The Shah Weaknesses

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

All the Shah’s Men by Stephen Kinzer details the 1953 American-orchestrated coup in Iran. Iran was under British economic control, but as it modernized, Iranians began fighting for their own control. Their fledgling democracy was working to modernize, until the UK and the US decided to interfere to protect Britain’s colonial holdings from Soviet influence. Because the US was not interested in protecting a British business, British politicians emphasized the threat the USSR held to Iran, leading to Americans inserting themselves into a nation’s politics in which they had no place. They successfully orchestrated a coup, however, the negative, long-term, anti-Western results overwhelm any positive effect. All the Shah’s Men by Stephen Kinzer paints a picture of the results of action without adequate attention to future results.

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.

The American government is known to promote democratic values throughout the world. Though the ideals America was fighting for during the Cold War, the government still managed to participate in the overthrow of democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh threatened to nationalize Iran’s oil in 1951 and later gained the support of the Iranian government. The British companies had many investments in Iranian oil. It is with the approval of nationalization that the economies of both British and Iran were ultimately harmed. The British government requested the help of the US so that they could perform a coup to overthrow Mossadegh. With suspicions of Mossadegh supporting communism, and being supported by the Tudeh Party, the United States government was willing to sacrifice their democratic ideologies and credibility in the region for the insurance of an anti-communist leader. This would prove to cause problems that still resonate in today’s political and military negotiations in this region.

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.

In August of 1953, a CIA action by the name of “Operation Ajax” overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and effectively replaced him with the country’s monarch, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Kinzer 6). In 1951, Mossadegh had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, putting the United States and United Kingdom in danger of losing sixty percent of the known oil reserves in the world at the time (Kinzer 91). To counter this move, American and British leaders crafted a covert plot to overthrow Mosaddegh and put Pahlavi in power (Kinzer 6). The plot succeeded, creating an oil consortium no longer threatened by nationalization (Kinzer 203). However, while oil may have been the primary motivation for the coup, American cultural ideas and hegemonic

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

It is however limited in that it is translated from Turkish and has a number of phrases that require personal interpretation and therefore need to be assessed by other sources. The piece goes over the conflict between the current Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, and the leader of the revolution Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It also discusses how Ayatollah Khomeini’s followers actually opposed each other, but opposed the Shah more. It also explains how the Shah’s progressive attitude offended some for being too progressive, and some for not being progressive enough. This resulted in another conflict upon the abdication of the Shah, as to what the republic of Iran should be. In the end, Ayatolla Khomeini was declared Supreme Leader for life.

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,

a dim view of this effort by the Shah. The Shah was naive in these matters, he had trouble making decisions, he was more of a manipulator then leader. A manipulator has trouble making decisions, potentially they can be manipulated if they do make decisions.

The research continues to broadly discuss Iran’s Foreign policy through the following heading which is Iran’s foreign policy principles, Iran’s first revolution, the second revolution, approaches of the Islamic Revolution, Iran’s foreign policy in the light of the Arab revolts and lastly Iran’s foreign policy towards United States. It concludes that despite the fact that Iran has been playing a major role, it has only accomplished mixed results at best. The following two keys have been limiting Iran’s foreign policy which is because of its contradictory strategies that substantially contributed. Firstly Iraq’s bitterness towards Tehran’s interference and