By the end of the nineteenth century, the seemingly unstoppable rise of colonial power called for the modernization of Middle Eastern countries, particularly in Iran and Egypt. In their respective pursuits of building a modern nation-state, Reza Shah of Iran and Ataturk of Egypt, similarly implemented policies of political centralization, economic development, and secularization. Ultimately, modernization proved more viable in Turkey than in Reza Shah’s Iran due to the precedents characteristic of the Ottoman Empire inherited by Ataturk. Specifically, the endurance of successful westernization policies in Turkey, contrasted by their disintegration in Iran, can be equated to the different preexisting economic, social, and political conditions …show more content…
Modernization is loosely defined as the transition from a traditional society to a contemporary nation-state, often coupled with the adoption of Western values and systems (Gelvin 69). Drawing from the success of Mussolini and Hitler’s corporatist models, Mustafa Kemal, commonly known as Ataturk, chose to modernize Turkey in order to establish itself as a nation-state alongside the ever-growing European colonial powers. Consequently, Reza Shah of Iran emulated Ataturk’s paradigm for state building, and thus, when comparing the two rulers and their respective nation-states, many similarities are found. However, the implementation of modernization had vastly different consequences between Iran and Turkey, the reason for which stems from the conditions of both countries during the time of their …show more content…
In particular, Ataturk pursued a policy of nationalizing foreign-owned enterprises and revoking concessions the Ottoman Empire had previously offered to foreign governments (Gelvin 201). Due to the fact that the Ottoman Empire was never subject to widespread European colonization, Ataturk was gradually able to implement a policy of domestic development without foreign encroachment. Post-World War I Iran, on the other hand, was scarred by Russian and British intervention. Thus, the Iranian state under Reza Shah was determined to end the stranglehold of foreign control over the Iranian economy. Under the shah, the state canceled foreign concessions, established a national bank to replace the British-run “Imperial Bank,” and took control of posts, telegraph, and customs from foreigners (Gelvin 205). Total economic sovereignty, however, was ultimately not achieved. British influence was still felt in its resilient control over the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which drove the Iranian economy. As a result, Britain continued to manipulate control over the future of the modern Iranian
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 ...
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
While taking the class of Early Modern European History there was two states that really stuck out and peaked my interest the most. They were the Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. If you compare and contrast both the Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe during the 16th Century through the 18th Century, you will see that there are a number of similarities as well as differences when you look at the expansion of the states. You will also see many of these contrasts as well when you look in terms of each states military and commerce. Although the Ottoman Empire existed before the 16th century and continued to exist past the 18th century and in great decline until the early 20th century, when looking at the state as a whole the time period of 1500’s through the 1700’s is a period of growth and strength. It is perhaps even known as a golden era for the state, when taking in to comparison the Early Modern Europeans where the same time period marks a change in how society thought and how people were treated.
17Kili, Dr. Suna. ?Islam and Secularism in Contemporary Turkey.? Voice of Ataturk: Ataturk Society of America. Web. Dec. 10 2013.
First, the Shah, out-of-touch with what his people wanted, became the catalyst for massive xenophobic and anti-Western feelings to spread throughout the nation. By giving up traditional Islamic ideals and becoming sort of a “puppet” for the U.S. and the Western world, the Shah made a mockery of himself and of those traditional Islamic values, which were paramount in Iran. For many years, Iranians wrote letters to the Shah, voicing their discontent with many aspects of his rule — the spread of the Bahá’í Faith, the collapse of Islamic traditions, and the crumbling economy. The Shah, however, did nothing to fix these issues. Instead, he designed a political reformation movement, hoping to silence his opponents, to introduce personal rights for women, and to establish a sense of fiscal equality. This series of reforms, which appeared to be a blatant attempt to Westernize Iran, became known as the “White
The introduction to Persepolis gives a great deal of background information to the unrest in Iran leading up to the Islamic revolution. Iran had been in a state of unrest for “2500 years” (page11). Iran was ruled by foreign nations and exploited by the western world for its rich expanses of oil. In 1951 the prime minister of Iran tried to take back his country’s wealth by nationalizing
Ajami argues that universalism of Pan-Arabism derived from the universalism of the Ottoman Empire had disappeared after 6 decades. There is no longer a collective Arab crisis and nation states have alternate nationalistic goals. A case in point to support his argument would be the example of Egypt. The country has pertinent political and economic issues to concern itself with. Many face unemployment and the country is on the verge of bankruptcy....
