Over the past 125 years, the ancient land of Iran has struggled with powerful empires, the allure of black gold, and the unquenchable quest for self-determination. While we will look at its earliest struggles, we will focus on the last 45 years, unraveling the events that have shaped its modern identity.
Black Gold: Britain's Obsession and Persia's Orist
Towards the end of the 19th century, as the world prepared for a new industrial age, Great Britain, the ever-pragmatic empire, made a key discovery: oil is the new coal, the undisputed fuel of the future. But there's a problem. Unlike American giant Standard Oil or Dutch Royal Dutch Shell, Britain has no significant oil reserves of its own. Their solution? They dig into ancient historical texts, where they discover a crucial clue: a millennium ago, the streets of the Middle East were lit by oil lamps. The conclusion was clear: there was oil.
This new obsession stimulated a significant expansion of the British presence in the Arabian (or, as it was then called, the Persian) Gulf. Already established along the "Peace Bank" (today's UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman), the British cleverly wrested Kuwait from the Ottoman Empire. This strategic foothold at the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers positioned them perfectly for what was to come.
In 1901, George Darcy entered the scene. He addressed the Qajar dynasty, the then rulers of Iran, who were notorious for their addiction to opium. Muzaffar Shah, the opium-addicted Shah, signs a deal that seems ridiculous today: for a modest $2.5 million (at today's prices) and a paltry 16% cut of the oil revenue, Darcy secures exclusive exploration rights in southwestern Iran. The British, meanwhile, pocket a staggering 84%. One can only assume that the negotiations were conducted in a haze of opium fumes.
From this one-sided agreement, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was born. Darcy's bet turned out to be grand. They didn't just find a little oil; they discovered rivers of black gold. British coffers overflowed, making them "filthy rich" from this single venture.
The Great War and the "crayon-drawn" borders of the Middle East
As World War I approached, the British learned that the Ottomans had also discovered oil in what is now northern Iraq. With a predatory glint in their eyes, the British informed the Ottomans that they wanted "all that oil". Unfortunately for the Ottomans, they had already made a deal with the Germans, further escalating tensions.
Britain and France were not simply reacting to a brewing conflict; they were actively "planning" it, intending to provoke it themselves. The rising German Empire, an industrial power with a rapidly expanding, "super-engineered" navy, posed a direct threat. Trapped in a ruinously expensive arms race, the British see war as the only way to subdue Germany.
The war, when it finally breaks out, begins for the most ridiculous reason possible: the assassination of an archduke. "Who cares?", the lecturer notes. Yet this single act plunges the world into a four-year global catastrophe that claims 13 million lives.
The British and French, with their "Sykes-Picot" agreement, literally unfold a map of the Middle East and begin drawing new borders with crayons. The Ottoman Empire, once a global superpower but now weakened by centuries of internal philosophical debate (should religion or innovation take precedence?), is the ultimate prey. It is, as the lecturer puts it, "the old man", no longer able to cope.
As a result of this disintegration:
Western Turkey (Izmir) was unilaterally ceded to Greece. Palestine and Jordan became British mandates. Syria and Lebanon came under French control. Iraq, originally intended for France to secure the northern oil fields, later came under British influence. Even independent Iran (Persia) was not spared. A line was drawn down its middle, dividing it into a Russian-controlled north and a British-controlled south. The British know that the Russians will get involved, as they have done before.First Clash with Democracy: Opium, Clergy, and Russian Intervention
In 1906, Iran had a "great idea" - to become a democracy. Muzaffar Shah, still under the influence of opium, reluctantly gave in to the pro-democracy movement, creating a Majlis (parliament) and appointing a prime minister.
But the British were terrified. What if the Iranian people learned the scandalous truth about the oil concession? What if a newly empowered democracy voted to cancel the deal? True to its imperial form, Britain decided to crush this nascent democracy.
Their allies in this endeavor were the Iranian clergy, who also had doubts about democracy. The British began to finance and bribe clerics, hoping that they would thwart the movement. But that was not all. They turned to the Russians: "How about you invade from the north? We will come from the south. We will cause a little chaos, a little pain, a little suffering. With the clerics on our side, maybe we can overthrow this democracy."
