Iran's Journey: From Prosperity to Pariah
The Rise and Fall of a Western Ally and the Roots of Modern Conflict
Iran has been grabbing headlines recently, or perhaps for years, depending on which media outlet you follow. Moving away from the Cold War era and the omnipresent Russian threat, Iran has seemingly taken the mantle of the perennial enemy of democracy, and all that is held sacred in the Western world. This narrative is further cemented by the depiction of Iranian villains in pop culture, even in films such as Transformers 3, where the Autobots assist the US government in attacking an Iranian site.
But it wasn't always this way. Between 1950 and 1970, Iran was the West's darling, enjoying the first pick of Western toys and technology and basking in close relations with what is now its arch-nemeses, the United States and Israel. Fun fact: the Iranian Air Force is the only Air Force in the world operating the F-14 Tomcats, and they got their hands on those before the US military, who ultimately decided not to get them. Flush with oil wealth, the Shah could afford to equip his military with the latest Western gadgets, and sharing a border with the Soviet Union made it easy to justify these sales to Congress. The Israeli doctrine of the alliance of the periphery made Iran an indispensable ally, especially as other non-Arab powers on the Arab world's periphery, like Ethiopia and Turkey, were grappling with internal turmoil. Iran had oil, a powerful Western-trained military, and a shared apprehension of Soviet expansionism and its Arab neighbours, mostly Soviet clients. The Israeli military and intelligence services worked closely with their Iranian counterparts.
So, how did it all go so spectacularly wrong? Disagreements between allies are common, but to go from close friends to arch-enemies seemingly overnight is a transformation ripe for dissertations, op-eds, and documentaries. To make sense of this dramatic shift, we must retrace our steps through Iran’s journey from a modernising nation-state under a dictatorial monarchy beloved by many to a vilified theocracy that has become the West’s modern boogeyman.
A Brief History
Historically known as Persia, Iran is one of the world's oldest civilisations, dating back to the Elamite kingdoms around 2700 BC. The Achaemenid Empire, founded by Cyrus the Great in 550 BC, became one of the largest empires known for its architectural achievements and administrative efficiency. Following its fall to Alexander the Great, Iran was ruled by the Seleucid Empire and later by the Parthian and Sassanian Empires, known for their military conflicts with the Roman Empire and cultural advancements. The Arab Muslim conquest in the 7th century led to the Islamisation of the region, with various dynasties, such as the Safavids in the 16th century, establishing Twelver Shiism as the state religion, marking the country's religious and cultural development.
In the early modern period, the Safavid Empire centralised Iran, established Shiism as the state religion, and fostered a distinct Persian identity and culture. Following the Safavid decline, Iran experienced instability and fragmentation under the Afsharid and Zand dynasties until the Qajar Dynasty consolidated power in 1794. The Qajars struggled with internal corruption and external threats, particularly from the British and Russian Empires. Growing dissatisfaction culminated in the Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1911, which aimed to establish a parliament and limit royal power. In 1921, a military coup led by Reza Khan, supported by British interests, resulted in Reza Khan becoming Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1925. His modernisation efforts clashed with traditional and religious elements of society, and his pro-German sympathies during World War II led to his forced abdication in 1941, paving the way for his son, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, to ascend the throne.
Post-World War II Iran and the Rise of Mohammad Reza Shah
The fall of Reza Shah Pahlavi, a despot whose affinity for the Axis powers invited Allied intervention, thrust his son Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi into a precarious throne, perched precariously amidst the machinations of British (and later American) and Soviet forces vying for strategic dominance in the region.
Spending his formative years abroad in Swiss boarding schools and developing a preference for French over his native Persian, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi's early reign was marked by the complexities of a nation wrestling with its past and future. As he ascended the throne, Iran was a nation in turmoil, beset by a cacophony of competing voices seeking dominance. Separatist movements in Iranian Azerbaijan and Kurdistan posed significant challenges, but the withdrawal of the Red Army in 1946 allowed the Shah to consolidate his power. He eliminated many political opponents through Machiavellian manoeuvres, strengthening his position.
