In The Late 20Th Century, The World Was Shaken With The

Furthermore, the Shah purchased billions of dollars worth of weapons of security from the US. In 1979 the realm was overthrown by extreme Islam’s that were followers of Ayatollah Khomeini. The intention of the Iranian students was to display their displeasure against the Shah. Their demand was the return of the Shah for a trial followed by his death. In addition, they asked that the US stay out of their country’s affairs. Carter’s approach required the safeguarding of American hostages but also guaranteed an alliance with Iran. Carter’s tactics on the situation had devastating effects on his run for re-election (Hamilton, 1982).

The reformation of the country of Iran toward Islam caused turmoil among the people because the drastic changes forced on the people were not easily accepted. One of the major changes is that

After the successful overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadegh, the Shah was back in control of Iran and was supported by the United States, even though he was extremely brutal to his citizens. The Shah used United States military trained Iranian police force, called SAVAK, to carry out his orders. This caused a strong dislike for the Shah by the citizens of Iran and a strong Islamic uprising. This uprising ended with the Shah being exiled from his country and the radical Muslim Ayatollah Khomeini gaining power over

In the late 1970's, the world was hit with the events of the Iranian Revolution, a movement in which the Shah was overthrown in replacement with Ayatollah Khomeini. Causes for this movement included the economic, political, and socio-economic conditions in Iran before the Revolution. Economically, the Shah's hopes for the country ended up being their downfalls while politically, the Shah's ruling as a dictator prohibited the freedom of the Iranians. Socio-economically, the Shah didn't place much emphasis on religion, angering the majority of the population. The overthrow of the Shah led to the uprise of a religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, a figure supported by many. Unlike advice

This continued to exacerbate the gap between the social classes of Iran. The main reason for the Shah’s confidence in bringing his people prosperity was the mass amount of revenue Iran was generating from Oil. The nationalization of Iran’s oil in the fifties meant increased profits for the nation. Iran’s economy was growing exponentially; its GDP was five times higher in 1976 than it was in 1960 (Clawson, p.15). Islamic modernists, such as Marxist Mujaheddin-e-Khalq, opposed the Shah’s capitalist economic policies (Diller 1991, p.152). There were several other groups that were not pleased with the Shah’s growing focus on economic growth, including the ulemas (councils composed of local Mullahs or respected religious leaders) (Sanders 1990, p.66). These ulemas possessed considerable local influence, as they were in charge of the educational systems and had influence over the urban poor and bazaar merchants (Diller 1991, p.152). In the midst of all that was going on in Iran, Khomeini lived in exile in Paris. The Ayatollah however, was well informed, and managed to sneak tapes into the country to his supporters and the local ulemas. These tapes spread the word of Islamic fundamentalism to these groups that opposed that Shah, and gave them a binding power that eventually would be the revolution of February 1979. Not long, Khomeini had

Iran was now unprotected, and a new power came into being. The Arabs invaded and the quality of life changed. “People fell into poverty as the greedy court imposed ever-increasing taxes. Tyranny tore apart the social contract between ruler and ruled that Zoroastrian doctrine holds to be the basis of organized life” (21). The Iranian people couldn’t survive with a ruler who had no sympathy or respect for them. Their life was being over run by foreigners.

The complexity of America’s relationship with Iran increased steadily beginning in 1908, when Iran struck oil. The Shah, the king or emperor of Iran, after taking the place of his young predecessor Reza Shah Pahlavi with the help of the CIA, led Iran into a period of extreme wealth and prosperity, the likes of which the Iranian people had never experienced. However, with the growth of wealth in Iran came the growth of Iranian resentment towards the West, specifically the United States. The Iranian’s resented the uneven distribution of wealth that they felt existed and the United State’s influence in “westernizing” their society. In 1963, this growing hatred led to a conflict with the Islamic clergy. The conflict was quickly settled by the Shah, but he was unaware that this dispute was the beginning

Thesis: Iran, because of these events, is in worse condition because of the cultural revolution, poisoned from within, and is the victim of the actions of the western powers.

