In his work "Nixon, Kissinger, and the Shah," Roham Alvandi illustrates a much more complicated and personal understanding of the U.S./ Iranian relations that developed during the Cold War Nixon Administration. Alvandi contends that the public consensus position that the Iranian Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was an “American Proxy” is too incorrect and overly simplistic. He does this by shedding light on Pahlavi’s relationship with Nixon and Kissinger, which portrays him as a politically savvy leader attempting to lead his country into a more Western-leaning, post-World War II global climate. The first hint we get at Alvandi’s position is in the introduction to the book, where he directly states that this is the intention of his book. “This …show more content…
Alvandi also points us to his thesis by assessing the Shah’s independent and defiant character. He avoids painting the Shah as disdainful towards U.S. interests, but rather, he is shown as a considerate and attentive leader, paying heed to Iran's political and economic needs. Hart 2 His position successfully demonstrates Pahlavi's independence and serves as a political lesson for future government actors: that governmental leaders will and should use their political influence to benefit their own countries' interests. Another hint in the direction of Alvandi’s thesis is found in his conclusion; he states, “... the borders between alignment and non-alignment were more fluid and dynamic than previously thought” (179). While he is specifically addressing the definition of “third world,” I believe the undertone of this statement is his conclusion on the character of Shah …show more content…
His assessment of Pahlavi leads him to conclude that the world was not so black and white as Axis, Allies, and Third World considerations. Finally, in his assessment and hope for the future of American/Iranian relations, Alvandi states, “Iranian and American leaders must share a common set of ideas about the nature of the global order, as Nixon, Kissinger, and the Shah did some 40 years ago” (180). This statement certainly leads the reader to believe that Alvandi holds the Cold War-era U.S./Iran relationship in high regard. It is evident to the reader that Alvandi, as an Iranian, admires Shah Pahlavi as an intelligent and patriotic leader, a man who wanted something better for his people. Though I believe that Alvandi did a good job illustrating his thesis, I found the book to be unengaging. It could certainly be my lack of interest in the era, but I found the details monotonous, and reading the book was difficult for me. It was very concise as a historical account, and Alvandi did a good job fitting copious amounts of data into a relatively short
A comparison of these two are Both leaders saw that changes were essential, they knew that without reforms, the Soviet Union would grow weaker and weaker. Khrushchev’s and Gorbachev’s reforms were wide and touched almost all important aspects of the government. One important aspect is how Khrushchev and Gorbachev saw the past and future. When Khrushchev came to power he had a big problem how to replace Stalin and how to rule the country after him. Stalin ruled through a cult of personality and many people thought that he was irreplaceable. At “the Twentieth Congress of the Khrushchev attacks Stalinism and the Cult of Personality in the secret speech, he denounced Stalin and the terror of his regime, everything Stalin did or said was incorrect,
Kinzer tells us that the Iranians celebrated their nationalism in taking control of their oil, but their success was a shock to the British multinational companies in Iran. They did not like the idea of Iran nationalization, so they plan a coup to overthrow the Prime Minister Mossadegh. But this plan failed and the British were disarmed and sent back to their country closing down their embassy in Iran. The British tried to present their case to the United State in a way that the United State would intervene. So they presented a case that Mossaghe is not only nationalizing the Iranians oil, he is also leading Iran into communism. This case stirred the American action and they feared if they assassinate Mossaghe, his seat will be open and communist ...
Richard Nixon and Barack Obama both served as the President of the United States during wartime. Both presidents inherited the war from their past colleagues and both wars had been going on for many years. Both presidents have resolved the wars, however, the way in which Nixon resolved the war is more for personal benefit while the way that President Obama resolved the war for benefit of the nation and its military.
