Iran: A History of Turmoil and Wars

Iran: A History of Turmoil and Wars
Introduction
Alexander the Great once stood at the gates of Persia, talking to one of his officers about how to defeat the vast Persian Empire. He told him something along the lines of: "This country falls when the emperor´-or-the king falls."
The meaning here is that the entire country is held hostage by a single ruler, and the state stands on its head rather than its base. This is what later encouraged history and political science researchers to say, "East is East, and West is West." In other words, the East lived under tyranny, while Western history was built on democracy. History has shown us that Eastern tyranny is deeply rooted in these countries. In Pharaonic Egypt, for example, the king was worshipped´-or-obeyed just like the commandments and teachings of "Ra." Iran followed the exact same path, using religion as a tool to control people, especially during the Zoroastrian era.
The West, on the other hand, boasts that it inherited the democracy of ancient Greece. By the way, that democracy was not just a sudden breakthrough´-or-an intellectual theory-;- it was a necessity forced by reality. Small cities, merchants, and nobles grew in number, so a "house"´-or-parliament was established to represent them. Even so, Plato hated democracy because it allowed the "mob" to have a say in decision-making—and it was that very democracy that executed his teacher, Socrates. Today, however, democracy has become a political system that countries cannot be successfully ruled without.
When Islam arrived, it initially brought a form of democracy known as Shura (consultation). The situation of the Quraysh tribe at the time was similar to that of the Greeks-;- they practiced consultation within a tribal balance and consensus through the "Dar al-Nadwa" assembly. However, Shura did not flourish as the Islamic state grew-;- instead, it later turned into a process run by what was called Ahl al-Aqd wal-Hal (the elite decision-makers). Although some might blame Muawiyah for inventing a new way of ruling, the truth is that governance across the entire world during that era was based on hereditary monarchy.
________________________________________
Iran: A History of Threats and Turmoil
Since ancient times, Persia was a strong, centralized state that managed to rule several nations and melt everyone into a single Persian pot. However, it lived in a constant state of "tug-of-war." Its rivals from the West were the Greeks and the Romans, and the region witnessed bitter conflicts aimed at controlling neighboring countries, especially Iraq and Syria.
When Persia was conquered and its pride broken during the Islamic openings, they continued to plot against the Arabs throughout history to avenge their defeat. They were among the first to conspire with the Abbasids against the Umayyad state. Then, as soon as the Abbasid state grew weak, they seized power through the Buwayhid dynasty in Iraq. Later, when Ismail Shah Safavi came to power, he nationalized religion and spread Shiism by the sword. He invented rituals like chest-beating (Lattam) and self-flagellation (Tatbeer) to create a culture completely separate from Arab Sunni traditions, while simultaneously carrying specific Persian nationalist dimensions.
________________________________________
Modern Iran
The modern era in Iran mostly begins with the Pahlavi dynasty, specifically after Reza Pahlavi staged a coup against the Qajar dynasty in 1921. This Reza Pahlavi has a life story similar to that of Saddam Hussein-;- his father died when he was still an infant, so his mother remarried and left him with his uncle, who raised him. When he turned fourteen, he joined the Iranian army while still a boy, which reminds us of the Mamluk system.
Reza Pahlavi started out working as a stable boy (according to the account of the famous Egyptian journalist Mohamed Hassanein Heikal). This "stable boy" detail has an amusing story. The Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Heikal were once talking about the Shah of Iran (Reza s son). Sadat said proudly, "This is a royal family that is 2,000 years old." Heikal laughed and replied that Reza Pahlavi actually started his career as a stable boy.
In any case, when the officer in charge noticed Reza’s hard work, he enlisted him in the army and appointed him as an officer in the Caucasus War. He then rose through the ranks to become one of the top commanders. With the end of World War I, he marched his army to the capital, staged his coup in 1921, and crowned himself king in 1925. His rule was deeply tyrannical. An Iranian historian wrote that when Reza Pahlavi was removed from power, he owned 200 million dollars (a sum worth many times more today) and 7,000 villages, along with the peasants living in them.
When World War II broke out, Reza Pahlavi sided with Hitler. This angered the Russians and the British, who invaded Iran, removed him from power, and placed his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, on the throne in 1941. The son was a compliant tool in the hands of Britain and was no better than his father. He was a tyrant who enforced forced "Persianization" in the style of Kemal Atatürk, which angered ethnic groups like the Kurds, Azeris, Arabs, and Balochs. He also relied heavily on his intelligence agency, the SAVAK, using torture and murder to maintain power. This eventually drove the Iranian people to revolt and overthrow him in the late 1970s.
In the early 1950s, Mohammad Mossadegh (the well-known lawyer and politician) rose to prominence as Prime Minister. He helped implement land reforms, nationalized the oil industry, and carried out broad social reforms. This -dir-ection did not please Britain, which was exploiting Iranian oil. Consequently, with the help of the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Britain orchestrated a coup against him and put him in prison in 1953, effectively closing the chapter on reform in Iran. At the time, Mossadegh was an inspiration for other Arab officers to carry out similar changes, as happened in Syria through Husni al-Za im, and in Egypt through Gamal Abdel Nasser.
