I am opposed to the Trump and Netanyahu administrations waging war in Iran. However, regarding the country's modern history, which is deeply intertwined with the current war, if the only criticism focuses on the Pahlavi monarchy and social inequality created by the interests of the "West + Israel" alliance, without critical examination of the vested interests maintained by religious conservatives throughout history, it risks fostering biased public opinion among the public. Furthermore, regarding the Iranian oil industry nationalization dispute, we need to review the Mossadegh administration more critically, given its failure to consider the dynamics of the Cold War. While the Nissho Maru is often glorified in this case, which also involves Japan, a defeated nation whose dream of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere had just collapsed, was unlikely to have real intention of resisting the US and Britain.
First, the involvement of religious conservatives in the establishment of the Pahlavi dynasty is a fundamental aspect of modern Iranian history. Following the conquest by Arab Muslims, Iran, which regained the right to national self-determination for the first time in 10 centuries with the establishment of the Safavid dynasty in the 17th century, adopted a dual power system with the Shiite ayatollah and the secular shah, vis-à-vis the predominantly Sunni Muslims in the Arab world. Against this conservative system, Brigadier General Reza Khan of the Cossack Brigade staged a coup, aiming for national enrichment and military strengthening, modeled after Japan's Meiji Restoration and Turkey's Kemal Revolution. At this time, Brigadier General Khan intended to establish a republic similar to Turkey, but due to the wishes of religious conservatives who feared the loss of vested interests due to rapid reforms, the Pahlavi dynasty was established.
The problem is that the inequality brought about by privileged classes like these feudalistic landowners is ignored, while only the widening inequality caused by the Pahlavi monarchy and capitalists is critically reported. If Japanese media, including NHK, were to analyze the situation from an internationally liberal perspective, that would be fine. However, it is unfair to harshly criticize inequality caused by the monarchy and the global economy while ignoring inequality caused by the religious right and other feudalistic landlords. A real liberal would consistently criticize inequality caused by feudal landlords as well.
Furthermore, regarding the White Revolution, which was promoted under the Pahlavi regime at the recommendation of the Kennedy administration, the United States did not force it upon the Gulf Arab states, where religious conservative forces were too strong. During the Cold War, Iran was on the front lines of its strategy against the Soviet Union, and under its increasingly secularized regime, further modernization and military strengthening were desired. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia faced more threat from Pan-Arabism in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq than from the Soviet Union, and lacked political pluralism. This country had not reached the political and social maturity necessary to pursue secularization and defecation like the White Revolution. While rapid capitalist development certainly has the negative side of widening inequality, we must not forget that Iran, during the era when religious conservatives held vested interests, was also a society of inequality.
Also, from the geopolitical perspective mentioned above, the Mossadegh administration's rash move to approach the Soviet Union during the 1951 oil nationalization dispute, disregarding Cold War power politics, should be criticized more. While attention tends to focus on oil interests in this dispute, the reason for US intervention was to prevent the expansion of communism. First of all, it's important to remember that the withdrawal of Soviet troops, who stayed continually in northern Iran even after World War II, was on the agenda of the first UN Security Council meeting. Incidentally, Reza Shah, the first monarch of the Pahlavi dynasty, also committed a geopolitical blunder by aligning with Nazi Germany, leading to his dethronement through intervention by both Britain and the Soviet Union. Why did Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh fail to heed these geopolitical lessons?
Finally, regarding Japan's involvement in the Iranian oil nationalization dispute, it's crucial to recognize that the Nissho Maru was not the Ertuğrul. Idemitsu Kosan dispatched the Nissho Maru to prevent a slowdown in Japan's postwar economic recovery, which had only just begun after signing the San Francisco Peace Treaty. It was certainly not motivated by humanitarian sympathy for Iran's anti-colonial nationalism. If anyone were to find the same kind of philanthropic spirit in the dispatch of the Nissho Maru as in the rescue of Ottoman Turkish naval personnel by the Japanese during the Ertuğrul disaster, that would lead to a misunderstanding of the history of Japan-Iran relations.
As I wrote in my previous post, I am a Never Trumper and do not support the current war against Iran. Precisely because of this position, I cannot help but strongly question the historical perspective that, in its criticism of the current US and Israeli governments, overlooks the vested interests of Iran's religious conservatives as feudalistic landowners that they have maintained for centuries since the Safavid dynasty. We are a people who achieved national unification through the siege of Mount Hiei. Therefore, a calm and critical perspective is necessary regarding Iran's religious conservatives, and we should not excessively sympathize with the Mossadegh regime, which made the same geopolitical mistakes as Reza Shah in the oil nationalization dispute, when discussing the country's modern history. While criticizing both the Trump and Netanyahu administrations, we must not lose balance in our understanding of Iran's modern history.
