Shah's Regime Research Articles

Analisis Sejarah Penyebab Awal Konflik antara Amerika Serikat dan Iran

The conflict between the United States and Iran is one of the most prominent and complex geopolitical issues in the world. This research aims to analyze the initial causes of the conflict between the two countries from a historical perspective. It begins in the early 20th century with the increasing Western interest in Iranian oil and covers the fall of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 through a CIA-backed coup, which was a pivotal moment affecting bilateral relations. The study also examines the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which ended the US-backed Shah's regime and marked the start of open hostility. Using historical research methods and document analysis, the study identifies economic, political, and ideological factors that contributed to the escalation of the conflict. The findings show that a combination of foreign intervention, economic interests, and domestic political changes in Iran have played a crucial role in shaping the hostility between the United States and Iran. These insights provide a deeper understanding of the root causes underlying the ongoing conflict.

Ibrahim Yazdi: His Life and Political Activities in Iran until 1979

Ibrahim Yazdi is considered one of the most mysterious revolutionary figures in Iran, as he worked with the movements opposing the Shah's regime early in his life. His political activity emerged since 1946 when he joined the "Servants of God Socialist" movement, and then became a prominent member of the National Front after the fall of the government. Dr. Muhammad Mossadeq in 1953, after which he emigrated to the United States of America in 1961 and led the opposition movement abroad until 1979, the year in which he returned to the country after a trip of absence that culminated in political activity opposing the Shah's regime. His name was associated with Mr. Khomeini in France and he returned with him to Iran, and although he assumed the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs of the country in the interim government formed by Mehdi Bazarkan, he soon resigned from it following the attack on the American Embassy on November 4, 1979 and its repercussions on Iran and its international isolation. The strongest opponent of the policy of what was known at the time as the "revolutionary government", because he believed that it contradicted the principles of human rights and international treaties.

THE CHANGING IDEOLOGY OF THE PEOPLE'S MOJAHEDIN ORGANIZATION OF IRAN

The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, or Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), is one of few Iranian political organizations that was founded prior to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and still exists today. However, the organization has experienced lots of change in its ideology and list of political allies in its almost 60-year-old history. At the same time, the MKO has mostly stayed loyal to its main political goal – to topple the ruling regime in Iran, whether it be the Shah's government or the Islamic Republic. The shifts in the MKO's ideology and activities ca be explained with extensive repressions against the group by the Shah's regime as well as the Islamic Republic, which killed thousands of members of this group; the organization ending up under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi and then his wife Maryam Rajavi; and the geopolitical changes that dramatically altered the list of the MKO's political allies.

Atomgeschäfte. Die Nuklearexportpolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1970–1979 [Nuclear deals: The nuclear export policy of the Federal Republic of Germany 1970–1979] by Daniel Romberg

