How Iran's Shah Reform failed

Introduction

In a wide scope of history, a single year can be very short for the turn of events. Several single years can be occupied with less significant events and activities that may not have any major impacts on the international or domestic relations. In other situations, however, a year can mark a significant change from the past to the present events. Such was the case with Iran’s Islamic Revolution of 1979. Before the 1979 revolution, the west, especially the United States had enjoyed excess authority over the government of Iran (Zahedi, 2018). Unhappy with the Shah’s ruling which appeared to be favoring the influence of the U.S, there rose anti-American sentiments in Iran. Due to unaccepted American control in Iran during 1950s all through to 1970s, the Islamic revolution of 1979 did represent not only the western customs but also the American foreign diplomacy. The accusations of distributing wealth and power among the ruling elites and the view that he was westernizing the country together with the flooding of the Iran market with cheap oil created tension that lead to religious extremists. This led to the Islamic revolution in 1979, resulting in the downfall of the ruling of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.  US-Iran Relations The United States had acquired control over Iran by leading Reza Shah to rise to power over Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh was a charismatic Iranian premier who led in the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian oil company in 1951 (Zahedi, 2018). Britain obtained billions of dollars from the oil company, and as a result of nationalization, Britain leaders got enraged, placing a restriction on Iran and slowing its economy. The U.S, on the other hand, got afraid that Iran could fall to communism, which by then was a big threat as a result of the ongoing cold war between America and the Soviet Union. The fear of communism and the British pressure led to the removal of Mossadegh from power. The U.S then propelled the Shah to power. The relationship between America and Iran flourished due to the good relationship that Shah had with the U.S. Once Mohammad Reza Shah was propelled to power by both Britain and the U.S., they felt that had the right to direct the actions of Reza Shah, which as a result led to their control of Iran. Shah was known by many as an “American puppet” for his support and good relationship with the U.S leading to increased control of Iran by the United States. This led to most Iranian government officials and the general public growing weary of the actions of Reza Shah and creating hatred towards the United States as well as the Shah himself.

Shah’s Political Agenda and the Will of the People

Mohammad Reza Shah led a repressive regime, involving the maintenance of the Iranian National Intelligence and the Security Organization. This organization was created by the U.S and employed over 30000 Iranians. The organization led to the torturing, arresting and killing of thousands of those who opposed Shah Regime. As a result of the dictatorial nature of Shah, the political policies and the opinions of the public were never aligned. Majority of the Iranians held anti-Israel sentiments, but due to the peaceful relations that existed between the U.S and Israel, Iran remained an ally of Israel (Moghissi, 2016). Inflation paralyzed the economy of Iran in the 1960s a majority of the wealth was held by the close friends and families of Shah as well as those linked to the oil industry. The vast majority of the wealth was in the hands of a few friends of Shah while the remaining majority of the public were poor. He reaped the huge benefits from the oil industry due to his association with the Britain and U.S., but he never minded of the Iran population who were languishing in extreme poverty.  Another element of the Shah rein that never went well with the members of the public was the modernization of Iran through secularization. The political ideology was planned by the American-Inspired “white revolution” which was divided into six parts. These included the land reforms, the sale of the factories owned by the government to finance land reforms, new election laws which included suffrage of women, nationalization of forests, national literacy campaign and the plan to offer employees a share of the companies’ profits. The U.S wanted these agendas to be implemented because it would assist Shah to display the images of liberalism and progressivism which was aimed at increasing his popularity. The U.S did not only empower Shah to make reforms and rule his country by force, but they also assisted him to maintain his army. Reza Shah also complied with the wishes of America and pushed for a series of legislation through the parliament. In 1964, Shah through his chosen members of parliament approved the plan to take $200 million in loan from the U.S. for the acquisition of the military equipment. However, his opponents viewed this as a sign of bondage to the U.S. The U.S. continued to support Iran in building a strong military while in return they had control over the Shah led government which pushed for most of the agendas of the U.S (Moghissi, 2016). During the first year of Jimmy Carter presidency, he invited Shah in the U.S so that the whole world could see his commitment to Reza Shah. The United States continually praised Shah for maintaining a robust, progressive and stable Iran despite the fact the majority of the population were living in extreme poverty while most of the wealth was accumulated in the hands of a few friends of Shah.

