“The ADF commits itself to safeguarding the independence and territorial integrity of Iran, while endeavouring to establish milli va yerli (national and local) autonomy for Azerbaijan which is defined in civic, economic and cultural terms.” With the declaration of this constitutional article drafted at its first congress, the Azerbaijan Democrat Party (ADP, Azerbaijan Demokrat Ferqesi) committed itself to the maintenance of Iranian borders and established that it was working in the interest of Iranian lands at local and national levels. Entailed in this commitment was autonomy for the Iranian province of Azerbaijan in “civic, economic and cultural terms” as outlined in the ADP’s official party newspaper, Azerbaijan, printed during the ADP’s one-year control of Azerbaijan from 1945 to 1946. Examinations of the short-lived autonomous government of the ADP have focused on the identities of key figures within the movement as well as Azeri language politics and Azerbaijani ethnic identity and their relation to Iranian nationalism. Using selections from Azerbaijan, this paper will acknowledge and problematize the importance of these focal points as well as investigate how the ADP contested the content of the Iranian state’s national narrative through its vision of “cultural autonomy” as found in its cultural project, or works produced to argue for increased representation in the Iranian state’s national narrative. These works included the newspaper itself as well as works documented therein, including literature, poetry, historical monuments, and tributes to Azerbaijani heroes such as Shah Ismail. This essay builds upon recent literature about the historical process of nationalization in Iran to suggest that contestation via the cultural project of the ADP is missing from the historiography of the autonomous government and it is through examining the cultural works and legitimation symbols employed by the ADP that we can see how they engaged with and challenged the Iranian state’s national narrative. This brief period of autonomous Azerbaijani government offers a unique case study because it highlights the limitations of the Pahlavi period’s linguistic and cultural homogenization programs and their implications for the Pahlavi goal of national unity. Finally, analyzing disputed elements of the Iranian state’s national narrative will underscore how one group in Iran engaged with and attempted to negotiate increased representation within that narrative.