Iran: from close friend to fearsome enemy
Iran is, without a doubt, a controversial nation that, year after year, continues to attract great media attention due to the constant tensions it faces. Considered a powerful player on the Middle East board and the eternal rival of Saudi Arabia, he gives the impression that he has always played the role of bad guy in the strategic alliances of the area. You only need to look at the latest events that once again put the Persian giant in the West's spotlight to realize the hostility it arouses.
In January 2020, the United States carried out an attack against Qasem Soleimani at the Baghdad airport, thus eliminating a senior Iranian military officer widely supported in the country and opening the door to possible retaliation for the assassination. Furthermore, in recent years there have been some comings and goings between threatening speeches in the field of nuclear weapons, international sanctions, Agreements historical events to limit the danger that the atomic bomb would pose and again, attempts to unilaterally restore sanctions that were eliminated with said agreement in 2015. It is clear that the country constitutes a priority on the international agenda and a threat to common security. Such is this threat that we have even witnessed how historical enemies – Israel, the Emirates and Bahrain – with apparently irreconcilable positions signed Peace Agreements and joined forces against a shared opponent: Iran.
However, although it may seem unlikely, this country was historically a great ally of both the United Kingdom and the United States. Knowing this, it is inevitable that we ask ourselves what caused this ideological turn. This question is what is intended to be resolved in this analysis, although in summary, we tell you that The turning point occurred after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power and introduced a series of policies based on political Islam and the rejection of foreign interference in their internal affairs. The so-called Hostage Crisis was also important, an episode that kept American citizens in suspense for more than a year.
But before delving into those events, we must do a little historical review to put things in their context and to understand the reasons that led to the Iranians' rejection and distrust of the West. Only by understanding the Iran of yesterday will we be able to understand the attitudes of the Iran of today.
Great friends: the US and Iran in the times of the Shah
As was the norm during the 20th century, the years of colonization and Cold War They witnessed a sseries of political interventions in a multitude of strategic locations, by the United Kingdom in the first place and the United States taking over. Iran, or Persia, was no exception.
The first to aspire to control the area were the British. They openly competed with the Russians to obtain economic concessions from the ruling elites in Iran. One of the concessions that stands out is the D'Arcy Agreement in 1901, after which the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (currently known as BP). This agreement granted the British the absolute right to extract and sell crude oil, in exchange for guaranteeing their support for the Persian monarchs.
The reasons for interest in Iran were several, among them the country's location: important for the United Kingdom because it is in the middle of the route to the jewel of its colonial empire, India; and for Russia, for representing an exit to the sea. Other reasons such as the presence of abundant natural resources, mainly oil, were also of great relevance.
This peculiar control of the region did not only occur in the economic sphere, but also transcended the political sphere. This means that the British, and later the Americans, orchestrated a series of coups d'état that had the objective of putting rulers more aligned with their interests in power. In other words, by changing leaders they ensured that their economic benefits were respected. Let's look at a couple of examples.
Firstly, the British were behind the coup that replaced the old Qayar dynasty with the Pahlavi in 1921. The new Shah (leader) imposed was Reza Jan, but as soon as he distanced himself from the interests of the British, they did not hesitate to dismiss him. This new blow occurred during the Second World War, since the Shah, despite continuing to maintain the economic advantages mentioned above, sought the help of Nazi Germany to diminish Russo-British influence. These latter actors, fearing that the Nazis would take over “their” oil, occupied the area together with the Americans and forced the former Shah to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In addition to the implications for domestic politics that this change by Shah had, it should be noted that it also marked the beginning of American growth in the area. The North American country took advantage of the animosity that the British had built up for years due to their multiple interferences to establish itself as a new ally.
However, as is logical, its aggressive economic and political influence was not received with open arms either. For years, a popular movement opposed to foreign interference and rulers complicit in these looting had been gaining followers among the Iranian people. This movement was led by Mohammad Mossadeq, an essential character in the contemporary history of Iran, who managed to be elected prime minister in 1951. Aware that economic concessions to international companies such as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company did not benefit the country but foreigners, his government voted favor of a nationalization of oil with the objective of increasing national profits. The coup d'état that ended him in 1953 is better known than the previous ones and had the direct intervention of the US and the CIA (the so-called Ajax Plan led by Kermit Roosevelt), as well as with the consent of the Shah and the United Kingdom. This coup reinforced the authoritarian and dictatorial power of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, with the obvious support of his new allies.
The monarch, to reinforce his image after the coup, mask the dynasty's dirty laundry and put the focus away from American plunder, undertook the call White Revolution, a series of reforms to modernize the country and prevent new revolutionary movements. Among these reforms we can find the introduction of women's suffrage or an agrarian reform. However, freedom and modernity were apparent, as the population suffered the scrutiny of Savak, the intelligence service that persecuted opponents. As a paradigmatic example of this repression we can cite the expulsion of Ayatollah Khomeini out of the country, for being against the aforementioned reforms. This character will be precisely the one who will lead Iran's definitive change of course, although we will have to wait a few years for that moment.