It was a bright and sunny day in the streets of Tehran, where my father would walk along side by side with the love of his life. He was dressed like any gentleman in the blistering summer’s heat would, but the real sight to him was his girlfriend. She was wearing a bright colored dress and her hair was swaying with the cool wind. They felt vigorous and young to be able to show their affection so freely. Despite that, times have changed in Iran and to practice that type of freedom would result in brutal consequences from the government. At first glance, one would say modern day Iran juxtaposes the United States. However, that was not always the case. According to my informant, my father, Iran was once a country very much like the United States

Luca argues that the shah ‘promoted western values and culture, whilst gaining control of the customary sectors of the Iranian society. This included religion, education and the bazaars’ . This is backed up by Kamran Matin, who states that he attempted to liberalize Iran through his attempt to ‘modernize the bazaars, irritating merchants of the bazaars with his policies such as obligatory membership and dues. He also interfered in the political, economical and religious concerns of the Iranians ’. Trenta further extends the argument and argues that this ‘westoxication of Iran culture and society angered religious leaders. The bazaaris also resented the impositions such as price controls and having to make room for western size malls’ . Trenta further extends her argument and highlights that ‘the Iranian opposition groups viewed and interpreted the interest and intention of liberalizing Iran as a response to the election of President Jimmy Carter in November 1976 as Human Rights was his ‘corner stone’ in foreign policy’ . Due to this coincidence, the Iranian people began to build resentment towards the Shah and his regime. The opposition grew as the Iranians viewed the Shah as a ‘puppet of the united states’ . Trenta argues that the election of ‘Jimmy carter and his rhetoric of Human Rights was merely a coincidence’ .

As Michael Axworthy states on the back cover of his book, A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind, Iran is a “land of contradictions”. As this is true these contradictions is what makes Iran, Iran. Iran today is looked as the pinnacle of the Islamic faith in the form of a Government structure. Since 1979, Iran has been known as the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iran will continue being an Islamic Republic for centuries to come. Iran has a rich history of intellectuals and scholars. Iran is known for its vibrant culture that dates back longer than the Western Ideals were even conceived. However Axworthy asks a question about Iran and its impact on the world’s history and the current events that we see in Iran today, Axworthy asks “Is Iran an aggressive power, or a victim?” This statement is a true paradox, can Iran be the next Nazi Germany, the next Soviet Union or the next Great Islamic Caliphate or is Iran just fighting to keep its culture alive from a vast array of attacks from foreign entities and internal struggles.

There are many ways in which Iranian cultural expectations are different from the western cultural expectations. They are different in regards to citizens’ rights and gender norms.

Iran has always, it seems, been the breeding ground for some kind of political upheaval or another. In recent times, back in 1979, there was a major revolution which was, in some ways, similar to the revolution we are seeing today. The people were angry and they were tired of being controlled by the government that was in power. They had concrete ideals and were incredibly passionate about their revolution. The revolution Iran is experiencing today does not appear to be quite as passionate and does not appear to maintain a belief in any real solid political system. They just know they want something different. In the following paper we present an illustration of the current revolution that is taking

Iranians deeply value their social and cultural traditions. The Persian revolution formed the basis through which the country evolved and foundation upon which its empires were established. The Islamic regime practiced by the country formed the basis through which the country’s sophisticated institutions were built. Shah seemed to champion for secularization and westernization (Axworthy,

On the “viciousness of the SAVAK” see Cmiel (1999: 1234). Richard Cottam (1979: 6) notes that the period of the last Shah’s reign “were the years of seeming stability in Iran. The coercive control apparatus, especially SAVAK (the security and information agency), convinced the Iranian people that it was omnipresent, omniscient, and entirely ruthless. It was generally accepted in opposition circles that the number of political prisoners was in the range of 50,000-100,000, and there were detailed and convincing reports of brutal torture. Iran's military was nearly half a million strong, and its equipment was becoming the best that money could buy. For all but the committed core of opponents and each year's crop of student-aged activists, the regime appeared invulnerable.