________________________________________
The Cannons and Revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini
In the mid-1980s, Mohamed Hassanein Heikal published a book in English covering modern Iranian history and the causes of the revolution. It was later translated into Arabic under the title The Return of the Ayatollah (literally: The Cannons of the Ayatollah). The book relied on documentary sources and interviews with many figures who participated in the Iranian Revolution.
One de-script-ion Heikal gave during an interview about meeting Khomeini in Paris caught my attention. He said that Khomeini was like:
"A bullet fired from the age of ancient sectarian strife (Fitna) that landed in our modern era."
This phrase perfectly sums up the path of the Iranian Revolution from the moment Khomeini took over until today: a history of conflict and wars with neighbors, and with "devils," both big (the United States and others) and small.
Looking back at the Mossadegh era, the situation did not improve after the coup-;- it actually got worse. The Shah relied on his security apparatus to brutally crush the opposition, especially liberals and leftists. Meanwhile, the path remained open for the religious opposition, because they were able to gather in religious halls (Hussainiyas) and organize their ranks quietly.
Among them was Khomeini, whose grandfather originally came from India. He moved to Iran after the British occupation of India and settled in the town of Khomein. Khomeini was an activist in that city, and he was likely named "Khomeini" after it. His father was killed by government forces, an event that remained deeply rooted in his memory. The religious movement was far better organized than the communist Tudeh Party´-or-other socialist parties. Furthermore, Iranian society—especially in rural areas—was naturally religious. This was the exact opposite of what happened in Turkey in the early 20th century, where secular forces led by Kemal Atatürk took control of the country s decisions.
When protests escalated in the early 1960s, with Khomeini leading part of them, the Iranian authorities arrested him and put him in prison. However, they released him a year later due to public pressure. As protests continued, the government exiled him from the country. He first went to Turkey, then moved to Iraq in 1965 and settled there. Iraq at the time was boiling with political shifts and coups. Khomeini stayed there as a political refugee until Saddam Hussein expelled him for two reasons: first, Saddam s agreement with the Shah, and second—as reported from Saddam—because Khomeini was stirring up sectarian unrest.
Khomeini then sought refuge in France and settled in Paris. Some might wonder: why did France accept him over other European countries? The answer is that France felt it had come away empty-handed from the Iranian market, as the United States held the greatest influence in Iran after sidelining Britain. France was trying to read the Iranian political map, believing it could influence the future of the revolution through Khomeini, just as it tries to do today in Lebanon.
________________________________________
The Outbreak of the Iranian Revolution
The Iranian Revolution began with massive public participation led by leftist parties like the Tudeh Party, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, the Fedayeen-e-Khalq, and other liberal forces. The clerics (Mullahs) led by Khomeini were just a part of this picture. However, those secular parties could not influence the public the way the clerics did. The streets grew more furious and protests escalated as the Shah’s security forces became more brutal. Finally, the regime fell in 1979, and Khomeini returned from Paris on a French plane to take power.
Afterward, mass executions began, targeting symbols of the former regime as well as opposition parties, leaving the stage entirely to the clerics. As soon as Khomeini secured his grip on power, he entered a war with Iraq that lasted until the end of the 1980s. It claimed thousands of lives, only to end without achieving any territorial gains in the Shatt al-Arab waterway—it was completely in vain.
However, the most dangerous thing the Iranian Revolution brought to the world and its neighbors was the "sectarian spirit." This spirit began to invade neighboring countries, deeply affecting the social fabric in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Iran used certain local communities as a bridge to expand its influence and drain these countries under the slogans of "Shia oppression" and "avenging the martyrdom of Hussein."
Why did Khomeini succeed while others failed? The truth is that his team was the most organized, and the most willing to use extreme violence and bloodshed.
________________________________________
The Police State and Hostility with the World
Since the success of the revolution, the regime openly raised slogans of hostility toward America and Israel, but its real hostility was -dir-ected at neighboring countries. It opposed Saddam Hussein’s regime on the grounds that it was a "Ba athist and secular" regime, yet it never condemned the other Ba athist regime in Syria, which was cooperating with Iran against Iraq!
Here lies the secret of their alliances and enmities: sectarianism is used as a tool for conflict to -alter-the identity of Iraq and Syria,´-or-to get rid of opponents through killing and forced displacement.
The Iran-Iraq War lasted for about eight years, leaving behind thousands of dead and disabled people. Furthermore, the Iran-Contra scandal exposed the hypocrisy of the official propaganda. A secret deal was made to supply American weapons to Iran through Israel, at the very peak of Iran s media campaigns against the "Great Satan."
The Nuclear Conflict with the US and Israel
There is no doubt that Iran holds a powerful strategic location and vast oil reserves, which makes Western countries covet what it possesses. Therefore, when the Iranian Revolution succeeded and the clerics took over, America assumed their rule would be temporary until the country returned to its loyalty to the West. When Khomeini decided to go to war with Iraq, Western powers were pleased. They began openly supporting Saddam while secretly backing Iran through Israel by sending weapons, in what later became known as the Iran-Contra scandal.