Over the course of the last century, the Islamic Republic of Iran (formerly known as Persia) has seen colonialism, the end of a dynasty, the installation of a government by a foreign power, and just over three decades ago, the popular uprising and a cleric-led revolution. These events preceded what could be considered the world’s first Islamic state, as politics and fundamentalist religion are inextricably linked in contemporary Iran. Looking at Iran from the mid 1940’s until the present day, one can trace the path that led to the rise of fundamental Islam in Iran in three distinct periods. The first is that which began with the rise of secular nationalism and the decline of Islam. In the second, the secular, western-friendly government eventually gave way to the Islamic revival in the form of a government takeover by hard-line clerics and disillusioned, fundamentalist youth; both motivated and led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Rule of Iran by these fundamentalist clerics then led to the formation of the fundamentalist Islamic theocracy that governs present-day Iran. The current government has some democratic appearances, but all real power is in the hands of the supreme leader, an Ayatollah who is chosen by the Assembly of Experts, a group of clerics chosen by the Guardian Council. With the Iranian Revolution, political Islam was born, with the fundamentalists holding the reins of power in Iran to the present day.
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.
The Ottomans did attempt to reform themselves on multiple occasions. The entire Tanzimat period from 1839-1876 was marked by extensive efforts to modernize and westernize the Ottoman government. Even before then, though, there were serious attempts to change society. Around the time of Napoleon's invasion of Egypt and Syria in 1798, Sultan Selim III sought to modernize the Ottoman Army after the model of the highly successful French army. The Nizam-i-Cedid would have been a modern military force capable of standing up to European armies, unlike the hopelessly antiquated and disorderly Janissaries. Despite his best efforts, though, the Janissaries overthrew him in 1807. His successor, Mahmud II did succeed in reviving the Nizam-i-Cedid after massacring the Janissaries in 1826 (Gelvin 80). At the same time, Mehmet Ali implemented similar, though more successful, reforms in Egypt, then under the at least *de jure* rule of the Sultan. Mehmet Ali's army was perhaps the strongest in the Middle East and his forces intervened on behalf of the Ottoman Empire to crush the revolt in Greece. Despite that strength, though, European militaries were more powerful and at the battle of Navarino, a joint Anglo-Franco-Russian navy defeat...
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....
The Ottoman Empire had humble roots. Beginning as an Ottoman state, it progressively rose to power to become an empire. As a state, the Ottoman state started as a small state in current-day western Turkey. Based on Muslim beliefs and rule, the Ottoman State began to dissolve surrounding Muslim states, which were absorbed into the future empire. This move thereby ended all the other Turkish dynasties. The Ottoman Empire was marked as one of the largest, longest lasting empires. The Ottoman Empire lasted from the late 13th century to 1923. Throughout it’s time, the Ottoman Empire was remarked as highly successful and progressive. But like all empires, the Ottoman Empire had to make its end. The Ottoman Empire, like all dynasties, went through its rise, peak, and falling periods. This essay assesses each period in the Ottoman Empire's history.
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).... ...
An example of a modern nation-state is Egypt. Egypt’s identity is closely tied to its location and their long history. Egyptian’ are and Arabic speaking nation-state with a diverse culture and heritage as a modern nation-state. Their development, over the centuries, saw conflicting beliefs but, most Egyptians today see themselves, their history, culture, and language as specifically Egyptian. Mr. Kamel states that the, “Egypt’s leading roles in Middle Eastern in cultural and political affairs, generally dominates Egypt’s relations with other nations. In turn, this either broadens or limits the scope of choices and opportunities available domestically” (Kamel, 1999).
Modernisation theory has been a dominant theory since post-World War II (McMichael 2012:5) to describe development and social change. It is structured and outlined through five different stages of 'development ladder' proposed by Walt Whitman Rostow in The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. (1961:4) The first premise of modernisation theory reflected by 'development ladder' is that development happened in a sequential process through stage by stage while the second premise underpinned by ‘development ladder’ is conformity towards West's values and norms. However, these two premises are found to be problematic as they are neglecting the differences in societies and assuming that the 'development ladder' system is applicable to all societies. Thus, Rostow's 'development ladder' is highly challenged as it gathers a lot of critiques.