However, the emergence of the Tudeh Party, a communist faction advocating for a proletariat revolution, added to the Shah's concerns. His apprehensions were validated in 1949 when a Tudeh Party member attempted to assassinate him, narrowly escaping with a bullet grazing his cheek. This incident underscored the volatile nature of a nation divided by ideology, culture, economic disparity, ethnicity, and religion. Against the Cold War backdrop, Iran was crucial for the security of the Persian Gulf and a potential launchpad for Soviet ambitions. The Shah inherited a fractious and volatile nation, and his reign would be defined by his efforts to navigate these treacherous waters, balancing internal strife with the geopolitical imperatives of the era.
The Nationalisation of Oil and the 1953 Coup
When Reza Shah Pahlavi was forced to step down, his son Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi took over, sparking big changes in Iran. One of the most important events was the election of Mohammad Mossadegh, a passionate nationalist leader of the National Front. Mossadegh quit earlier to protest the old Shah's policies and returned strong, winning a huge victory with a 79-12 vote in the Majlis (Iran’s parliament).
Mossadegh, who abhorred foreign interference in Iran, quickly introduced a Land Reform Act that took 20% of landlord earnings to improve public infrastructure. But his boldest move was yet to come.
Mossadegh took on the powerful British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which controlled Iran's oil. He nationalised the company, meaning Iran would take over its operations. This bold action angered Britain, which relied heavily on Iranian oil for its post-war recovery and the Royal Navy’s operations. In response, Britain imposed a tough embargo on Iranian oil, cutting off Iran's main source of income.
Efforts to negotiate a solution failed. The situation was more than just about oil; it was a fight over control and independence. The British government viewed the AIOC as crucial for national security, so their harsh reaction was expected. As the embargo tightened, Iran faced growing political and economic turmoil, leading to a dramatic and uncertain future for the nation.
Mossadegh's reforms and nationalisation efforts endeared him to the urban populace and the middle class, setting the stage for a direct challenge to the Shah's authority, particularly over ministerial appointments. His growing popularity and assertiveness led to his resignation as Prime Minister, signalling that the public should determine his fate. The Shah appointed a new prime minister willing to negotiate with the British regarding the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), effectively reversing Mossadegh’s nationalisation policies. This move sparked protests led by the National Front, supported by Islamists, socialists, and even the Tudeh Party. The unrest compelled the Shah to reinstate Mossadegh.
However, the British embargo and Mossadegh's land reforms weakened the land-owning aristocracy and strained the Iranian economy. His parliamentary coalition grew fractious, and allies began questioning his leadership, seeking to undermine his popularity or find alternatives under various pretexts.
Concurrently, the UK sought to destabilise Mossadegh, persuading the Americans to intervene. Churchill warned Eisenhower that despite Mossadegh’s anti-communist stance, internal discord might drive him into an alliance with the Tudeh Party. In the context of the Cold War, such an alliance threatened to turn Iran into a Soviet client state with control over the Persian Gulf's strategic oil reserves. Eisenhower approved collaboration with the UK to depose Mossadegh.
The CIA and MI6 devised Operation Ajax to have the Shah dismiss Mossadegh. The Shah, fearful of Mossadegh's popular support, hesitated, prompting the CIA and MI6 to infiltrate the socialists and Islamists, sowing discord and spreading falsehoods about Mossadegh's intentions. Substantial bribes were paid to activists and criminals to orchestrate protests, which rapidly escalated into widespread violence, resulting in over 300 deaths. The Shah fled to Rome, persuaded by Eisenhower to issue the decree dismissing Mossadegh, who narrowly escaped an assassination attempt by a mob at his residence. Mossadegh was then placed under house arrest until he died in 1967. The Shah returned triumphantly, with a CIA-approved prime minister and his power consolidated.
