Structure:

To what extent did the United States’ involvement in Iran lead to the 1979 Revolution?
To a considerable extent, also due to the domestic policies introduced by the Shah known as the
‘White Revolution’ which upset the masses and religious leaders in Iran.
Main points:

 1953 coup causing the first anti-US feelings. (also refusing to support the nationalisation of
oil by Mosadegh).
 Background of relations – how Iran strayed to the US from Britain. The occupation of
Iran by multiple countries in WWI- Britain, Russia, Sweden. Anglo-Persian Agreement-
an attempt to ‘colonise’ Iran. Occupation following WWII- Britain and USSR. The Shah
turned to the US for support, compared Iranian nationalism to American nationalism.
Anglo-Persian Oil Company- important to Britain.
 Mosadegh- left the country in protest of the Anglo-Persian Agreement, spearheaded the
movement to nationalise Iranian oil. Elected 1950. Expected the US to support Iranian oil
once nationalised. US played on the idea that Mosadegh was a ‘communist danger’-
rhetoric device.
 Post-coup – US, Iran’s perceived ally, removed a popular president to satisfy its imperial
desires. Quote from Abrahamian -colonial power. Coup was arguably marked the
beginning of Iranian identity being constructed around opposition to the US- in the minds
of ordinary Iranians. The interventions by the Brits and Yanks ensured that the revolution
had a distinctly anti-Western nature.

 US influence post-coup-
 Puppeteering of the Shah- define which shah, US the invisible ruler of the country.
Angered many Iranians- including Khomeini accused the Shah of being a US puppet.
 The assistance given to Iran- economic and military- aim to stop Russian expansionism.
Economic ties gave opponents ammunition to proclaim that the US was a colonialist
power etc. Basically, the way that the US impacted Iran. Increase of military might led
Iran to become involved in foreign military adventures- few Iranians understood why,
best explanation was doing it at the behest of the US. Resulting in more Iranians seeing
the Shah as an ‘American stooge’.
 US endorsements- ‘White Revolution’, and the US support for secularisation resulted in
anti-US feelings to be at an all-time high. US policies relating to Iran and vice versa –
military.

 Increased Anti-US feelings-

 Khomeini- Ayatollah Khomeini, exiled religious and political leader/figure. Believed the
Shah was a US puppet. Quote from Iran’s foreign devils- all our problems stem from the
US. Iranians viewed the US as the source of all their social, political and economic
problems. The Iranian people turned to political Islam to achieve their goal of a regime
change and the removal of Western influence in the form of Khomeini. Description of
political Islam. The national heroes became those who best echoed xenophobic
sentiments and defied foreign governments- Khomeini was one. Quote from Patterson.
 Further deterioration- Especially after US requested diplomatic immunity for their
personnel in Iran (and were denied? Check). Mention T. Cuyler Young quote and the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
 1979 Revolution-
 Protests- large scale protest erupt in late 1978- Shah had left the country for the US,
ultimately giving up his power. Khomeini returns, widely acknowledged as the new
leader. Officially took power February 12.
 The Revolution- was a culmination of post-colonial resistance. The US failed to support
the oil nationalisation, but also removed Mosadegh, a popular President, instead
supported the Shah and his corrupt regime. The oil nationalisation and the 1953 coup led
to the beginning of Iran’s identity being defined in opposition to the US.
 Hostage Crisis- In protest of the Shah being allowed to receive treatment in US for his
cancer, pro-Khomeini Iranian students stormed the American Embassy in Tehran, taking
66 hostages on the 4th of November 1979. Soon after, 13 were set free, and a 14th later as a
result of a medical condition. The rest of the hostages were kept there for 444 days, till
January 21, 1981.

 Domestic Policies (Counter Argument)-

 White Revolution- 1953 to 1975, the shah pursued an aggressive Western-oriented
socioeconomic modernisation program, known as the White Revolution. Continued much
of the work of his father- expanding the military, the bureaucracy, and the court patronage
system. He alienated people with land reforms- resulting in landlords losing substantial
power and influence. Land reform was designed to all the Shah/state to be the sole
recipient of all revenue from the land reform. The landlord’s authority was replaced by
the states. Check Brandis. Peasants also didn’t necessarily benefit from increasing oil
revenues and institutional reforms. As well as Bazaaris (merchants from the central
market, Tehran)- who were put off by national-level industrialisation, which developed at
their expense.
 Secularisation and the ulama- demonised the clergy, instituted liberal dress codes and
social norms- resulting in a gulf between secularised supporters and conservative
elements of society. Friction grew between the ulama, the educated class of Muslim legal
scholars, and the Shah over issues such as education, law, religious endowments, and land
administration. In response to this, Khomeini emerged, arguing against the Shah,
absolutism, and foreign influence. Most notable opposition was against land reform and
women’s suffrage. Also secularised the legal and education system, stripping the ulama of
jobs. Unveiled women, opened universities to co-ed and schools of theology in state
uni’s, restrictions on pilgrimages, created a religion corps along with the literacy corps for
villages-ensuring the teaching of an officially sanctioned version of religion. He targeted
the power of the ulama- they were becoming a rival centre of power.
Essay Structure:

Introduction:

Paragraph 1: Background and 1953 coup.