Regarding the nuclear issue, Iran has sought to acquire a nuclear bomb ever since Khomeini came to power, wanting a weapon to threaten and blackmail its neighbors, especially the Gulf states. In 2002, the secret was exposed by an Iranian opposition figure who revealed that Iran was enriching uranium in Natanz and Arak. Following this exposure, Iran admitted to possessing uranium but claimed its program was peaceful and civilian, not military.
The West did not believe these claims, and a wave of economic sanctions began to grow heavier every year. From that moment on, the Iranian currency began to collapse.
This continued until President Obama took office and reached a nuclear deal with Iran, lifting the sanctions in 2015. However, Iran did not stop its nuclear activities-;- it continued them secretly. In reality, the deal did not aim to stop the nuclear program entirely, but only to scale it back—one can recall the hysterical laughter of the Iranian Foreign Minister, celebrating the deal at the time. Shortly after, Donald Trump won the US election and canceled the agreement in 2018. He didn’t stop there-;- he followed it with crushing sanctions and ordered the assassination of Qasem Soleimani in 2020 in Baghdad. Soleimani had been moving freely between the capitals of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, overseeing and training regional militias.
Iran pushed forward with its nuclear program. After Trump, the Democratic President Joe Biden took office and tried to revive the deal at any cost. However, Iran manipulated and dragged out the meetings until the Gaza war broke out, bringing radical changes to the Middle East. The war acted like a row of dominoes, followed by the fall of the Assad regime in Syria and the destruction of Gaza and most of Hezbollah s power.
Biden left office without a deal, and Trump returned to the presidency, defiant and waiting for the right moment. Iran perhaps failed to realize the danger of the situation-;- it continued its defiance and threats until a -dir-ect military campaign was launched against it by Israel and the United States.
________________________________________
The Expansion of Conflict from the Nuclear Issue to the Strait of Hormuz
Since ancient times, the Strait of Hormuz has held massive commercial importance, making it a focal point of conflict among nations. Portugal was one of the countries that occupied the strait in the early 16th century, building a huge fortress there as a center to organize global trade and impose taxes on passing commercial ships. That region was essentially the "New York" of that era. With the rise of the Safavid Empire in Iran during the 17th century, it allied with a rising Britain and expelled the Portuguese.
In the 19th century, Britain emerged as a global superpower, seizing control of the strait and forming alliances with the rulers of the Gulf states along the coast of Hormuz, remaining there until 1971. When Britain grew weak and handed global leadership over to the United States, the strait became a vital trade artery for America following the discovery of oil. The US maintained control over the strait until the Iranian Revolution took place, at which point the strait became a bargaining chip in Iran s hands. Clashes broke out after Iran targeted some commercial ships during its war with Iraq, prompting the United States to respond by destroying parts of the Iranian navy.
Today, because the strait is of global importance—with nearly 30% of the world s oil passing through it—protecting international navigation has become vital. It is essential to secure it against Iranian provocations and its attempts to threaten closures to gain winning cards in nuclear negotiations against America.
________________________________________
Future Scenarios for the Strait and the Iranian Regime
Iran closed the strait to international shipping as a pressure tactic after Israel and the United States attacked Iran, destroying most of its naval forces, facilities, and military barracks. As we can see, Iran gambled on buying time and stalling on the nuclear file, hoping that a US president would follow Trump and revive the failed deal.
Currently, we are witnessing a complete halt to negotiations by Trump, along with a return to threats of destroying vital infrastructure, especially oil refineries. Here, I foresee several key scenarios:
1. A Return to War and Destruction of Vital Infrastructure: As Trump has threatened, this would send Iran back to the Stone Age. In this case, we assume the Revolutionary Guard and the Supreme Leader might submit, hand over the nuclear program, open the strait, and admit defeat. This scenario is unlikely, because Iran is ruled by a group that does not acknowledge defeat, even if the country and its people are destroyed.
2. United States Withdrawal: Washington might withdraw from the Gulf without resolving the outstanding issues, due to war costs´-or-congressional restrictions. This would bring disaster upon the countries of the region, especially the Gulf, because Iran would emerge victorious, complete its nuclear reactor, and challenge the world.
3. A New Reality for Trump: This includes his absence from the political scene due to age´-or-assassination, causing instability in US foreign policy and a withdrawal without achieving its goals. This would lead to absolute Iranian control over the region.
4. Continuation of the Naval Blockade: Increasing economic strangulation to force Iran into submission. The impact of this option is unlikely given the current ruling mindset.
5. Internal Revolution: The miserable living conditions could trigger a massive popular revolution that overthrows the regime due to poverty and the blockade. Here, it is worth noting Trump s disappointment with the Iraqi Kurds. He had provided them with weapons hoping they would help overthrow the regime and distribute arms to rebels inside Iran, but the project failed because they kept the weapons for themselves. As the Syrian proverb says: "They ate the bait and fouled the hook."
________________________________________
Conclusion
Whether the war stops´-or-not, we will undoubtedly witness major consequences that will reshape the Middle East, either for better´-or-for worse: a Middle East free of regimes that rule with an iron fist and work to tear the region apart through sectarian division

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 2