Reviewed by: Atomgeschäfte. Die Nuklearexportpolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1970–1979 [Nuclear deals: The nuclear export policy of the Federal Republic of Germany 1970–1979] by Daniel Romberg Astrid Mignon Kirchhof (bio) Atomgeschäfte. Die Nuklearexportpolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1970–1979 [Nuclear deals: The nuclear export policy of the Federal Republic of Germany 1970–1979] By Daniel Romberg. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2020. Pp. 413. Daniel Romberg's dissertation examines the developments and problems with the high phase of West German nuclear exports in the 1970s. This phase ended with the accident at the U.S. nuclear power plant near Harrisburg in 1979, because the dangers of nuclear power suddenly became clear to a broad public. Nuclear technology exports, which in the Federal Republic of Germany were subject to restrictions in accordance with the Foreign Trade Act, meant two things: (1) the export of nuclear technology, such as nuclear power plants, reprocessing plants, uranium enrichment plants, and plants for the production of fuel struts; and (2) the associated know-how and bilateral agreements on nuclear co-operation, thus the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, dating back to Dwight Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" speech (Joachim Radkau/Lothar Hahn, Aufstieg und Fall der deutschen Atomwirtschaft). The author analyses five case studies, breaking them down according to realized (Iran, Argentina, and Brazil) and failed (Soviet Union and South Africa) exports. The study is not a classic technical history work in the sense that it examines the effects of technological developments on social processes. Rather, it is located at the intersection of economic and political history and is written from the federal government perspective, which is why Romberg illuminates two groups of German actors. On the one hand, he analyzes the Brandt and Schmidt governments and the ministries involved in political negotiations. The government handled the bilateral nuclear agreements and intervened in private-sector negotiations on the nuclear exports of the Power Plant Union (KWU), i.e., the manufacturer of the reactors, and other companies. On the other hand, Romberg examines the commercial enterprises, especially the KWU and electricity producer STEAG, which developed the enrichment technology. Romberg's study addresses three central questions. First, he looks into whether the Brandt and Schmidt governments pursued a certain concept with regard to nuclear exports. Second, he analyzes the foreign policy negotiations on nuclear exports based on the credibility of the federal government's non-proliferation-treaty (NPT) regime. Third, he examines the foreign and domestic political significance of nuclear exports, questioning the federal government's independence from America as well as the domestic peace and antinuclear movement's role. Germany's governments did not follow a red line in nuclear exports, but pursued an "involvement through cooperation" strategy. The aim was [End Page 546] to cooperate with states outside the NPT regime to stop them going down the self-sufficient path, and instead encourage them to allow international control. However, as Romberg discovered, this concept often only concealed efforts to engage in nuclear export as unhindered as possible. In America, criticism of the Federal Republic's nuclear export policy arose at an early stage, which it underlined with political pressure on the German governments. The U.S. government, especially under Jimmy Carter, saw the NPT as no longer effective and preferred to refuse sensitive technology. Carter was unable to make convincing objections to German nuclear export policy or negotiate a compromise, which demonstrates the federal government's increasing independence from America (Stephan Geier, Schwellenmacht). For the West German peace and anti-nuclear movement, nuclear exports were less of a problem than cooperation with dictatorial regimes, but the movement increased its criticism of nuclear exports steadily during the 1970s (Dolores Augustine, Taking on Technocracy). The study clearly shows that the claim that subsequent German governments wanted to strengthen reactor safety worldwide with nuclear exports is wrong. The Brandt and Schmidt governments were not interested in delivering reactors that were safer than others to the military governments of Brazil and Argentina, the apartheid regime in South Africa, the Shah regime in Iran, or the Soviet Union. Economic interests were at stake, and the governments' desire for more room to maneuver in foreign policy meant it did not...

WOMEN AS A POLITICAL SYMBOL IN IRAN: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE BETWEEN PAHLAVI REGIME AND ISLAMIC REVOLUTION

Iranian women have been one of the most important topics of the socio-political discussions after the Iranian Islamic revolution. This article adopts a comparative perspective through focusing on the Shah regime and the post-revolution era in order to figure out what has been changed in Iranian women rights after the Islamic Revolution. It is argued that in both periods, women were used as a political symbol by the regimes; a symbol of modernity during the Pahlavi regime and a symbol of Islam after the Revolution. It is considered that women's rights discussions, which focus only on the outward appearance of women, lead to the neglect of many important issues. It is also demonstrated in the study that the leaders who have ruled the country since the Iranian revolution have different attitudes towards women's rights. After the Islamic revolution of Iran, women's rights have gone back and forth depending on the visions of the presidents on women issues.

Iran’s Foreign Policy in 1933-1939: Problems of Diversifying Relations with Leading World Powers

The article is devoted to the problems of modernizing Iran’s foreign policy strategy on the eve of World War II, the implementation of a set of measures to diversify its relations with the leading world powers. The factors influencing the formation of the conflict relations of Iran with Great Britain and the USSR are revealed. The features of the nationalist policy of the Reza Shah regime, aimed at liberating the country from British control and weakening Soviet influence in the country, are traced. Particular attention is paid to the formation of a pro-German course in Iran’s foreign policy. The author emphasizes that the ideological factor (Nazi propaganda about the common Aryan origin of the Germans and Iranians) played an important role in the rapprochement of the Shah’s regime of Iran with the Nazi leadership of Germany. It is stated that the rapprochement of Iran with Germany contributed to the growth of tension in Europe, the intensification of the confrontation between the bloc of fascist states and the camp of anti-fascist forces. It is also noted that as a result of the Iranian-German rapprochement, Moscow’s relations with Tehran found themselves in a crisis situation: the strengthening of Nazi influence in Iran prompted the USSR leadership to take urgent measures to ensure reliable protection of the country’s southern borders against the threat of a German attack.

