Customer Reviews

A History of Modern Iran

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Edward Abrahamian is a man who knows his Iran. This is an addition to his previous book "Iran Between two Revolutions". The present book is well-researched and well-written book on this difficult subject. Historically speaking the grievances between the US and Iran are relatively new, just over 50 years old. It started with the deposing of Mosaddegh in a CIA coup and culminated in the Hostage Crisis. Politicians of both countries have used the incidents as a tool for justifying their own agenda. Introduction of Israel to this explosive mixture has further complicated the issue. This book is a recommended reading for those who want to familiarize themselves with the issues and would not take politicians ' word on their face value. It is a good beginning for understanding the issues before we get into an unnecessary and potentially disastrous conflict.

It might surprise many to know that Iran had a working parliament (majles) as early as 1906. As far as Iranian history goes, this has to be one of the best overviews of Iran's last 100 years.

The book begins with the Qajar dynasty in its dying days. Iran's political borders is not what one might expect at the turn of the century. Protests that led to the 1906 revolution came from modern day Iraq, Karbala, Najaf as well as Iranian highlands around modern Tehran. When we think Iran, we think of the modern state and its boundaries, the supposed 'Persian' domination and Shi'a religiosity, Muslim extremism under Khomeini's ideas in Valayat e-Faqih (Jurist's Guardianship) an idea written about in the book called Hukumat Islami (Islamic government).

Before today's Iran there was an ebb and flow of intellectualism either suppressed or in full force guiding the will of the Iranian people. Abrahamian as an author is not pointing fingers but doesn't leave out the coups of 1941 and 1953 and the obvious self-interests of the United States, the UK and Russia. At times Iran was a pawn in the 'great game', too often to the detriment of a working parliament.

There has been a democratic flavor in Iran for over a century, the people have long-demanded regardless of whatever Shah or Ayatollah attempted to rule otherwise. The 1979 revolution sprang from intense oppression. Mohammad Shah, receiving large amounts of western aid, built up his country in the White Revolution. The reforms had the potential of enriching the entire nation yet sadly, the rich were heavily advantaged and the poor suppressed.

Abrahamian attempts to describe also the tension and utility that Islam has played for different governments in power. The religious seat at Qom has been as much a government ally or striking foe as it has been a religious educator. Besides the religious scholarly sector Iran's politics has been influenced by the demands of the bazaar sector, the student sectors and the trade and craftsmen. When the majles was working, early on and just before Western instigated coups, there was healthy political, constructive debate.

Abrahamian does a great job of looking at the intertwining relationship between the economic sectors, religion, Shi'a philosophy and foreign policy to paint an easily understood picture of modern Iran. So where does one go from here? Just know that the Majles has been at the base of Iranian society for a long time.

I love the book as it analyses the society as well as the events. Abrahamian did a great job.

Ervand Abrahamian's A History of Modern Iran

Ervand Abrahamian, Distinguished Professor of History, Baruch College, City University of New York, has written a short, radical, Marxist interpretation of modern Iranian history for general readers. Without justifying why any reader should even care about a Marxist interpretation of history, Professor Abrahamian has failed to define precisely what a Marxist interpretation means. There are some references to class struggles in Iran involving old elites, the intelligentsia, the commercial middle class, and the clergy. According to a Marxist view, Iran has made a transition from feudalism (isolated villages and tribal clans) to state capitalism (urbanized, integrated economies with classes struggling for power). Unfortunately, some Marxists even use state capitalism to describe Communist China.

Imperialist Concessions and Interventions

Abrahamian failed to cover well the concessions made by Iranian shahs to imperialist powers. He did mention the D'Arcy Concession (1901 - 1933) and described the earlier Reuter's Concession. When Iranians attempted to have a constitutional revolution in 1906, European imperialist powers interfered. W. Morgan Shuster, one of a few Americans who went to help Persia, explained in detail these intrigues in The Strangling of Persia. There are many detailed books on the Iranian Constitution Revolution. Even Abrahamian wrote in 1982: Iran Between Two Revolutions.