The Rise of Ayatollah Khomeini

Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution first came into the public domain in 1963 when he led in opposing the Shah and his white revolution program which aimed at allowing women to vote, religious minorities to hold office and granting women equal rights in marriage. Khomeini claimed that Shah had the aim of destroying Islam culture in Iran and publicly declared his opposition for Shah. Because Shah was endorsed and aided by the United States, his repressive regime remained in power for thirty-eight years. During these times, many opposition groups emerged rapidly, with many of them being crushed by Shah. However, he was unable to destroy Khomeini who emerged out to be very powerful. Khomeini opposition of the Shah regime was due to two primary reasons which included the increased influence of America on Iran land and secularization of Iran (Schayegh, 2010). According to Khomeini, Israel was the central point for the rise of western imperialism, which was mainly maintained by the United States, and that Israel had led to the prosecution of the Muslims. He, therefore, had a firm belief that both Israel and America had declared war against the Islamic community.  In 1962, Shah through the pressure from the U.S. had issued a bill that allowed the candidates who were not Muslims to be candidates in a political sea. Khomeini emphasized this law as his primary reason to protect Iran from the threat that the government had imposed on the Muslim community. Another issue that Khomeini opposed was an idea that Shah had granted the Americans in Iran protection from being prosecuted in the Iran courts, which Khomeini believed was a symbol of excessive control that America had in corrupting Iran. “If any of them commits a crime in Iran, they are immune. If an American servant or cook terrorizes your source of religious authority in the middle of the bazaar, the Iranian police do not have the right to stop him. The Iranian courts cannot put him on trial or interrogate him. He should go to America where the masters would decide what to do. . . . We do not consider this government a government. These are traitors. They are traitors to the country,” said Khomeini (Schayegh, 2010). He publicly focused on the social and economic issues of the Shah rule which included corruption, development, and inequality in income distribution. He had a belief that the propaganda campaign by the western imperialists was what had prejudiced most Iranians. Due to his constant criticism of the Shah regime, Khomeini was jailed for three months, but he continued with his criticism. He was exiled in 1964, but he eventually led in the Islamic revolution in Iran that changed the fate of the country forever.

Opposition Groups and Organizations

Following the reforms by the Shah regime on the secularization of the Iranian society and the growing U.S influence on Iran affairs, members of the public as well as other officials got weary and initiated opposition for what they termed as saving the Muslim community from the oppression by the Shah regime in collaboration with the United States (McDaniel, 2014). They believed that Shah had been reduced to a bloodless enigma by the United States. Through the wealth gained from the oil industry, Shah attempted to modernize Iran, but his efforts to bring in new reforms failed. Members of the public, as well as religious leaders, had accused Shah of trying to westernize the country while the communist and nationalists activists criticized him on what they believed that he distributed the wealth and power among his friends and the ruling elites. He employed secret police which he aimed will help end the opposition but instead only rejuvenated debate and protests.  The downfall of Shah and failing of his reforms all started in 1977 after Saudi Arabia flooded the market with cheap oil. This led to the drop in Iran’s oil revenue and affecting the whole economy. Shah introduced social and political liberalization in an attempt to ease the growing tension for the opposition of his efforts to bring reforms in five significant areas including land ownership, women suffrage and equal rights for women in marriage (McDaniel, 2014). This made the Muslim community views his motives as an attempt to weaken the Muslim culture and allow for non-Muslim to increase their influence in the country. The policies that were employed by Shah created religious extremists with the intention of mobilizing the members of the public to protest against him.  The significant signs of opposition came in the wake of the emergence of the constitutionalist liberals. This group wanted Shah to rule by the Iranian constitution of 1906 instead of trying to bring in reforms in the constitution to favor the western countries. Major opposition intensified from the Freedom Movement of Iran and the National Front. Due to the fear of being jailed by Shah, major anti-Shah groups worked from outside Iran, and their speeches placed in the audio cassettes and then moved into Iran (Eisenstadt, 2011). The opposition used various tactics to portray Shah as an enemy of his people. They initiated violence and then blamed it on the government, making people more furious. There was the formation of the Islamic societies that were formed with the intention of harnessing the opposition to bring Shah Regime down. Everyone tired of the dictatorial nature of Shah Regime as well as his plans to bring in reforms and weaken the Muslim culture in Iran, there was unity in opposition than in the government. The various opposition groups such as confederation of Iranian Students, Freedom Movement of Iran and the Islamic Association of Students all joined forces to form a strong opposition against Shah Reforms and dictatorship.