The 70s: the Islamic Revolution and the Hostage Crisis
Recapitulating up to this point, we see that the pre-revolutionary period (before the 70s) is characterized by the intrusion of world powers into the country's internal affairs, depriving the citizens themselves of the protagonism and decision-making power they deserved. Therefore, the most outraged by this situation were the Iranians themselves, who endured foreign looting, failed attempts at democratization, false promises and international conspiracies in their own territory. In this context of tension, the rise of the Islamic revolutionary movements led from exile by the aforementioned Khomeini is framed.
During the 70s, the Shah's leadership gradually intensified, mainly due to the oil-related economic crisis in 1973. Popular riots and mobilizations demanding the departure of the Shah began in 1977, although they were harshly repressed. by the armed forces. Despite this, they continued to grow until become a mass movement. On February 1, 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile and just two months later, proclaimed the Islamic Republic of Iran. 2500 years of uninterrupted monarchy were ending.
The implications of this act were not few: firstly, The Shah was forced to leave the country and was taken in by the US under the guise of providing you with medical care to treat your cancer; and secondly, in geopolitical terms of the Cold War, the US lost what had been its main ally in the Gulf. This loss, which occurred after the recent defeat in Vietnam, was also a humiliation for the American giant.
Iran's ideological turn after its Islamic Revolution caught everyone by surprise, precisely because it did not fit into the dualist logic of the Cold War. The coup d'état did not imply an alignment with either Moscow or Washington, but rather an independent third way based on a project of political Islam. Therefore, it can be considered that both players lost the game after 1979, since the Revolution was the Iranian people's way of rejecting all international interference and replacing it with an ironclad national policy.
To add insult to injury, the problems for the United States did not end here, but rather worsened starting in November of the same year, when a group of Iranian students perpetrated an attack. assault on the American embassy in Tehran and took 66 hostages. The kidnappers demanded the extradition of the Shah to execute him, in exchange for releasing the detained civilians. However, President Carter did not give in to his requests and the Hostage Crisis lasted a total of 444 days. This historic event was later brought to the big screen by Ben Affleck in the movie Argo. Despite the seriousness of the matter, it was exploited during Carter's term, to the point of losing credibility due to his ineffectiveness in returning the hostages home and also losing the elections against Ronald Reagan. In fact, it was Reagan who received credit for the release of the hostages, which occurred on January 21, 1981 after arduous diplomatic negotiations.
To conclude the analysis of these two stages, it is useful to take a look at the media coverage of Iran abroad, specifically in the United States. It is no secret that television can influence public opinion regarding a country's foreign relations, as well as focus or remove it from certain issues. The case of Iran also follows these rules: before the Islamic Revolution, coverage of Iran in the American media was characterized by a great emphasis on the sale of arms in exchange for oil. However, during the Hostage Crisis, in addition to a television overexposure, the tone of the coverage changed and it focused more on showing sensational images of the hostages and their families, or in talking about the medical assistance that the deposed Shah received in America.
The creation was also paradigmatic from a daily television program called America Held Hostage (America held hostage). It reported even the smallest details related to the crisis and periodically recalled the days that had passed since the kidnapping of the hostages. The language used in the program is significant, as it highlights the shift in alliances explained so far. In one installment, the presenter exemplifies this by saying that “the greatest world power is incapable of dealing with a nation that sometimes seems possessed by madness” and in another moment of the news, an analysis is made of Khomeini's profile, which they call “narcissistic and mentally degenerate” (same video).
In short, there is no doubt that American public and government opinion changed with the new Persian leader and this new position adopted has been maintained to date.
A Feared Nation: From the Time of Ayatollah Khomeini to Now
After the Revolution that freed Iranians from American influence, the new leader, Khomeini, established a theocratic regime based on the principles of political Islam. Therefore, the religion, who until then had remained out of the public scene, took a leading role. Along these lines, measures such as segregation by sex in public spaces or the obligation to wear the veil were introduced.
Evidently, this new political ideology branded as fundamentalist by the West did not improve relations between former allies. Between 1980 and 1988 (First Gulf War or War between Iraq and Iran), the Western powers They supported Saddam Hussein's regime militarily and technically. (Iraq) to the detriment of the Ayatollah's new regime. Still, the US also secretly sold weapons to Iran with the goal of Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed group, freeing half a dozen hostages kidnapped in Lebanon. This scandal was known as the Iran-Contra affair.
Nowadays, 40 years after the Islamic Revolution, certain moral norms have gradually lost importance, especially due to the appearance of the Internet or the influence of social networks. However, the political sphere has not been completely renewed, and the hostility towards the US or Israel remains. Not even after the death of Khomeini and the subsequent succession of several leaders have relations between Americans and Iranians returned to normal. In fact, as mentioned at the beginning of the article, their respective leaders continue to constantly show mutual antipathy, perfectly summarized by George Bush's words about the Iran's membership in the “axis of evil” that supposedly threatens the entire world. It remains to be seen if this fierce animosity remains unchanged over the coming decades or if, as happened in 1979, an unexpected turn of events once again brings the positions of these two powers closer together, which for the moment seem irreconcilable.
View:
Iran. From the Islamic revolution to the nuclear revolution. Nadereh Farzamnia (2009).
The United States, Islam and the new world order. Antoni Segura (2013).
Guests of the Ayatollah. Mark Bowden (2008).
Global Studies from the Pompeu Fabra University of Barcelona. He writes about international politics and social movements in the Maghreb and the Middle East.