Iran's Reconstruction Jihad—Rural Development and Regime Consolidation after 1979

Iran's Reconstruction Jihad—Rural Development and Regime Consolidation after 1979

Introduction to Jalal AL-E Ahmad's “To Mohassess, For the Wall”

Abstract “To Mohassess, For the Wall” is an article written in 1964 by Jalal Al-e Ahmad, one of the most influential and charismatic Iranian intellectuals of the time. Three years before writing this article, Al-e Ahmad had published Weststruckness, discussing the Iranians’ cultural alienation caused by the dependence on the west. In “To Mohassess, For the Wall”, Al-e Ahmad shifts his analysis to Iranian painting, arguing that Iranian painters during the 1960s merely repeat Western cultural processes and strategies instead of constructing Iranian ones. The context for Al-e Ahmad's argument is the Pahlavi regime's radical program of rapid modernization, which in the area of the arts was systematically expanded. Critical, provocative or problematic, the article offers a crucial window into the adoption of Western-style modernism by Iranian painters during the 1960s and into how an “insider” intellectual such as Al-e Ahmad evaluated the modernization of Iranian art before the background of what he perceived as the critical neglect of Iranian traditions. The text is addressed to Bahman Mohassess, a painter whom Al-e Ahmad considered to be one of the few who had not been coopted by the cultural policies of the Shah's regime.

To Mohassess, For the Wall

Abstract “To Mohassess, For the Wall” is an article written in 1964 by Jalal Al-e Ahmad, one of the most influential and charismatic Iranian intellectuals of the time. Three years before writing this article, Al-e Ahmad had published Weststruckness, discussing the Iranians’ cultural alienation caused by the dependence on the west. In “To Mohassess, For the Wall”, Al-e Ahmad shifts his analysis to Iranian painting, arguing that Iranian painters during the 1960s merely repeat Western cultural processes and strategies instead of constructing Iranian ones. The context for Al-e Ahmad's argument is the Pahlavi regime's radical program of rapid modernization, which in the area of the arts was systematically expanded. Critical, provocative or problematic, the article offers a crucial window into the adoption of Western-style modernism by Iranian painters during the 1960s and into how an “insider” intellectual such as Al-e Ahmad evaluated the modernization of Iranian art before the background of what he perceived as the critical neglect of Iranian traditions. The text is addressed to Bahman Mohassess, a painter whom Al-e Ahmad considered to be one of the few who had not been coopted by the cultural policies of the Shah's regime.

HAS THE US POLICY BEEN MORE ANTI-IRANIAN THAN PRO-ARAB WITH THE FALL OF THE SHAH? A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

AbstractSince the fall of the Shah, the US-Iran relations have changed significantly. During the Shah regime, US-Iran experience a warm relationship through economic and military partnerships, however, it changed since the Iran revolution until today. Iran turned out to be one of the axis of evil during the Bush administration. The fall of the Shah also changes the direction of the foreign policy of the US. It then led to the proposition of whether the US foreign policy has been more anti-Iranian than pro-Arab with the fall of the Shah. This paper seeks to answer this question through historical analysis. It examines the US policy during the Cold War era and the post-Cold War. Therefore, the US policy in the region is not always anti-Iranian than the pro-Arab case. The changed regional architecture influences the priorities of the President of the US at that time to put aside Iran's issue, as it happened on George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and Obama administration. Thus, the characteristic of the leader also heavily influences US posture in Iran, as Bush and Trump's personality and policies are clearly against Iran. However, despite the dynamic relations of the US-Iran, Iran has always been one of the threats for the US interest in the Persian Gulf since the Shah has fallen.

HAS THE US POLICY BEEN MORE ANTI-IRANIAN THAN PRO-ARAB WITH THE FALL OF THE SHAH? A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

AbstractSince the fall of the Shah, the US-Iran relations have changed significantly. During the Shah regime, US-Iran experience a warm relationship through economic and military partnerships, however, it changed since the Iran revolution until today. Iran turned out to be one of the axis of evil during the Bush administration. The fall of the Shah also changes the direction of the foreign policy of the US. It then led to the proposition of whether the US foreign policy has been more anti-Iranian than pro-Arab with the fall of the Shah. This paper seeks to answer this question through historical analysis. It examines the US policy during the Cold War era and the post-Cold War. Therefore, the US policy in the region is not always anti-Iranian than the pro-Arab case. The changed regional architecture influences the priorities of the President of the US at that time to put aside Iran's issue, as it happened on George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and Obama administration. Thus, the characteristic of the leader also heavily influences US posture in Iran, as Bush and Trump's personality and policies are clearly against Iran. However, despite the dynamic relations of the US-Iran, Iran has always been one of the threats for the US interest in the Persian Gulf since the Shah has fallen.