Reza Shah

Abrahamian provided sketchy details of the British and Soviet intrigues leading to Reza Khan's 1921 coup. He dismissed an opportunity to compare Reza Shah with Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Republic of Turkey, using the excuse that Ataturk had inherited a centralized state. Instead, he offered a comparison with Stalin, who inherited a country of wooden ploughs and left the Soviet Union with an atomic bomb. Abrahamian needed to address the claim of Iranian monarchists that Reza Shad opposed monarchy but was compelled by Islamic leaders to continue monarchy.

This book contains many details of the iron fist rule of Reza Shah, including the required dress code of wearing Western-style clothing. Today, hypocritical Iranian monarchists criticize the Islamic Republic of Iran for having dress codes. Reza Shah's torture, imprisonment, and execution of political opponents received some coverage. For details (and comparisons with the reign of the Shah of Iran and of the current Islamic Republic of Iran), read Abrahmian's Tortured Confessions.

Abrahamian provided excellent details of the extent to which Reza Shah stole lands and wealth from the people of Iran, including by throwing entire families into jail until they would sell their properties to him. Starting as a soldier, Reza Shah died owning 3 million acres of farm lands.

Communists and Nationalists

The Soviet Union regarded Iran as a prize for Iran's natural resources and warm-water ports. While Abrahamian mentioned too briefly Nazi involvement in Iran, he did explain that the 1941 Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran and the 1945 - 1946 Soviet demands for oil concessions impacted the successes and failures of the Iranian communist Tudeh Party. Support for the nationalist, Mossadeq, included some Tudeh Party supporters who opposed Soviet demands. However, Abrahamian rejected claims that the 1953 American opposition to the coup against the Shah of Iran had anything to do with saving Iran from international communism. While preserving an international oil cartel was a factor in American and British involvement in the 1953 coup in Iran, it was not the only factor. Abrahamian failed to consider relevant references, such as Kermit Roosevelt's Countercoup: The Struggle for the Control of Iran. Page 398 of The Black Book of Communism includes the truth about how communists took over countries by joining first coalition governments holding positions useful for repressing the people: "In 1944-1945 Communist parties held the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania; the Ministry of Justice in Bulgaria and Romania; and the Ministry of Defense in Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria."

Shah of Iran's Blunder

In 1975, the Shah of Iran made the major blunder of abolishing all political parties and of replacing those parties with a single political party. Was the Shah of Iran inspired by Lenin? Professor Abrahamian claimed that the one-party state approach was advocated by Samuel Huntington, author of Political Order in Changing Societies.
Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) Terrorists

Professor Abrahamian's coverage of the Iranian communist MEK terrorists and of the support of the MEK by many foreign countries was extremely poor. This is amazing because he wrote The Iranian Mojahedin (1989). The MEK started in the 1960's to overthrow the Shah of Iran. The MEK participated in the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and in the holding of hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran, Iran. In 1981, after failing with a counter-revolution, Massoud Rajavi fled to France and then to Iraq. At the end of the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK invaded Iran. The MEK has been on the American State Department's list of terrorist organizations since the administration of former President Bill Clinton. The MEK has murdered American military officers, Rockwell International employees, and large numbers of Iranians and Iraqis. In September 2002, the White House issued a background paper for President Bush's remarks at the United Nations listing the MEK as a Saddam Hussein-supported terrorist organization in Iraq and as a pretext for a war with Iraq. In 2003, American and coalition forces attacked the MEK at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. Neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) in the American government ordered the protection of the MEK. Now, the Iraqi army has surrounded Camp Ashraf. The Iraqi government has told the MEK to leave Iraq.

While I applaud Professor Abrahamian for being an initial signer of the Stop War on Iran statement and for appreciating the sufferings endured by the people of Iran, I am disappointed by his weak coverage of Iranian communists and of those outside of Iran who promote Iranian communist terrorists.