Operation Ajax continues to reverberate through Iran's national consciousness, symbolising the pernicious effects of foreign interference. For many Iranians, the 1953 coup is a stark reminder of external meddling, fostering a legacy of resentment that persists today. Iranian politicians and diplomats frequently invoke it as a cautionary tale of the dangers posed by the intersection of power, politics, and petrodollars.
Consolidating Power
The Shah’s experiences with Mossadegh and his father’s coup taught him crucial lessons: the imperative to consolidate power solely in his hands and eliminate anyone who might rise in popularity and pose a threat.
When the 1953 coup forced him to flee the country, his American and British patrons viewed him with disdain, doubting his leadership abilities and preferring General Zahedi, Mossadegh’s replacement, over the Shah. However, the Shah proved to be a shrewd politician, adept at playing the various factions in Iran against each other. By manipulating the competing interests, he ultimately emerged victorious from their squabbles. He demonstrated political cunning and magnanimity towards disgraced National Front politicians and former opponents, even emulating Mossadegh's reforms to win popular support.
The Shah continued this strategy of playing one party against another, leveraging the threat of the Soviets to the north to secure military support from the US and the UK. He even made overtures to the Soviets, hinting at a non-aggression pact, which was never signed but underscored his willingness to work with anyone in Iran’s best interest.
With his position consolidated, the Shah launched the White Revolution in 1963, a series of sweeping reforms to transform Iran into a modern, industrialised nation. The White Revolution included land reforms, the nationalisation of forests and pastures, the sale of state-owned enterprises, and significant improvements in education and healthcare. One of its most controversial aspects was the land reform program, which sought to redistribute land from large feudal landlords to sharecroppers and peasants. While intended to diminish the power of traditional landowning elites and boost agricultural productivity, the program’s flawed implementation led to rural discontent as many peasants received plots too small to be economically viable, prompting mass migration to urban areas.
The White Revolution also promoted women’s rights, granting women the right to vote and encouraging their participation in the workforce. Though these measures were progressive, they faced staunch opposition from conservative religious leaders who saw them as a direct affront to Islamic values and traditions. This opposition would later become a significant force in the growing discontent, ultimately leading to the Shah’s downfall.
Economic Growth and Social Discontent
The White Revolution is a testament to Iran's economic transformation, marked by robust growth averaging 10% in GDP from 1963 to 1977. Fuelled by the nation's abundant oil wealth, this period witnessed a convergence of sound economic policies, substantial oil revenues, and the Shah's centralised authority, propelling Iran into a modern era of urbanisation and industrialisation. The nation became a beacon for international investment, attracting interest from American, British, and Japanese firms eager to capitalise on its burgeoning industries, including automotive and electronics manufacturing.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9dbb9d1b-01d2-4014-a7f9-e2b7c20968fa_1336x828.png)
Yet, beneath the veneer of prosperity lay a stark reality of inequality and discontent. The economic boom disproportionately benefited a new elite closely aligned with the Shah's regime, exacerbating social disparities and breeding widespread corruption. While urbanisation and industrialisation reshaped Iran's landscape, traditional ways of life were upended, contributing to a sense of cultural displacement among many Iranians.
This dissonance was epitomised by the grandiose Celebration of the 2,500th Anniversary of the Founding of the Persian Empire in 1971. Hosted by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi at the historic site of Persepolis, the event sought to showcase Iran's historical legacy and modern achievements. However, its extravagant display of opulence, officially said to have cost $100 million but estimated to be much more, starkly contrasted with ordinary Iranians' economic hardships, underscoring the widening gap between the ruling elite and the populace. Critics decried the celebration as a symbol of the Shah's detachment from the realities of his people, foreshadowing the growing discontent that would ultimately erupt in the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
![undefined undefined](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbf4319fc-2214-4f0e-8a21-106718c8833c_513x576.jpeg)
Amidst this backdrop of opulence and disparity, dissent simmered beneath the surface. Iranian students, exposed to leftist ideologies abroad, became increasingly disillusioned with the Shah's authoritarian rule. The regime's heavy-handed tactics, enforced by the notorious SAVAK secret police, stifled political opposition, leading to imprisonment, torture, and exile for dissenting intellectuals, students, and activists. Thus, while the White Revolution brought economic growth and modernisation to Iran, its legacy was tarnished by social unrest and political repression, setting the stage for the tumultuous events that would reshape the nation's history.
