The Persians: Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern Iran
This month we’re looking at the history of Persia….modernly Iran...making this weeks book The Persians: Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern Iran by Homa Katouzian. So let’s do this!
This book is another one that was kind of a mix bag for me. Like...He tried to cram too much information in, but not nearly enough information. How is that possible?
Well, he QUICKLY glosses over entire empires, from the Achaemenid empire, which was the topic of last weeks book, through the Greek takeover, the Safavid and Sassanian dynasties, through the Mongol and Turkish invasions, covering 1400 years of history in just over 100 pages. All of which I can sum up as a series of begats, shortened even further into, it was arbitrary chaos from the top down.
Like those who stepped into the throne would slaughter all possible rivals then rule as a despot until they are also assassinated. Lather, rinse, repeat. Ad nauseum.
But there was virtually no information as to what kind of arbitrary actions each of these Shah’s performed to get them assassinated in their own turn. MAYBE it was simply the killing of their nephews. Or MAYBE like Bardiya from last weeks book, once they were on the throne they started trying to confiscate private property, resulting in the people they were ruling over noping them right out of history. We don’t know, because other than saying they were arbitrary and absolute in their authority, that’s basically all the information we’re given.
Once he moves into say the 19th century, he starts to slow down and explain a bit more. This happened around page 150-ish. So, he could have literally lopped off the first 150 pages, maybe condensed them into what he literally wrote as the 2 page appendix, and then moved into the modern history as starting more or less with the advent of Baha’i in Iran. Which was more or less a blip, comparatively speaking, even though there are enough practitioners of Baha’i that it appears on the CIA’s list of world religions, he actually only vaguely mentions the Baha’i. Certainly does not mention they are the most persecuted religion within Iran itself.
He actually could have simply started with the Pahlavi’s….but I’m trying not to go too far into that just now, as the Pahlavi’s are the exclusive topic of next week’s book.
But, I do want to touch on some of it, because different perspectives help provide you with a rounded picture. The Pahlavi’s were essentially intended to be a Constitutional Monarchy, along the lines of Great Britain, which had a lasting impact on Iran from the 19th century onward. There was a constitutional crises which led to a constitutional revolution in the early 20th century, like 1908/1909, which led to the creation of Iran’s parliamentary body, the Majlis. And when the dust settled after the crises, Reza Shah Pahlavi was crowned as Shah of Iran on 15 December 1925, having ascended to this position after a stint as minister of war, during which he overthrew the preceding Qajar dynasty.
And then...as Katouzian says, as per usual, he turned into a power mad dictator with absolute and arbitrary authority, and was himself kicked out on September 16, 1941. Things were a bit chaotic the next few years thanks to WWII, but immediately after Reza Shah was deposed, but not too bad overall as his son, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was enthroned the same day Reza Shah was dethroned.
Everything was fine for a bit, but Katouzian defines three distinct periods in his reign. From 1941 to 1953 the constitutional monarchy worked more or less as intended. From 1953 to like 1963 was a slow slide into a dictatorship, as he randomly booted out elected officials to replace them with his sycophantic yes men. Then from 1963 until his own ousting in 1979 he went the route of the historical Persian arbitrary and absolute authority.
And this was interesting to read through because Katouzian is an economist. So he absolutely paid the devil his due in describing how the economy absolutely boomed under Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, and Iran was jettisoned in to the 20th century. And reading through the economic promise shown of Iran at this time, I found myself wondering how the hell he came to be overthrown? And universally so, as everyone from all social classes wanted him out at the time, according to Katouzian. I mean, as near as I can tell, the only policy misstep he made was forcing individual farmers out in favor of corporate farms, very reminiscent of the Kulaks in Ukraine, and resulting in a truly tragic and poverty stricken underclass in the cities.
And I know the simple answer is the communists were knocking at the door, and that’s part of the answer. It truly is, and it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise. But Pahlavi himself made it easy with the way he walked away from the rule of law, because he started jailing dissidents. And those lovely sycophants kept encouraging him so he only ever heard accolades when he went out in the streets. And sometimes the dissidents were tortured...it is unclear if Pahlavi knew about the torture or if it was assumed by his followers that torture was called for. Regardless, jailing dissidents is a sure way to martyr them to a cause.
