What speaks volumes is the lion and sun, the symbol of the rulers of Iran. I agree with Rangnath on the history of the region and I'd add that you shouldn't think in terms of nations and borders in the 17th century, but in terms of who could collect taxes where. This is especially true in Asia. Old Chinese maps do not show borders, but documents tell us which "kings" paid treasure to the emperor, who simply claimed the whole world as his. However, since China was the centre of the world, the farther away from China you went, the less interesting the area was (Chinese sailors actually reached today's Veracruz before the Spaniards, but found the effort a waste of time and money). Therefore, the Farawaystans could simply be ignored, apart from such amusing inventions as the clock and the musket.
Islamic nations were not very different. Mecca/Medina was the centre of the world (even if you happen to rule them from Constantinople) and rulers routinely styled themselves king of kings, or ruler of the continents and the seas and other such lofty titles. The two differences that counted were that in the course of time, a second centre of Islamic power emerged in Delhi, where the ruler also claimed all the pretty titles and that Islam (like Christianity) tells its believers to go out and convert people.
Borders are more or less an invention of the Congress of Vienna (1815). Before that time, you were just as likely to pay a toll inland as on a border and discontinuous possessions and people speaking different languages in one ruler's territory were considered normal. Areas changed hands according to the marriages of its rulers. KM does not take this into account, of course as its catalogues are based on today's countries, so it does the best it can and puts them under the Iran heading. Not that it matters...
Peter