Opposition to the Shah’s rule
During the transformative era of Iran's White Revolution, as the nation surged economically, cracks began forming in the facade of progress, giving rise to a motley crew of opposition figures who dared to challenge the Shah's increasingly despotic rule. These figures, each a luminary in their own right, represented a spectrum of ideologies, united by their common goal of resisting the Shah's authoritarian grip on power.
Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1900-1989) emerged as the towering figure of religious opposition. He rallied against the Shah's sweeping reforms, which encroached upon the traditional role of the Shia clergy. Despite the Shah's attempts to modernise Iran, Khomeini remained a steadfast defender of Iranian and Islamic values, earning him widespread support, particularly among rural communities.
Mehdi Bazargan (1907-1995) was Mossadegh’s Deputy Prime Minister and part of the National Front. He can be seen as Mossadegh’s successor because his opposition to the Shah was rooted in secularism and demands for democratic reforms. Leading the Liberation Movement of Iran, Bazargan championed civil liberties and political participation, countering the Shah's autocratic tendencies with reasoned discourse and unwavering determination. He admired Gandhi and Gandhism and advocated a similar approach in Iran.
An intellectual, Ali Shariati (1933-1977) forged a unique path of opposition, blending Shia Islam and Marxism into a potent creed known as Red Shi'ism. His advocacy for social justice and grassroots activism struck a chord with many Iranians disillusioned by the Shah's allegiance to Western imperialism, making him a target of suspicion and persecution by the regime. Opinions are divided on his legacy, but many regard him as the ideologue of the early opposition to Shah’s autocratic tendencies.
People Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI) was founded in 1965 by leftist university students. Marxist-Leninist in outlook and one of the more violent opposition groups against the Shah, they were actively engaged in assassinations of American personnel stationed in Iran and Iranian officials and did so in a dramatic fashion to draw attention to their cause.
Tudeh Party, a communist party regarded as an arm of the Soviet Union, was active since the late 1940s, and its main strength was in mobilising demonstrations via its intricate underground network in Iran. The Tudeh party, in the context of the Cold War, was the main boogeyman used to justify foreign intervention by the US and UK and later used by the Shah for his crackdown on dissident groups. Constantly being a target limited their effectiveness somewhat, although acting in concert with other opposition groups and playing to their strength of organising mass demonstrations allowed them to punch above their weight.
Opposition to the Shah manifested in various forms, including fervent debates, intellectual discourse, mass demonstrations, and, in some instances, armed campaigns and assassinations, though only specific groups engaged in the latter. Many opposition figures were imprisoned, while others died under mysterious circumstances, often attributed to SAVAK, albeit without confirmation. The diverse nature of the opposition, united by a common goal, complicated the Shah's regime's response, preventing the application of a one-size-fits-all solution. Figures such as Ayatollah Khomeini were exiled rather than imprisoned or executed, whereas leaders like Bazargan and PMOI officials were incarcerated. Concurrent global events, such as student protests in the U.S. against the Vietnam War, the Sino-Soviet split, and the Paris demonstrations, further complicated the Shah's efforts, as international condemnation intensified when harsh measures were used to suppress dissent.
The Crossroad to Revolution
By the late 1970s, economic difficulties, political repression, and cultural discontent had created a volatile situation in Iran. The Shah's attempts to appease his critics through economic and social reforms were largely unsuccessful as many perceived his efforts to modernise the country as superficial and insufficient to address the deeper issues of corruption, inequality, and lack of political freedom, not to mention too little too late as figures such as Ali Shariati and Ayatollah Khomeini has gained favour and traction to the masses and promised a more equitable and fair future to Iranians if the Shah is toppled.
