The Anglo-Iranian Relationship: Ali Ansari Interview
I should fully disclose to readers that I have a personal interest in Iran. My wife of sixteen years, whilst born in Britain is the daughter of Iranians. At my wedding back in 2008, my mother in law, originally from Tehran, and who never tires of reminding me of her aristocratic heritage, gave the pre-lunch speech at which she expressed her astonishment at my adoration of Alexander the Great. In Iran Alexander has a different reputation, and as any viewer of Michael Wood’s brilliant In the Footsteps of Alexander will know, storytellers scare naughty children that ‘Iskander’ will visit if they do not behave. I’m also constantly reminded of how Iran has the best of the following: caviar, herbs, pomegranates, rice, rugs, saffron and wine (claimed by my father-in-law who lives in a dry Iran); as well as, of course, art, architecture and history. Their empire is the greatest, and trust me when I say that it useless to argue against any of these achievements.
There is a wider relationship too between Britain and Iran that originates as early as the 16th century, but which developed significantly in the eighteenth as colonial powers competed for influence over what was known then as Persia. The ever menacing presence of Russia to the north meant Persia was inevitably drawn into the Great Game. British interest in Iran (which Reza Shah requested foreign diplomats call the nation in 1935) continued throughout the 20th century but the low point was most probably the 1953 coup which causes discontent even today.
All this speaks to a kind of fascination that we’ve had with Iran, which goes beyond usual geopolitical considerations. It may be unfashionable to admit in some quarters, but there is an exoticism that attracts Brits, and I have no shame in including myself among them. I suspect this originates in the Achaemenid era when Classical Greece, which formed part of many a schoolboy’s education, clashed in several epic battles. It was John Stuart Mill who described Marathon ‘even as an event in British history, is more important than the Battle of Hastings.’
It was therefore inevitable that I should want to speak with the pre-eminent historian of modern Iran in this country, Ali Ansari, when I learnt of his new book on its political history. The son of a diplomat, Ansari arrived here in the UK in the wake of the Iranian Revolution. He is currently Professor of Modern History at St. Andrew’s, Founding Director of the Institute of Iranian Studies and the author of a number of books, most recently a short Polity Histories series entitled, Iran. Its cover mixes the colours of Iran with the rather impressively vivid red Lion & Sun (which formed part of the flag until 1979) against a green background, and so I immediately complement him on it. Iran itself is a potted history of Iran since 1905 and seeks to educate the reader on why Iran is where it is principally due to the Constitutional Revolution of 1906.
“I think the Constitutional Revolution, in many ways, is the most significant political revolution that’s taken place in Iran in the 20th century. I think its longer term consequences will be far more significant than the Islamic revolution. The Islamic revolution of 1979 has the advantage of being proximate and we’re obviously living with the immediate consequences.
“If you’re taking the long perspective, certainly I would say the Constitutional Revolution has had a much more profound impact. Not only did it introduce the country to constitutionalism and a parliamentary system of democracy, although I use that term loosely, it also embedded the ideology of nationalism within the country which we’re living with to this day, and set the template really for political activity ever since.”
1906 is the date when agreement is reached to establish a constitutional system in parliament and this is the crucial year, the Constitutional Revolution. But what then? A parliamentary system is adopted but how is Iran governed?
“…You get infighting civil disturbances, even a civil war and reaction against the parliament, the new king who comes in [Mohammad Ali Shah, reign 1907-09], the king who granted the constitution had the good fortune to die after he signed the constitution [Muzaffar al-Din Shah r.1896-1907]. Then his successor, his son, we had no interest in that. The Russians were not keen on any sort of constitutional settlements, so they agitated against it.
“The fundamental problem with the constitutional movement is it was high on aspiration, but not very good at the practicalities. You had all these people rushing to attend parliament in Tehran with very progressive ideas of what to do: free education, a central bank, a judicial system, but nobody had any idea how you’re going to achieve these things…Basically, they set up this constitutional system, and then said, ‘Right, well, let’s go and start having free education for everyone.’ And someone says, ‘Well, who’s going to pay for it?’ And they go, ‘Oh, well, that’s an interesting idea. Well, I suppose we tax people.’
‘Well, who’s going to collect the taxes?’ It was that basic. There was no functioning system of government, as we would understand it, which is why the revolution stutters to a halt.”
If one skips forward to the primary cause of the 1953 coup d’état, it was the Anglo Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), the precursor of British Petroleum. The AIOC concession was a long-running sore for successive Iranian governments, beginning in the early 20th century, and the Iranian Prime Minister Dr Mohammad Mossadegh represented the movement to nationalise the company due to the perceived unbalanced agreement between the two. Chiefly run by the Americans, the British had provided the plan for his overthrow. This is a sensitive area of discussion between myself and Iranians with regard to the involvement of Her Majesty’s government. The idea being, Britain always meddles in Iran. But I’m interested in whether this is a fair characterisation. Do Iranians misrepresent our involvement?
