The Building of Fortress Iran
"Iran was a chew toy the Russians and British tussled over"
It’s time to look at Iran from a longer perspective. The current war has roots that go back, not just to the Iranian revolution of 1979, nor the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, but back to Iran’s centuries of shame and national partition.
In this sense, Iran is much like China, whose century of humiliation drove much of what Mao tried to do and drives China today. Except that Iran’s century of shame lasted two hundred years, as British and Russian competition carved out huge swaths of territory.
Here’s a good Twitter write-up by Angelica Oung of a slice of Iranian history as presented in the 2025 book Iran’s Grand Strategy by the scholar Vali Nasr, a man well regarded in this field.
I’m not saying Nasr is right, nor that he’s wrong. I’m saying that these are the lenses through which Iranians see themselves, just as we see ourselves, at least in part, through the lens of the Boston Tea Party of centuries ago.
The original piece is here. All emphasis is mine.
Centuries of Humiliation and the Building of Fortress Iran
by Angelica Oung
Iran is not driven primarily by ideology, but by a two century long obsession with preventing state collapse.
The west’s conception of Iran was frozen in the flashbulb moment of the 1979 Hostage Crisis, but to under stand the logic of how the Islamic Regime is conducting this war, we have to go back in time.
China famously underwent a Century of Humiliation...Iran went through twice that. We can put a pin in the Treaty of Gulistan 1813 as the moment when the once-proud gunpowder empire was first bought to its knees. More treaties where Iran lost land and a never-ending series of unequal concessions followed.
Iran became a chew toy the Russians to the East and the British to the West tussled over, avoiding partition only because neither wanted the other to have a piece for themselves. When WWI made the British and the Russians allies, disaster for Iran ensued. A line was drawn across Iran to divide it into two spheres of influence without the curtesy of even asking the Iranians first.
Without even being a participant, WWI was a catastropy [sic] for Iran as their resources were raided and millions starved. They were saved by the October Revolution...Brits became alarmed by the Bolshevik threat and needed Iran whole as a buffer state again.
I read the first three chapters of Iran’s Grand Strategy by @vali_nasr yesterday. Nasr argues the Islamic Regime cannot be understood as animated by religious ferver alone. Above everything, the regime inherited previous Iranian attempts to secure its sovereignty and prevent being split apart.
Poignantly Iran had an early period of proto-democracy. But a fine constitution was just a piece of paper without a strong state. It was like “having furniture without having a house.” Every Iranian government since then was an attempt to rebuild that strong house.
Nasr argues that the two Shahs who are often caricatured as puppet of the British for the father and puppet of the Americans for the son were no such thing. This is obviously true for the elder Shah, a self-made man who siezed power from the secluded and decadant House of Qajar. But he chose neutrality in WWII...not an option. In a replay of WWI Iran was invaded and raided. The Shah’s then-pliable young son put on the Peacock Throne.
The Young Shah’s formative moment was seeing the West flick away the strongest man he knows like it was nothing. After WWII the Soviets lingered menacingly. From the Shah’s POV Iran was only saved from becoming the Soviet satellite of Iranistan by American protection. His thesis ever since then was Iran can only be sovereign by hugging the west as strongly as possible.
Mohammad Mossadegh disagreed. During the brief interregnum where he took over from the Shah he was uncompromising about renationalizing oil. The British was equally obdurate and embargoed Iranian oil, causing the Iranian economy to go into freefall. Americans, fearing Iran was getting ripe for a Russian takeover decided Mossadegh had to go. Importantly, however, Nasr said Project Ajax was a fiasco that failed. It was the Iranian military that ultimatly toppled Mossadegh.
The way this story was remembered would have historic consequences. The belief that a foreign plot brought down Iran’s rightful leader tainted the restoration of the Shah. While it is true that the Shah was western-aligned, Nasr argues he was no puppet and often made himself exasperating to his Western backers. And his White Revolution genuinely industrialized Iran and brought year-after-year of double-digit GDP growth. But in the process he rode roughshod over his own people for different reasons.
The Mullahs were scandalized by secular reforms, especially unveiling the women. The Bazaari merchants were indignant modern supermarkets put them out of business. The left and pro-democracy elements were rounded up by the infamous secret service SAVAK. The students he helped educate were indignant they didn’t graduate into an economy that had jobs befitting their education. It was after the revolution that the true tussle for power began. As we all know, it was the ayatollah that came out on top.
Iranians are a diverse bunch. Their governments have been monarchies, democracies and theocracies. But through it all they just had one burning desire...to build a strong house for a state. If the Qajars left a broken palace, the elder Shah built a brick house but didn’t lock the doors. The morally righteous but obdurate Mossadegh built a glass house that was too fragile, and the young Shah built a flashy McMansion that broke the bank that was ultimately burned down from within.
The Islamic Regime did not build the house Iranians wanted. They built Fortress Iran. Ever since 1979 the west have tried to break Fortress Iran and failed. We’ve instigated a war against Fortress Iran. We sanctioned Fortress Iran for almost half a century. We are now even dropping bombs on Fortress Iran. All while calling on the Iranians to break it from within. The walls only grow taller.
I just saw a video of an unveiled secular woman who said she was on the streets against the Islamic regime earlier. But she’s back on the streets now, and her rage is not at the mullahs but against America and Israel for trying to break Iran. Again.
I’m not saying that religion does not play a role in the ideology of the Islamic regime. Nor am I saying the regime have not acted foolishly in the past. I’m saying Iran’s historical traumas, often at the hands of the west, must be taken into account. The primal, primary force animating the Iranian government, military and people is determination that Iran will not be broken again.
Really good piece, one which makes an interesting and important point.
Thank you for this. I learned a lot.