The tipping point came in 1978 when many events triggered widespread protests nationwide. In January, an article published in an Iranian newspaper insulted Ayatollah Khomeini, sparking demonstrations by religious students and clerics. The government's heavy-handed response, including the use of violence against protesters, fuelled further unrest across the country.
As the protests escalated, they drew in broader segments of Iranian society. Workers, students, intellectuals, and religious leaders joined the demonstrations, united in opposition to the Shah's regime. Strikes and protests paralysed the country, and the Shah's efforts to quell the unrest through concessions and promises of reform were too late. The death blow was the military declaring its neutrality and finally refusing to fire on the protesters.
By the end of 1978, Iran was in a state of near revolution. On January 16, 1979, Mohammad Reza Shah left the country, ostensibly for medical treatment in the US, but effectively in exile. Then-US president Jimmy Carter received him, was treated for his cancer, then politely asked him to leave US soil, and he headed to Egypt under the patronage of Anwar Sadat. His departure marked the collapse of the Pahlavi dynasty and the end of an era, and his initial refuge in the US, despite being for medical treatment, fuelled suspicion amongst Iranians that another Operation Ajax was in the making, which culminated in the seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran months later.
A Brief Analysis…
The Persian civilisation, one of the world's most ancient, persists through millennia, its legacy a testament to endurance and cultural synthesis. Positioned at the nexus of empires, Iran has evolved as a composite of every civilisation it has encountered, both ally and adversary. Its conquerors, rather than erasing Persian culture, often succumbed to its allure. The Arab Muslims incorporated Persian administrative prowess into their governance, and the Mongols embraced Islam after decimating Shiraz and Baghdad. Alexander the Great married Roxana, an Iranian whose influence was felt in his court. To view Iran as a monolithic entity with a single identity is an egregious misjudgment. Iran is a global microcosm—a medley of multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-ideological, multi-religious, and multi-lingual threads, united by pride in its shared history and accomplishments.
The Iranian saga is mirrored in other nascent states. Like the Hashemite monarchies in Iraq and Syria, Iran’s initial foray into modern governance began with monarchy. The ascent of republican, communist, and leftist movements, championed by figures such as Mohammad Mossadegh, marked an era of political experimentation. Yet, Western intervention, driven by an insatiable fear of Soviet expansion and an unyielding desire to control the Persian Gulf's oil reserves, quashed these aspirations. The Shah, consolidating his power, enacted a regime of suppression, a scenario disturbingly familiar to the modern-day autocracies of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, where Western allies conveniently overlook human rights abuses for strategic gain.
During the Cold War, the overarching imperative was the containment of Soviet influence and the securing of oil, which led to unwavering Western support for repressive regimes like that of the Shah's Iran. This draconian repression, widening economic disparities, and governmental indifference kindled widespread discontent. Ideologies such as Soviet communism, Ali Shariati's "Red Shiism," and Ayatollah Khomeini's pan-Islamism found fertile ground among the masses, who rallied against the Shah's tyranny. This scenario found its echo in the Arab Spring of the 2010s, where similar socio-political dynamics and actors—including secular socialists and Islamists—galvanised uprisings across the Middle East.
By the late 1970s, despite the escalating turmoil, neither the US State Department nor the CIA station in Tehran viewed the protests as anything more than ephemeral disturbances. Iran, a dictatorship with a Western-trained security apparatus and a formidable military, was deemed impervious to the fate of other coup-prone nations with fragile central governments. Consequently, minimal efforts were made to stifle dissent, and those that were attempted proved ineffectual. The Shah’s gravest miscalculation was to treat the opposition as a homogeneous entity, underestimating the potent force of the common people and focusing his energies on the urban, gun-toting philosopher-warriors rather than the vast peasantry that made up the majority of the population. This catastrophic oversight, coupled with the Western patrons' profound misapprehension of Iran’s intricate socio-political fabric, ultimately led to his downfall.