In All The Shah’s Men there seems to be a very strong hatred for all foreign powers, including the United States, taken by the citizens of Iran. I believe that this ultimately occurred because of the impatience of certain government officials in Washington D.C., and also in Great Britain. If only there could have been better communication between countries, I feel that there would have been a solution reached. The stubbornness of the British for the most part, led to many lives being lost, and a feeling of perpetual disgust being shown towards the United States for their involvement. Although the British were our allies and we did have an extreme fear of communism taking over the free world, this coup was disorganized, forced along too quickly, and put forth without any guidance or strong evidence, which in the end proved to completely defy what the United States was trying to impose on the world, and what Mossadegh was trying to give his people; freedom and democracy.
Before the revolution when Dumas and her family first moved to Whittier, California, a mother and her daughter kindly helped Firoozeh and her mother find their way home, inattentive to the fact they were Iranian. “This kind stranger agreed to take us back to our house” (Dumas, 7). On the other hand, after eradicating the Shah, Iranian terrorists had a substantial motive to capture American hostages, and the country began to develop hostility towards all Iranians. Dumas recalls, “During our stay in Newport Beach, the Iranian Revolution took place and a group of Americans were taken hostage in the American embassy in Tehran. Overnight, Iranians living in America became, to say the least, very unpopular. For some reason, many Americans began to think that all Iranians, despite outward appearances to the contrary, could at any given moment get angry and take prisoners” (Dumas, ). Ignorance and xenophobia became the prime factors that led to this intense discrimination. The author describes the injustice her father experienced while searching for a job, “At the sight of the Iranian passport, the lawyer turned pale, ‘I am so sorry, but the government of Saudi Arabia does not accept Iranians at this time.’” (Dumas, 120). Contradicting with what Dumas’s father assumed America would provide for him, a job, he was turned down by many of them by the
For decades, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East had depended on a friendly government in Iran. The newly appointed leader, the shah of Iran, began Westernizing the country and taking away power from the Ayatollah, powerful religious leaders. The United States poured millions of dollars into Iran’s economy and the shah’s armed forces, overlooking the rampant corruption in government and well-organized opposition. By early 1979, the Ayatollah had murdered the Shah and taken back power of the government. A group of students who took the American embassy hostage on November 4th, 1979, turned the embassy over to the religious leaders. Carter knew he must take action in order to regain the American embassy and the hostages, but with all of the military cutbacks, the rescue attempt was a complete failure and embarrassment. It took the United States 444 days to rescue the hostages. This was the final straw for many Americans, and enough to push them to the “right” side of the political spectrum, Republican.
America and Iran had tricked the Soviets which left them very angry, and this inevitably led to the Cold War. But less than a decade later, America had done something which caused Iran to change their opinion of them. In 1951, Iran had recently elected a prime minister by the name, Mohammed Mosaddeq, which he nationalized the countryś petroleum industry, long the domain of the British-dominated AIOC. This move, however, pitted the two governments against each other in a bitter political fight. The Truman administration had tried to work between both sides, but Dwight Eisenhower had quickly concluded that Mosaddeq represented the problem rather than the solution to the crisis. They decided that they wanted him out and later he was kicked out and Mohammad Reza Shah took his place for the next twenty-five years. Shah not only gained access to sophisticated American weaponry, but also obtained tacit White House permission to forgo any serious effort at reform. Over the years, the internal resentment against the Shahś political and economic policies was building to a peak, but the depth of the problem escaped the notice of American
Throughout the 20th century, the United States tried to control Iran to ensure the exportation of oil to America. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power in 1941 and became allies with the United States. However in the 1950s, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh began to gain political power. Unlike the Shah, he was extremely against western influence in Iran. Mossadegh won national elections and he demanded more power. In order to retain influence in Iran, the CIA helped overthrow Mossadegh and bring Pahlavi back to power....
Introduction Stephen Kinzer's All the Shah ’s Men provides a compelling narrative of the 1953 coup in Iran, shedding light on a pivotal moment in history and its enduring ramifications. The coup, orchestrated by the United States and the United Kingdom, overthrew Iran's Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, and reinstated the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, highlighting the intricate interplay of geopolitics, ideology, and economic interests. This essay delves into the multifaceted nature of U.S. involvement in Iran, examining whether it can be categorized as a continuation of Western imperialism and its impact on democracy in the Middle East, while critically evaluating Kinzer's arguments.