Tajalli: Mid-1940s, US began to replace British influence in Iran, a by-product of the Cold War. US’
policies principally aimed at containing Russian expansionism in the region. With US help, Iran was
able to drive out the Russians, through military and economic aid- maybe not this bit. American Cold
War strategy in the Middle East was intended to guarantee stable pro-Western governments in the
region. The US involvement in the 1953 coup was based on the American assumption the Iran’s pro-
Western stance could not be guaranteed under Mossadegh. Following the coup, Iran became part of
the ‘northern tier’, a group of pro-Western states along the southern border of the Soviet Union.
Wise: Was a result of the nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951, which the Brits
received billions from each year- enraged British leaders, placed embargo on Iran. Brits asked CIA for
help. Was successful, strengthened the Shah, and replaced Mossadegh with the US supported General
Fazlollah Zahedi.
Townsend: Iran’s experience in WWI an WWII encouraged them to stray from their traditional
western ally, Britain, to the US. Iran was occupied by a number of nations during WWI, despite being
neutral, including Britain, Russia, and Sweden – first instance of imperialism on which Iran has come
to base its post-colonial identity. WWII Iran again neutral- occupied by Britain and the USSR. British
justification on notes. Axworthy goes into how Iran was humiliated by this second occupation and it
caused a rise in political activity and nationalist feeling. The Shah appealed to the US for support – He
compared Iranian nationalism and its struggle for independence directly with the American
nationalism and declaration of independence from the British Empire in the eighteenth century. 1
Before the discovery of oil in 1908 in Iran, Brits primary interest was defending its Indian territory.
1909 – Anglo-Persian Oil Company was set, Brits switched from coal to oil to power its Navy (less
bulky to transport). By 1914, the British government had purchased a majority share in the company.
At the time of the company’s inception the Iranian government agreed to allow the British to extract
the oil for a modest 16% royalty. This was later raised to 20% to appease the Shah and the population,
who were unhappy with the original terms that were agreed by a previous government. Many Iranians
viewed the company as a British arm of the Iranian government. This unequal distribution of profits
as well as claims by the Iranians that they were treated like colonised subjects by the British led
directly to the nationalisation of the company in 1951.
The election of Mohammad Mosaddeq as president in 1950 reflected the popular dissenting views
against perceived imperialism and reinforced the idea that Iranian identity was being constructed in
defiance of Britain. Mosaddeq expected the US to support the oil companies when they were
nationalised, some could say this is a fair thought if you think about the US’s fight for independence
from Britain. But they did not support it.

1
Axworthy, M. (2008). Iran: Empire of the Mind – A History from the Zoroaster to the Present Day. London:
Penguin books ltd.
Throughout the build-up to the coup, the US played on the idea that Mosaddeq was a ‘communist
danger.’ This was rhetoric device.
As Iran’s perceived ally, the USA, was instrumental in removing a popular president who had been
fighting for Iranian freedom, to satisfy its own imperial desires.
It has been said that ‘the coup tarred America with the British brush: being perceived as the “colonial
power,” a perception that created deep distrust between Iran and United States’ 2
This arguably marked the beginning of Iranian identity being constructed around opposition to the
USA, at least in the minds of ordinary Iranian people.
These interventions by Britain and, more significantly for this study, the USA, ensured the revolution
had a distinctly anti-Western nature.
Brandis: The 1953 coup further enraged Iranian dissidents, who viewed the coup as another Western
intervention in Iranian affairs. It reinvigorated the anti-Pahlavi and anti-Western sentiments in Iranian
society- paved the way for the introduction of Islamic religious rhetoric into political discourse.

Paragraph 2: US influence post-coup.

Paragraph 3: Increased anti-US feelings leading to the 1979 Revolution.

Paragraph 4: Counter Argument. Domestic Policies. White Revolution, land reform and the ulama.

Conclusion:

Notes:
Eg Parsa from Brandis.
Add accessed on … in the footnotes. Also expand in footnotes.
Changed question to Iranian Rev.

2
Abrahamian, E. (2001). The 1953 Coup in Iran. Science and Society. 65 (2), pp.182–215.