Mohsen Zanganeh Retreats After Controversy Over Allocation of 110 Hectares of Land in Chabahar to Afghanistan
Mohsen Zanganeh, a representative in the Islamic Republic’s parliament, initially spoke about allocating over 110 hectares of land in Chabahar to Afghanistan, then emphasized that the matter is not about surrendering Iran’s sovereignty, but rather creating groundwork for investment. Simultaneously, oil and transit cooperation with the Taliban government has been raised, while the issue of Helmand water rights and the water crisis in Sistan and Baluchestan remain serious concerns for the region’s people.
Mohsen Zanganeh, representative of Turbat-Heydariyeh and head of the Special Commission on Article 44 of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, following widespread coverage of his statements regarding land allocation in Chabahar port to Afghanistan, criticized what he called the “mischief and hostility” of certain media outlets in a post on the social media platform X, while emphasizing the continuation of the Islamic Republic’s economic cooperation with the Taliban government.
Zanganeh had previously stated that following discussions with Taliban officials, a preliminary agreement was reached for allocating approximately 10 hectares of land within the port boundary and over 100 hectares in the Chabahar free trade zone. In explaining this plan, he used phrasing that triggered considerable reactions: that Afghanistan could have “land belonging to itself” in the Chabahar free zone.
As criticism escalated, Zanganeh retreated from his earlier statements, saying that he did not mean the transfer of Iranian soil or sovereignty, but rather that conditions were to be created for Afghan investment and the establishment of commercial infrastructure, including transit facilities. According to published reports, this plan is in the discussion and follow-up phase, and available evidence does not confirm definitive transfer of ownership or sovereignty over Iranian lands.
Nevertheless, the change in tone and subsequent clarifications by this parliamentary representative have raised questions about how the agreement will be organized, its legal boundaries, the duration of land use, and the level of transparency in negotiations with the Taliban—questions that require clear and documented answers for the public.
Zanganeh also reported discussions about transferring Iranian oil through Afghanistan, the possibility of building large refineries in the western part of that country, constructing approximately 700 kilometers of railway lines, and establishing joint industrial zones. He introduced these cooperations as an opportunity for expanding trade and developing bilateral economic relations.
However, alongside these plans, the issue of Iran’s water rights from the Helmand River remains of vital importance. According to the 1972 treaty between Iran and Afghanistan, Iran’s annual water allocation in normal and above-normal water years is set at 820 million cubic meters. Iranian officials have repeatedly accused the Taliban in recent years of not fully fulfilling their water obligations—an issue compounded by concerns about drought and water scarcity in Sistan and Baluchestan.
Therefore, announcing extensive economic plans with the Taliban without clear explanation about pursuing Iran’s water rights can raise serious questions about the priorities of the Islamic Republic’s negotiators: Has a specific and measurable mechanism been considered alongside commercial and transit agreements to defend the water rights of the Iranian people?
Allocating land for foreign investment does not necessarily mean surrendering soil or transferring sovereignty; such plans must be evaluated on the basis of transparent contracts, clear laws, and guarantees protecting public rights. However, when an official initially speaks of creating territory belonging to another country and subsequently alters his explanation, publishing the details of the agreement and clarifying the legal status of the lands becomes even more important.
Concerns about how national lands and resources are managed, particularly in strategic areas like Chabahar, become more serious when people face water crises, livelihood problems, and lack of infrastructure. The government and parliament must clarify what measurable benefits these cooperations have for the Iranian people, what obligations they create for the Afghan side, and how the country’s long-term interests will be protected.
The core issue is not merely the announcement of allocating 110 hectares of land; the issue is transparency in decision-making regarding public assets and accountability regarding the rights of the Iranian people. Until the legal and economic details of these plans are published, the public has the right to ask questions about the terms of the agreement, the benefits derived from it, and how the Helmand water rights issue will be pursued.