YAKINÇAĞ DÜNYA TARİHİ: 1975-1984 DÜNYA OLAYLARINA BİR BAKIŞ

In this study, the events that shaped the recent world history were evaluated together with their impact on the foreign political life of Turkey. In the study field, literature was scanned with document analysis. The data collected are presented in a meaningful whole, in a controversial manner. In these years, the oil crisis caused by the Arab-Israeli war has left the countries of the world, especially Turkey, in economic difficulties. In relations with the Middle East, the Camp David treaty, the Israel - Egypt treaty and, the Golan Heights issue are among the important events of the period. In Iran, the fall of the Shah's regime and, the establishment of the Islamic Republic in its place are among the events that continue to echo from that period to the present. The overthrow of the Shah in Iran, Soviet Russia's invasion of Afghanistan and finally the Iraq-Iran war were important events that occurred in the early 80s. Although all these events seem to be separate, they are related. After the mentioned events, many countries changed their politics and economic policies. Key words: Modern History, Camp David Treaty, Islamic Revolution in Iran, Iran-Iraq War

ВОПРОС О ЖЕНСКОМ ИДЖТИХАДЕ И РЕЛИГИОЗНОМ НАСТАВНИЧЕСТВЕ В РЕЛИГИОЗНЫХ ПРАКТИКАХ ИРАНЦЕВ-ШИИТОВ

The article examines the question of the women religious mentorship in modern Iran. It is shown that Iranian theologians differed in their opinion whether a woman can be a religious mentor (marja): many of them supported it, others agreed to it only if she should mentor other women, and many others, including Ayatollah Khomeini, opposed it. Brief biographies of two most prominent female marjas are given: those of Nesrat Amin and Zahra Sefati. Both of them received a permission to interpret Islamic texts from distinguished Iranian ayatollahs. With theirinitiative and eagernessfor knowledge, they managed to succeed in Shiite theology and their works were highly regarded by Iranian ayatollahs. It is evident that their activities were closely linked to important events that happened in Iranian society during their lifetime: the Constitutional Revolution, anti-religious Shah regime, Islamic Revolution. Currently due to increase in the education and social activity among women, a need arose to officially allow women to become marja. Today, in Iran there works the Women Council on Islamic Law, what allows to expand the role of women in development of Islamic Law

Book Review

Book Review

The United States Are Losing an Ally in the Middle East: J. Carter’s Administration Policy towards Iran, 1977—1980

The article is about the US reaction to the events of 1977—1979 in Iran. The Authors consider factors that influenced US course towards this country, characterize the specificity of the American perception of the Iranian opposition and its leader R. Khomeini. Attention is drawn to the underestimation by the American politicians of the role of the Islamic factor. In the mid-1970s. The dialogue of the West with the Soviet Union changed the general climate of international relations and made it possible to defuse international tensions. Statements by US President J. Carter that in relations with other states of the United States will be guided by the principle of guarantees of “human rights” were the reason of illusions among the democratic forces of the “third world”. The liberal part of the Iranian political class turned out to be susceptible to this rhetoric, but in the end did not receive substantial support from the American administration. Iran was one of the parts of the military-political system of the West, part of the CENTO bloc. It’s modernization were successful process. But the revolution destroyed the American security system in the Middle East. And although the liberal nationalists fought against the Shah regime, mass discontent with the current government was channeled not by the secular, but by the Islamic opposition. It overthrew the regime of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and began to create a new statehood on Islamic basis. The Iranian revolution challenged Western culture and the American social model. The events of 1979 showed that religion in the Muslim world is a more effective for achieving the purpose of mobilizing the masses than secular ideology. The revolution led to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in its radical form. The article substantiates the conclusion that one of the important factors of this turn of events was the inconsistent actions of American diplomacy. In 1978—1979 Washington haven’t closely looked at issue of threats of extremist religious movement inspired by the successes of the Shia clergy. The attention of the US administration was focused on stopping nationalism and left-wing ideas. One of the outcomes of the American course was the creation of conditions for the transformation of radical Islam into an important factor in world politics.