By 1911, three years before World War I, the pro-democracy movement had largely lost momentum. Five years of struggle ended in failure. Iran did not emerge as a true democracy, but the seeds of a constitutional monarchy had been sown - a constitution, a parliament, but far from a fully democratic system. Still, it was "a good first stage."
Interwar unrest: The rise of Reza Shah Pahlavi
The period after World War I remained unstable. In 1920 In 1921, communist Mirza Kuchuk Shah briefly established the Persian Socialist Soviet Republic in Gilan province. This experiment lasted only a year and a half, collapsing when Russian support disappeared in the midst of their own civil war.
Into this chaos in 1921, Reza Khan emerged. A Cossack officer, disgusted by the unrest in Iran, he led his unit to Tehran, captured the capital, and became commander-in-chief of the Iranian army. Two years later, after a dispute with the prime minister, he himself assumed the position.
By 1925, Reza Shah was ready for a decisive move. He aspired to be "Iran's Ataturk"" - a modernizing force to transform Persia. Like Ataturk in Turkey, who had drastically reformed the language and alphabet, Reza Shah sought to bring Persia into the modern age. His initial goal was a republic, but relentless pressure from the clergy and the British, both opposed to a democratic Iran, forced him to compromise. He persuaded parliament to crown him shah, ending the Qajar dynasty and establishing the Pahlavi dynasty. As monarch, he exercised absolute control, but at the expense of public participation. He also famously changed the country's official name from Persia to Iran, returning to its ancient Aryan roots and abandoning a name imposed by foreigners.
World War II: Allied occupation and abdication of the Shah
The world was soon engulfed in World War II. Reza Shah's modernization efforts were interrupted when Britain and the Soviet Union decided to invade Iran in 1941. Their official pretext: securing a vital supply route to Russia. The Iranian army, despite its modernization, collapsed almost instantly. Reza Shah, panicked, was confronted by British and Russian forces in Tehran. They offered him a stark choice: abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and go under house arrest (perhaps in Egypt, Uganda, or Mauritius), or face dire consequences. Without an army to protect him, Reza Shah abdicated.
His son, the young Shah, now ruled Iran, effectively occupied by Britain and Russia for the rest of the war.
Postwar Power Plays and a Second Democratic Failure: America's Hand
After the war, the British withdrew, but the Soviets remained in Azerbaijan, attempting to annex the northern half of the region (which had been torn from Iran by Russia in the 19th century). In 1946, the United States intervened, threatening the Soviets with nuclear retaliation, and they finally withdrew. Iran was, for the time being, whole.
By 1951, the idea of democracy had re-emerged in Iran. Mohammed Mossadegh became prime minister, a staunch advocate of modernization and self-determination. He knew that control of oil was essential to Iran's development.
Mossadegh's first bold move was to close the British embassy, correctly identifying it as a den of spies intent on undermining his government. He then nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, renaming it the National Iranian Oil Company, and revoked the 84:16 concession. Iran now claims 100% of its oil. "This is Iranian oil," he claims. "We know how to extract it. Why do we need the British?"
The British, unable to overthrow him directly, turned to U.S. President Harry S. Truman, who, despite having recently overthrown the fledgling Syrian democracy in 1949 (an early CIA operation led by Miles Copeland), publicly refused to intervene. "The United States does not overthrow democracies," he declared, an outright lie.
However, the political winds were changing. In 1952, Dwight D. Eisenhower, the revered Supreme Allied Commander in World War II, was elected U.S. President. The British immediately turned to him: "We have a problem in Iran. We just lost our oil." Eisenhower, feeling a military duty, vowed to help.
In 1953, immediately after becoming president, Eisenhower ordered the CIA to stage a coup against Mossadegh, marking Iran's second democratic failure. Kermit Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt's grandson, led the operation. His initial attempt to bribe military officials failed, and he himself narrowly escaped arrest. Undaunted, Roosevelt, with the help of Norman Schwarzkopf Sr. (father of the famous Gulf War general), resorted to a new tactic: hiring paid protesters to organize "pro-Mossadegh rallies" that would escalate into riots, looting, and vandalism. This deliberate chaos discredited Mossadegh in the eyes of the public and gave the military a pretext to intervene. Iran's Second Attempt at Democracy "Goes Down in Flames".