“There’s a popular mythology and popular mythology is always painted in primary colours and people absorb these. The British were always seen as the interesting thing about the British role in Iran. You have to remember that the British come to Iran from India. India is also part of the Persianate world in this period. Remember, when the British are moving into India in the 18th and 19th centuries, the language of government in India is Persian. OK, so their entire world is essentially Persian. The Moghul Empire was run on principles that were really derived from the Persian administrative manuals and the language everyone used until 1857, until the end of the Mutiny, was Persian which was essentially seen as the language of government and then they moved to English…My point is that the British who travelled to Iran in the early part of the 19th century mainly come from India and they’re well versed in Persian idioms and ideas and culture and how to talk and this sort of thing.
“The British also are relatively poor – a little bit tight in terms of expenditure. The Russians on the threat on the Northern border. Let’s not have any illusions about this. The Russians are the most serious political and military threat to Iran in the 19th century, without a shadow of doubt. It’s very simple because there’s a border on the North and the Russians can move troops easily. It’s cheap for them.
“The British on the other hand are a naval power essentially. They compensate by developing a very highly sophisticated, educated diplomatic corps. Political officers [who] are often very multilingual. They speak multiple languages, but it’s more than just speaking languages. It’s not a question of ordering tea. It’s a question of how you order tea. They know all the nuances.”
This is where I interject to say the Brits understand the concept of tarof. Tarof is a ritual whereby a host offers a guest something and it is refused several times. Now this can be taken to ludicrous lengths, as I discovered with my wife’s uncle when attempting to slot the £1 required to use the supermarket shopping trolley.
“Absolutely. They know. There’s some wonderful accounts of British diplomats in Iran in the first half of the 19th century, and they know exactly what they’re up to. There are two things that the British have that the Iranians are impressed with. One is that the British have a tremendous soft power pull for the Iranians. They’re not Russia.
“They’re not the autocracy from the north and they sell Iran this idea of Whiggish progress. They say to the Iranians, ‘you can do what we did. We’re a miserable island on the northwest coast of Europe, but look how successful we are. And we’ve done it because we’ve got education, rule of law, this sort thing. That’s very attractive to Iranians. Iranians like that. And naturally what the British are saying is your problems are political. Your problems are not to do with your social makeup. It’s not because you’re Iranians, it’s because your political system is wrong.
“The other thing is that they use political officers and diplomacy and a little bit of wiliness. They outdo the Iranians in terms of playing the political game. And the Iranians actually find that quite impressive. They think [it] is rather good and they find it quite attractive.
“In a curious sort of way, when the Iranians say the English are behind everything, there’s a sneaking admiration for it, I have to say. It’s not actually all a condemnation. Some of it is, obviously. I should be very clear on this, there is a deep disappointment with Britain in the sense that they feel she never lives up to her ideals. The British come in and they say, ‘we’re in favour of constitutional government, we’re in favour of the rule of law, we want this, we want that.’”
We get to the coup of 1953, when both the US and the United Kingdom conspired to bring down Mossadegh, using Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and this is where Britain’s role remains disappointing to this day.
“The coup, although it was planned and drawn up in many ways by the British and incidentally, it was a contingency planning under the Attlee government, but Eden was the man who oversaw it for the Conservative government. Effectively, it was operationalized by the Americans. It was the Americans in 1953 who put into action. If you look at the beneficiaries of the coup, the chief beneficiary are the Americans. It’s not the British, the British lose out quite a bit. They lose their monopoly. They lose their access to oil at favourable rates. It’s another nail in the coffin of the British Empire in that sense. But the Iranians don’t come out well from it at all.”
Regardless of the fact Britain did not gain from the coup in 1953, many inside Iran today believe the subsequent Iranian Revolution of 1979 can be traced back to its door. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the man who signed off on the coup after pressure from both his wife and sister, increased his powers so that he emerged into the 1960s initiating socio-economic reforms, and modelling his dynasty on the Achaemenid’s, in particular Cyrus the Great. These reforms upset the religious clerics, chief among them Ayatollah Khomeini.
“The fundamental flaw of Muhammad Reza Shah’s reign is he failed to match the economic reforms he put in with political reform. Because the political framework isn’t there, when the economy grew at exponential rates in the 1970s, largely because of oil income was increasing, there was no rule of law framework to regulate this. What you get with massive injections of liquidity in the Iranian economy in the 1970s is inflation and corruption…the system breaks down because it’s wholly dependent on him. So this is the problem. The Shah should have, at the height of his powers in the early 1970s, moved in a very emphatic way towards a democratic settlement for the country. He didn’t, which is again, another tragedy.”
Recently we’ve seen the brutal state suppression of female-led protests, a further tragedy inflicted on a country that is also seeing a massive brain drain as Iranians emigrate to the United States, Canada and Britain. One can only hope that the current movement will be successful in discarding the Islamic Republic, and completing the Constitutional Revolution begun in 1906.
Ali Ansari is Professor of Modern History at St. Andrews University and the author of Iran.