As any libertarian will tell you, you don’t silence dissent, you let it in the open, and the market of better ideas will win out. Because if you silent dissent, it goes underground and festers, until you end up with the February 1979 revolution and your own exile and death of cancer. Which is what happened to Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.
But he truly had everything for a successful monarchy, even an absolute monarchy. If he hadn’t destroyed the farms and the tribes, who were still nomadic and largely in charge of the herd animals, if he had let the free press and free elections stand, I think it’s very unlikely the 1979 revolution would have ever happened. But he was so determined to drag Iran kicking and screaming into modernization, that, for lack of a better description, the theocratic luddites took over, and began spouting their hatred of Westernization.
And once he was gone, the Ayatollahs took over, starting with Khomeini, who was the main figure head of the resistance. One of the main figure heads. Once the Shah fell, Iran descended into it’s usual chaos and mad power scramble, and when the dust settled THIS time, the Ayatollahs were in charge.
And yes, from here, Katouzian goes into very much modern history, covering the Iranian take over of the US Embassy, and including a new conspiracy theory I had NOT heard before, namely that Carter had instigated the hostage situation so he could look like a hero. To be very clear, Katouzian does not appear to believe this, it is just one of the conspiracy theories that was floating around Iran at the time of the incident.
He covers the Iran-Contra scandal very briefly, because of course it was not a scandal in Iran, it was just a legitimate arms deal, which they were going to use in their war against Saddam Hussein. He covers the waxing and waning of women’s rights in Iran, the fairly decent presidents they have had, and ended with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was elected as President in Iran and then re-elected under suspicious circumstances in 2009, resulting once more in protests and revolts in Iran. And he ends there, because the book was published in 2010, so there’s no update on the current unrest or what specifically has caused it.
Iran remains a bit of a puzzle from the Western mindset...or at least THIS mindset. With the discovery of oil in the 1950’s, the solid farmlands and excellent pasture lands, they truly had everything they needed to become an independent powerhouse in the middle east. And instead they kept arguing about...God. Religion. And I get that religion and spirituality is important, and believe me, even as a non-Christian, I see what flows across my socials and think “Damn, some of you all NEED Jesus.” But rather than incorporating a separation of church and state, they made the church the state. And I strongly suspect THAT is what a lot of this months rebellion has been about.
My heart continues to ache for the freedom fighters in Iran, and I truly hope they get what they are fighting for, the Return of the King. It would shake their constitution to the core, largely because the current head of the Pahlavi family, and heir apparent to the throne, is Reza Pahlavi. And he absolutely believes in women’s rights. So much so that his oldest child, his daughter Noor, is named as his heir to the throne. And his support of the Iranians fighting for their lives has been absolute.
The winds of change are blowing once more across Iran, and it will be interesting to see what they blow out of the country. And what they bring in.
Ok, back to the book. Like I said, it’s a mix bag for me. Once I got through the begats, and the “as per usuals…” it was quite interesting. I feel like Katouzian should either go all in, expand on the ancient history to give us some solid examples of what he means by arbitrary and absolute authority being exercised by the medieaval Persians, or cut it out entirely and just focus on Modern Iran.
Although he might want to expand on his resources, ESPECIALLY if he chooses to expand on ancient and Medieval Iran. On the chapter on the Mongols and Turks, he says Genghis Kahn was descended from aristocracy, and that gross factual error alone, which we know from reading Genghis Kahn and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford, Genghis Kahn was decidedly NOT an aristocrat, was uneducated, and a slave, and fought his way across Mongolia and the world. Although he was guilty of fratricide, which according to this book is a very Persian trait.
He also might want to delve into some of the research that has been done in the last 16 years since his book was published. More and more, the party line as told by the Ayatollahs has been debunked, and it seems the Shah is not the monster history has previously portrayed him as. Why else would the Persians rebelling through the streets of Iran be crying “Javid shah”?