The Shah's Tyranny and the Rise of "Little America"
After the coup, Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi consolidated his power, reigning as a tyrant for the next two and a half decades. He tolerated no dissent; opposition meant imprisonment and torture. Although he carried out some modernization initiatives, such as the "White Revolution", they often came at a high cost, failing to address the deep-rooted poverty of the masses. The lavish festivals he organized in ancient Persepolis, costing millions, further alienated the struggling population.
Iran was quickly becoming "Little America" and the "Trade Center of the Middle East". Cosmetic surgery, especially rhinoplasty, became extremely common, and bleach was the best-selling chemical product, reflecting the social drive for "whiteness". Iran even acquired modern American military equipment, such as F-14 Tomcat fighter jets (a detail that would later play a role in the "Iran-Contra" affair).
Underneath this veneer of modernization, however, simmered hidden resentment. The Iranian people's desire for democracy remained unquenched, constantly clashing with the Shah's autocratic rule.
The 1979 Revolution: A Nation Reborn, Then Transformed
When U.S. President Jimmy Carter pressured the Shah to liberalize the regime, the monarch reluctantly opened the press. The floodgates of dissent opened, with newspapers openly criticizing the Shah. Already battling cancer, the Shah left Iran for treatment, and the stage was set.
In the spring of 1979, the Islamic Revolution broke out. The Shah was overthrown, eventually dying in exile in Egypt. Amid the chaos, Ayatollah Khomeini, a charismatic spiritual leader who had been in exile in Iraq and France, returned to lead.
Iran was at a crossroads: communist/socialist or Islamist. The United States, wary of a Soviet ally, quietly nudged Iran in an Islamist direction. Leftist groups that had initially collaborated with the Islamists ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend") were brutally slaughtered after the revolution. The army's officer corps was largely purged, with generals and admirals either fleeing or being executed.
The new Islamic Republic began to impose strict Shiite Islam through a theocratic system. Yet, in the initial chaos of the revolution, Iran experienced a fleeting moment of anarchic freedom before the new state machine consolidated its control.
The Hostage Crisis: Secrets Revealed and Bitterness Lasting
In November 1979, a group of students, driven by a desire to expose U.S. interference, stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The embassy, the center of CIA operations throughout Asia (even printing U.S. dollars on the spot), was still occupied by 66 CIA operatives. Despite the frantic destruction of documents, the students captured the agents and, meticulously piecing together the shredded papers, uncovered irrefutable evidence of the 1953 coup. They then publicly distributed these documents around the world.
The students demand an apology from the United States. President Carter refuses, prolonging the crisis. An attempted military rescue fails tragically. The crisis becomes a symbol of American helplessness. Rumors of an "October Surprise" - a deal to release the hostages before the 1980 U.S. presidential election - prove to be true. Ronald Reagan's campaign secretly negotiates with Rafsanjani, a key Iranian figure, to hold the hostages until after the election. Reagan wins, and minutes after taking office, the hostages are released, giving him a significant political boost.
Iran–Iraq War: A Disaster Fueled by Reagan
Empowered by his election, Reagan pursues a proxy war with Iran. He approached Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, offering to resolve border disputes and reclaim the "Arab" parts of Iran such as Khuzestan. Reagan assured Saddam that the Iranian army had been beheaded since the revolution, making it an easy target. The United States promised weapons.
In 1981, Iraq invaded Iran. The eight-year Iran–Iraq War was a horrific disaster that claimed over 1 million lives (approximately 750,000 Iranians and 250,000 Iraqis), without significant territorial gains. It solidified the Islamic Republic's control as national survival trumped internal dissent. While the US publicly supported an arms embargo, it secretly supplied Iraq with vast quantities of weapons, including chemical weapons such as sarin, VX, mustard gas, and anthrax. These "weapons of mass destruction", whose serial numbers the US closely tracked, would later become the pretext for the 2003 Iraq War. Paradoxically, the US also sold spare parts to Iran in the "Iran-Contra" affair, diverting the profits to finance right-wing rebels in Nicaragua.