Events before 1979 Revolution

Even though the actual revolution took place in 1979, major preliminary events took place through the mid of the 1970s. During this period, the country experienced hard economic times that was facilitated by the decline in the oil revenue following the flooding of the Iran market with cheap oil from Saudi Arabia (Eisenstadt, 2011). There were substantial monetary inflation, corruption and high rate of income inequality. Due to the growing discontent with the Shah regime, women, students and religious extremists grouped to form up a strong opposition against Shah. By 1974, the oil industry had not produced the great civilization that had been promised by Shah other than the high rate of inflation and the accelerated gap in the income equality. The drought had ravaged many parts of the land with many Iranians starving while the foreigners were enjoying the massive wealth of the land. What had angered many Iranians is a large number of foreign workers who were brought in by Shah to operate high-tech military equipment that had cost millions of dollars.  In 1976, the Muslim community was angered when the Shah government decided to change the first year of the solar calendar of Iranians. In the same year, an economic austerity measure was declared with the intention of dampening inflation as well as wastes. The resulting rise in the rate of unemployment affected many poor and unskilled people. Many people, already aware of the view of Shah’s secularization and westernization motives, went and formed the core revolution demonstrators. Many women and students joined the revolution group, which was led by Khomeini. As many people who got extremely tired of the Shah government joined the revolution group, the opposition got stronger.   A series of economic disruptions, miscalculations, and missteps by the Western as well as well-planned and organized steps made by the opposition reduced the powers of Shah to save himself from the impending Islamic revolution. 

Why Ataturk Emerged Successful in Turkey

Unlike the Shah reforms which failed leading to the Islamic revolution, Ataturk reforms, on the other hand, emerged to be successful. There were many reasons that facilitated the success of Ataturk that never happened in the Shah government. The first primary reason why Ataturk emerged successfully was his rise to power. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk gained much respect and admiration from the Turkish military as well as the public members due to his hard work. His hard work was seen in Italo-Turkish war, Balkan war and First World War (Başkan, 2010). As a result of this, when Ataturk organized Sivas Congress to oppose the treaty of Sevres, he was supported by many Turkish militaries. This is unlike Reza Shah who was not supported by the public and the army due to his dictatorial nature and trying to westernize Iran. Also, Ataturk came to power after defeating the occupiers, which is unlike Shah who was installed by the western.  Another critical success for Ataturk was his legacy in the military that gave him much respect and earned him trust from his people. Having led the nation during the Turkish war in independence made people see him as a kind and able leader. This trust and respect made him successful. This is unlike Reza Shah who had no any military legacy and had less confidence from people he ruled. The excellent state of the economy also contributed to the success of Ataturk in Turkey. There was state intervention between 1923 and 1929 which assisted in the industrial development of the country thus getting the country out of economic depression (Başkan, 2010). Iran, on the other hand, had vast natural resources, but Reza Shah never utilized that potential to realize economic growth. Therefore, economic policy in the Ataturk regime was successful while Shah never used the economic opportunity to develop the country. Another aspect for the success of Ataturk was the ideology. One of the main ideologies that Ataturk had was the Turkish Nationalism which aimed at uniting the people. Shah also tried to unite the people but Iran was a more multi-ethnic nation than Turkey, and this proved quite difficult for the country to be united under one ideology. For example, approximately 40% of the Iranians were non-Persians, and at the same time, the decision by Shah to ban ethnic minority languages made him lose support from a large number of the population.

Conclusion

The fall of the Shah reforms can be traced to the act that Reza Shah tried to westernize the country, an idea that was never welcomed by the public. Allowing too much influence from the United States and bringing in reforms that seemed to weaken the Islamic cultures made people see him as an enemy of his people. The secularism that was to bring changes in many areas including land and women suffrage also made people form opposition against him leading to his downfall. Allowing most of the population to live in poverty at a time when his close allies were accumulating wealth made him attract hatred from all the corners of the country.

References

Başkan, B. (2010). What made Ataturk's reforms possible?. Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 21(2), 143-156. Eisenstadt, M. (2011, April). Iran's Islamic Revolution: Lessons for the Arab Spring of 2011?. In Strategic Forum (No. 267, p. 1). National Defense University. McDaniel, T. (2014). Autocracy, modernization, and revolution in Russia and Iran. Princeton University Press. Moghissi, H. (2016). Populism and feminism in Iran: Women’s struggle in a male-defined revolutionary movement. Springer. Schayegh, C. (2010). “Seeing like a state”: An essay on the historiography of modern Iran. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 42(1), 37-61. Zahedi, D. (2018). The Iranian revolution then and now: Indicators of regime instability. Routledge.