The Iranian Nuclear Impasse: The Protracted Imbroglio

The Iranian nuclear deadlock has been one of the most contentious issues confronting the international community till date. The following article seeks to trace the tussle between the evolution of the Iranian nuclear aspirations and the politics of non-proliferation. It is divided into four main sections. The first section attempts to give a brief description of the problematic of the discriminatory politics of nuclear non-proliferation regime that Iran has been put through by the West. Iran’s nuclear aspirations can be traced back to the 1950s. Its strategic relations with the USA and leading European nations brought Iran significant scientific and technological assistance to set up a nuclear infrastructure. The second segment of the article delves into Iran’s nuclear activities during the Shah regime and the Western response. The post-Shah years brought about notable changes in the Western approach to Iran’s nuclear pursuit, the denial of nuclear technology to Iran being the predominant stand of the West especially the USA. The third section addresses the changes in Iran’s stand on the nuclear issue and the consequent changes in its relations with the West especially the USA. The last section of the article, that is, the concluding part attempts a dispassionate take on the rationale behind its nuclear aspirations, the veracity of its arguments and the future of the Iranian nuclear impasse.

Saudi Clerics and Shiʿa Islam

Saudi Clerics and Shiʿa Islam

Psychoanalyzing Iran: Kennedy's Iran Task Force and the Modernization of Orientalism, 1961–3

Between 1961 and 1963, a political crisis in Iran prompted U.S. foreign-policy makers to briefly consider supporting political reform that would have pushed the Shah toward a more constitutional role and moved Iran toward democracy. Yet Washington instead decided to bolster the Shah's regime to carry out social and economic reforms that coalesced as the Shah's White Revolution in 1963. Policy-makers relied in part on a psychological profile of Iran to shape their decisions, believing that the Iranian people were psychologically unprepared to rule, and that the Shah was psychologically unprepared to give up power. This article encourages diplomatic historians to explore how the language and ideas of psychology influenced the modernization theories and policies that U.S. policy-makers applied to Iran, the Middle East, and the wider ‘Third World.’ After briefly exploring the history of U.S. racial, religious, and cultural perceptions of Iran - many of which fit traditional stereotypes of Orientalism - the article examines the influence of political and developmental psychology at a time when racial and religious bias were increasingly taboo. Psychology offered more acceptable, scientific ways to understand Iran and the Middle East, though it led to familiar conclusions. While attempting to modernize Iran, policy-makers modernized Orientalism.

Secularism and the Iranian Militant Left: Political Misconception or Cultural Issues?

This essay draws on an original study of the history, theories, and organizational life of Iran's most influential leftist organization in the 1970s, the People's Fedayee Guerrillas, to examine the symptomatic misconception of secularism as well as the secularization of everyday life and politics by a specific generation of Iran's Left. The essay argues that because of its ideological adherence to Marxism, the militant Left of this era simply assumed its role as a secular political force, while riveted by cultural elements that in fact undermined secularism. Moreover, it shows that a stark political dualism between the people and the shah's regime and its capitalist supporters caused the militant Left to advance a certain political binarism that later paved the way for the 1979 Islamic revolution, a phenomenon that indicates how the Left lost sight of the perils of political Islam or discounted its future impact on society. These arguments are complicated by the demographics and cultural inclinations of the members and supporters of the Fedayeen that indicate the extent of permeation of traditionalism and semireligious beliefs in the militant Left. These observations lead the author to inquire whether the Iranian Left has ever been consciously secular.

The Islamic Republic of Iran and Its Opposition

This essay takes a stylized paradoxical fact of Iranian politics under the Islamic Republic of Iran as its starting point: the stark confusion between the position and a good portion of the opposition. Such a blurred frontier between “position” and “opposition” did not exist during the shah's regime. Without the decisive support of non-Islamic organizations, secular intellectuals, and political forces on the ground, the creation of a theocratic regime in Iran and its consolidation could not be realized. Now on the thirtieth anniversary of the Islamic Republic, the open opposition of many influential clerics toward how the government is run under the present supreme leader and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provides a new episode of “opposition” within the theocrats' circles. To put this paradoxical fact differently, it should be emphasized that no regime in Iran's modern history has produced so much opposition within its own ranks and enjoyed the loyalty of its oppositions at the same time. How could this paradox be explained? Our essay tackles this issue by describing the peculiar type of social order under the Islamic Republic of Iran as ordered anarchy or “destructive coordination.” Analyzing the sources of this type of coordination, we proceed in two steps. The first is to question whether there has ever been a laic or secular movement in Iran's recent history. The second consists in defining the institutional setup and recent dynamics of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a strange, if not unique, mutant of Samuel P. Huntington's praetorian state, led by “priests” and armed religious militants.