Unfulfilled Reforms and the "Axis of Evil"
In the late 1990s, Iran saw a glimmer of hope with the election of reformist President Mohammed Khatami. Despite being selected by a theocratic council, Khatami began reforms, easing restrictions on women's clothing and promoting a more open society. This sparked a "fashion uprising" as women adopted looser headscarves and tighter clothing, pushing the boundaries of moral law.
However, the reform movement was ultimately crushed. In 1999, the Supreme Leader ordered a brutal attack on a university that killed many students. The turning point came in 2002. After 9/11, Khatami offered official condolences and even intelligence assistance to the United States against the Taliban. However, President George W. Bush notoriously included Iran in his "Axis of Evil", alienating reformers and empowering hardliners who argued that cooperation with the "Great Satan" leads only to betrayal.
The Green Movement and the Ongoing Revolution: "Women, Life, Freedom"
In 2009, the Green Movement erupted, a massive wave of protests challenging election results and demanding reforms, especially for women's rights. Although it eventually died down, it taught a crucial lesson: the constant, 24/7 occupation of public spaces - a lesson later adopted by the Arab Spring and "Occupy Wall Street".
Another Attempt at Revolution in 2019 also quickly subsided.
Then, in September 2022, the tragic death of Mahsa Amini, a Kurdish-Iranian woman arrested by the morality police for improperly wearing a hijab, ignited a fire. Her death, caused by a brutal kick to the head, became the spark for a new, unprecedented revolution. This uprising is unique: it is a predominantly women's movement, united under the slogan "Woman, Life, Freedom" (Zan Zendegi Azadi).
For months, mass protests have swept Iran, with schoolgirls, university students, and women leading the charge. Crucially, men, including from male-dominated sectors such as the petrochemical, oil, and gas industries, have joined them in widespread strikes. The economy is collapsing under the weight of these strikes and international sanctions. Despite brutal repression and threats of live ammunition from the Revolutionary Guard, the protests continue, a testament to the unwavering resolve of the Iranian people. Women, both fully veiled and uncovered, stand shoulder to shoulder, demanding the right to choose, signaling a desire not for de-Islamization but for a secular republic where individual freedoms are paramount.
A Look to the Future and America's Potential Role
Iran’s future remains uncertain. The pessimistic view suggests that the United States could once again use the CIA to undermine the revolution and restore the monarchy (the Shah’s son, still alive, has hinted at a temporary return to power). However, many in the Iranian diaspora and protesters in Iran yearn for a secular republic.
Our hope is that the United States will abandon its history of negative intervention. Obama’s apology for the 1953 coup was a step in the right direction. Iran has also expressed regret over the hostage crisis. This is an opportunity for America to rebuild bridges, become a supportive trading partner, and perhaps even a friend. The first and most important step: keep the CIA out.
What can the American people do? The Iranians themselves are asking for international protests of solidarity. They say it gives them hope. The recent protest in Berlin, which drew hundreds of thousands, mostly from the diaspora but also many Germans, is a strong example. Showing up, regardless of your background, really does matter. If we cared more about each other, our movements would not be so fragmented.
This Iranian revolution is truly a remarkable event. It embodies feminism, religious freedom, and democracy - causes that resonate with most people. Our hope is that Americans will support this movement, not by heavy-handed intervention, but by listening to the Iranian people, who, as I saw in 2002, are extremely informed and articulate about their needs. Iran, a complex nation with enormous potential (currently the 21st largest economy in the world, with the capacity to be much larger, and a leader in drone technology), is being crushed by the morality imposed by a conservative regime. People are done with this.
While predicting the future is like rolling the dice, this is a pivotal moment. Let us hope for a future in which the women of Iran inspire not only the transformation of their own nation, but also a broader global shift toward freedom and self-determination.