In 1963, Ali Shariati sat in a café in Paris, reflecting with his fellow exiles on the deteriorating state of his home country, Iran. Imperialism had given way to an exploitative structure back home. The Shah ruled at the behest of foreign powers, and his overthrow was becoming an intellectual necessity for people like Shariati, who would later be termed the ideologue behind the revolution.
The war in the Middle East has stopped for now, with parties agreeing on a two-week ceasefire. The durability of the ceasefire in the face of US-Israeli aggression is anyone’s guess. This war fell Iran’s way ostensibly to overthrow the regime that came in response to former foreign interventions in the country. Without its dissection through a historical lens, a broad and understandable analysis of this conflict remains elusive, and whichever way this conflict ends, the hard lessons remain the same.
Iran, or Persia, remained a civilisation on the map of the world for millennia. It is one of the lasting civilisations that has absorbed numerous invasions, traditions, and religions, yet has remained true to its Persian roots. It has seen innumerable changes of dynasties throughout its cyclical history, with the dice stopping at the now infamous Pahlavis, who were overthrown in the 1979 revolution.
The British imperial presence intensified in Persia during the reign of Nasar al-Din Shah Qajar in the late 1800s. British control of key sectors and the loaning to the Shah’s regime increased Persian dependence on foreign money. From banking to tobacco, decisions were made by British officials in the court of the Shah with little regard for the domestic Iranian populace. Things came to a head after the discovery of oil. The British monopolised the exploration and extraction of oil in Iran. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company invested millions into building an oil infrastructure and profited immensely from lucrative concessions provided by the Shah.
Resentment was growing in imperial Iran, partly through domestic calls for reform and partly as part of the international anti-colonial movements that were taking hold. The Constitution of 1906 was to begin a democratic tradition in Iran that was to strengthen parliamentary sovereignty with a blend of nationalism.
If the regime survives and the ceasefire matures into a permanent settlement, it will further consolidate a more aggressive clerical hold; if it does not, chaos will be the fate not just of this region but of the whole world
This nationalism was professed profoundly when Muhammad Mossadegh took over as Prime Minister in 1951. Mossadegh, a Western-educated member of the Iranian Majlis, fervently opposed the hold of foreign powers on the resources of Iran. These sentiments were part of a greater indignation among the Iranian population towards the unequal use of their resources.
Defying external pressure, he took the bold decision to nationalise the oil industry. It was a clear shock to imperialist interests in the region. Removing Mossadegh—a democratically elected Prime Minister—became the paramount objective. It was the height of the Cold War, and Mossadegh was labelled an ineffective Prime Minister who would not be able to rein in the communists, including the powerful communist Tudeh Party of Iran.
In a CIA-MI6-backed coup in 1953, the Mossadegh government was overthrown, and the process of democratisation collapsed. This disregard for democratic traditions by foreign powers was to sow the seeds of resistance that germinated into the Iranian revolution and the regime that rules Iran today. The irony is that the same powers are again trying to dismantle a regime that took hold in response to a regime change sponsored by them.
Iran was put under a modern but despotic regime of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. While the regime instituted industrial and land reforms, it became notoriously famous for suppressing dissent and pushing Iran into an elite-controlled state. The reforms disrupted the economic and social bases of Iranian society. The state-backed SAVAK spying agency brutally quelled any opposition to the Shah’s regime.
Extraction of oil was given as security to its previous owners for the sustenance of the regime. Alienation grew as resource exploitation, coupled with diminishing political space, took hold in Iran. People like Shariati sought new answers for change. He merged Shia Islam with modern political thought to call for reform and revival of the revolutionary spirit.
The Shah faced fierce resistance not only from intellectuals like Shariati but also from clerical circles that were deeply institutionalised in imperial Iran.
The eventual blowback was the revolution that engulfed Iran in 1979. It toppled the Shah’s regime and the powers that had long supported it. The hatred that outside interventions in modern Iran have propagated led to a reactionary Iranian theocracy that found its cause in resistance. The democratic ideals that were buried under the 1953 coup were further suppressed as the clerical regime emboldened its theocratic hold. The long Iran-Iraq war further strengthened the regime's social base and its cause of fighting the external enemy, which has only intensified ever since.
Another intervention by foreign powers on the sovereignty of Iran is ongoing. Little do we learn from history, and we are doomed to repeat it. If the regime survives and the ceasefire matures into a permanent settlement, it will further consolidate a more aggressive clerical hold; if it does not, chaos will be the fate not just of this region but of the whole world. The emergence of radical terrorism followed when other Middle Eastern states collapsed, the consequences of which were felt even by those countries that perpetrated it in the first place.
The resilient people of Iran and their lasting civilisation will survive this rupture as part of their long history. Those driving external interventions would do well to heed the lessons of the past and respect the aspirations of the people.