In the 1970’s Iran, under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a very centralized military state that maintained a close relationship with the USA. The Shah was notoriously out of touch with working class Iranians as he implemented many controversial economic policies against small business owners that he suspected involved profiteering. Also unrestricted economic expansions in Iran lead to huge government expenditure that became a serious problem when oil prices dropped in the mid 1970’s. This caused many huge government construction projects to halt and the economy to stall after many years of massive profit. Following this was high rates of inflation that affected Iranians buying power and living standards. (Afary, 2012) Under the Shah, political participation was not widely available for all Iranians and it was common for political opposition to be met with harassment, illegal detention, and even torture. These measures were implemented by the Iranian secret police knows as ‘SAVAK’. This totalitarian regime combined with the increasing modernisation of the country paved the way for revolution.
Although the Iranian Revolution was both a political and religious movement in that it resulted in major shifts in government structure from an autocracy to a republic and that Islamic beliefs were fought to be preserved, it was more a religious movement in that the primary goal of the people was to preserve traditional ideology and in that the government became a theocracy intertwined with religious laws and desires of the people. Although the Iranian Revolution was caused by combination of political and religious motivations and ideas, the desires of the people supporting the movement were more dominantly religious ideas that were wished to be imposed in society and in a new government. The Shah, or king, of Iran at the time was Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, who had developed relations with nations in the “western” world, specifically with the United States. The United States supported the White Revolution, which was a series of social reformations the Shah made to remove Islamic values, law and tradition from the government to boost the country’s economy (White Revolution, 2010).... ...
Examples of his abuse of power can be read throughout the book, and are integrated by Kapuscinski in a chronological way that shows how the Shahs use of power elevated into something that did not sit well with the people of Iran. This stems from the use of his police force, The Savak, and the torturing of citizens who spoke against him, to his army that doubled as a police force and were put on more of a pedestal than the regular civilians, even to the censoring of some media outlets. But these factors where not the only ones; there was also mentioning’s of corruptness such as bribes being taken by the Shahs family and other
Marji and her family support the revolution against the westernized Shah’s regime, since they believe life will improve after he is deposed and a democratic government will follow. However, they are decisively incorrect in this assumption because the so-called “Islamic Republic” is really a democratic institution in name only because their is a non-elected supreme leader who has control over most Iranian affairs. This Islamic Republic instills harsh Islamic rule disallowing secular life in Iran, like Marjane’s family have enjoyed in comfort prior to 1979. Marji’s family’s very comfortable lifestyle is quite ironic when juxtaposed with their communist and leftist ideologies since they call for reform and equality, when they live the lifestyle of the bourgeois. Marji and her family’s support of the 1979 Islamic revolution is ironic since it causes a drastic change in their secular lifestyles for the
One main point was that as a result of Shah Pahlavi’s immense wealth, the people struggled in poverty. This caused a revolution to stir in Iranian society, especially expanding when Shah Pahlavi desired to westernize Iran. When Shah Pahlavi was overthrown and Khomeini took his place, the people continued to resent Pahlavi. Chaos in Iran reached an all time high when Pahlavi was granted asylum in the U.S. due to his illness. The Iranian people rioted for Pahlavi to be returned so they could sentence him.
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was the first large international conflict in the Middle East after the Second World War. This significant event in politics, history and religion resulted from the reign of the Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi- the second and last Shah from the Pahlavi dynasty, who ruled between the years 1941-1979. It is believed by many that the Iranian Revolution was an extremist religious response to the Shah’s attempts to modernize Iran, which had violated the strict Muslim traditions, such as Pahlavi’s trade with the West of alcohol, tobacco, the spreading and consumption of which are considered a sin in Islam; and propagation of Western culture through films and fashion. Pahlavi’s rather rapid modernization process resulted