forces lack authority, the Taliban could attack and even reach Mashhad.”
The interview mentions that the construction of the wall has cut off a significant portion of the villagers’ farmland, which was located within the legal borders, from their access.
While international relations between the Taliban and the Islamic Regime do not indicate the likelihood of war or invasion, propaganda in Iranian media frequently uses such security concerns to justify building walls and deporting migrants. The broader issue of border security, however, often underscores weaknesses in addressing criminal activities such as theft and smuggling. Despite this, media narratives often place disproportionate blame on Afghan residents in Iran rather than focusing on organized criminal groups.
Global Comparison and Patterns
Iran’s border wall project fits into a global trend of using physical barriers to manage borders and enforce national sovereignty. From the U.S.-Mexico wall to India’s fencing along the Bangladesh border, governments across the world have adopted similar strategies under the pretext of security and economic stability. These projects, while geographically distinct, share underlying political and ideological motivations.
Like Iran’s wall, these global border fortifications often target marginalized groups, framing them as threats to national stability. The U.S., for example, justifies its southern border wall as a defense against illegal immigration and drug trafficking, while downplaying the socio-economic conditions that drive migration. Similarly, India’s border policies heavily impact Bengali-speaking migrants, reinforcing ethnic and religious divides under the guise of combating terrorism and illegal migration.
In all these cases, border walls function as tools for political regimes to signal strength and control. They serve domestic political purposes by deflecting attention from systemic issues like economic inequality and governance failures. By focusing public discourse on external threats, governments can consolidate support among nationalist constituencies while marginalizing dissenting voices.
The construction of these walls also intersects with global economic and military-industrial interests. Surveillance technologies, fencing materials, and advanced security systems are supplied by multinational corporations, transforming border management into a profitable industry. Iran’s reliance on military engineering for its border wall mirrors this pattern, blending domestic militarization with broader securitization trends.
However, border walls often fail to address the root causes of migration and insecurity. Instead, they exacerbate human suffering by forcing migrants into more dangerous routes and fostering environments of exclusion and hostility. While governments portray walls as solutions, they instead solidify divisions and perpetuate the inequalities that drive migration in the first place.
Iran’s wall, when placed in this global context, is a reflection of a larger pattern of border securitization that prioritizes symbolic displays of power over substantive solutions. These projects, while politically expedient, deepen existing inequities and further entrench systems of exclusion on an international scale.
Some domestic media criticize the wall construction by focusing on the loss of part of
the “motherland” left behind the walls, rather than its social impacts.
What Lies Beyond the Walls
Iran’s border wall is part of a larger regional and global strategy of border militarization, reflecting not only domestic priorities but also geopolitical calculations. While officially justified as a security measure, the wall aligns with pressures to manage migration flows that could extend beyond Iran’s borders toward Europe. This aligns with the European Union’s broader push to externalize its migration controls, pressuring transit countries like Iran to absorb the burdens of displaced populations.
In parallel, Iran has expanded its wall-building efforts to its western borders, targeting areas adjacent to Iraq and Turkey. These initiatives are presented as measures to combat smuggling and ensure national security, but they also reflect broader regional dynamics. The wall along the Turkey-Iran border, for instance, mirrors Turkey’s own efforts to prevent the movement of Afghan and other migrants through its territory toward Europe. These overlapping projects create a network of fortified barriers, effectively trapping vulnerable populations in increasingly hostile environments.
While Iran’s eastern border wall aims to limit crossings from Afghanistan, its western initiatives underscore a coordinated effort to position itself as a gatekeeper for migration flows, catering to regional and international expectations. These walls also highlight the interconnectedness of border policies across the region, where states like Turkey and Iran share both material and political interests in militarized migration management.
As walls rise along Iran’s borders, they become symbols of a broader failure to address the systemic causes of displacement, inequality, and instability. Instead of investing in regional cooperation and inclusive policies that tackle these root causes, states opt for short-term displays of sovereignty. The consequence is not just the entrenchment of existing divisions but also the creation of a landscape where barriers replace bridges, and exclusion is institutionalized.
Iran’s border walls, both to the east and west, ultimately serve as a stark reminder of how states wield physical barriers as tools of control and geopolitical bargaining. Beyond their immediate impact on migration, these walls reflect a deep complicity between regional actors and global powers in perpetuating systems of inequality and displacement. The question remains whether these policies will build a more secure future or simply reinforce the walls that divide us all.
What you think?