American–Iranian Alliances: International Education, Modernization, and Human Rights during the Pahlavi Era

Shannon, Matthew K.

doi:10.1093/dh/dhu019

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Iranian‐American relationship was the most intimate of the Cold War era. The stability of Iran, with its rich oil reserves and strategic location, was vital to US strategy for preserving the security of the Persian Gulf and containing the Soviet Union (Shannon, 2015). Iran emerged as a close US ally, particularly after the Anglo‐American‐sponsored coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953, strengthening the monarchical rule of the Shah.…”

Section: The Pahlavimentioning

confidence: 99%

The politics of street names: Reconstructing Iran’s collective identity

Kashfi

2023

Studies Ethnicity & National

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the radical political change in 1979, Iran's revolutionary state assumed the responsibility of re‐rewriting the past history to forge a new sense of belonging, a particularly collective religious (Shia) identity. It launched a complex process of forgetting and remembering to first eliminate the national (Persian), non‐religious memories and heritage, associated and celebrated by the previous regime and then establish a sense of continuity with the country's Shia past; a feeling markedly engendered with a distinguishing symbolic reservoir of Shia traditions and memories, presented in history books, literature, the media, and everyday culture.This paper seeks to examine the role of street names in this process of reconstructing a new religious (Shia) collective memory and identity with particular reference to Tehran, Iran, during the 1979‐2019 period. It seeks to analyze changes in the city's street names and analyze the widespread renaming of streets and public spaces in the city as one means of both ‘de‐commemorating’ the pre‐revolutionary regime and marking the Shia legacy and memories as the signifiers of a widespread political maneuver to articulate a new version of the past and narrative of identity since the 1979 revolution.

show abstract

Section: The Pahlavimentioning

confidence: 99%

The politics of street names: Reconstructing Iran’s collective identity

Kashfi

2023

Studies Ethnicity & National

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Coupled with a lack of freedom of expression, these remained distinct traits of the regime, and their use intensified in the 1970s when new challenges to the regime's security emerged in Iran and abroad. 19 The second factor concerns British society in the decade and, in particular, the opposition of the radical left to Britain's unconditional support for the Shah. The deep economic crisis that saw 'regular power cuts, compulsory three-day weeks, mass stoppages, incomes policies, sterling crises and a lowlevel civil war' by the end of the decade generated an atmosphere of dissatisfaction, which in turn contributed to the radicalisation of British politics.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“A Latter-Day Hitler”: Anti-Shah Activism and British Policy towards Iran, 1974-1976

Felci

2019

Diplomacy & Statecraft

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This analysis examines the foreign policy features and domestic implications of British policy towards Iran between 1974 and 1976. Starting with the assumption that economic interests, as well as Cold War imperatives, shaped British policy towards Iran into one where human rights had no space, the conduct of Britain's foreign policy apparatus towards the Shah vis à vis the disturbing reporting of human rights abuses in Iran and the intensification of anti-Shah activism in Britain remains important. Situating the relationship amongst societal forces, foreign policy, and diplomacy as the main analytical thread, this analysis brings new evidence to the field of Britain's relations with Iran, anti-Shah activism abroad, and the effects of the government's policy towards Iran on the British Labour Party. Any scholar exploring Iran's relations with Britain and, more generally, with the West in the 1970s is well aware of the diplomatic efforts required to please the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Keeping the Shah happy was not an easy task at that time. The Conservative government of Edward Heath, in power from 1970 to 1974, had to spend 'an inordinate amount of time and resources and diplomatic efforts to keep the Shah happy', as the monarch, 'being a brittle personality', was very sensitive to criticism of his rule and demanded unconditional support from his allies. 1 This exercise became particularly visible in the aftermath of the 1973 oil crisis, when despite the Shah's role in the rise in oil prices that contributed to Britain's economic recession, the Heath government actively discouraged any sort of reprisal against the monarch. 2 And it emerged even more clearly between 1974 and 1976 when, as a consequence of the growing criticism of human rights violations perpetrated by the Iranian regime, one of the primary tasks of Britain's ambassador to Iran, Anthony Parsons, became to reassure the monarch and his entourage of London's continued appreciation of the Shah's rule. 3 In what can be regarded as the most recent and insightful historical treatment of Britain's policy towards Iran in the late 1970s, Edward Posnett's 2012 article,

show abstract

The Logic of “Offstage” Signaling: Domestic Politics, Regime Type, and Major Power-Protégé Relations

McManus¹,

Yarhi-Milo

2017

Int Org

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the question of how major powers signal support for their protégés. We develop a theory that explains why major powers show support for some protégés using highly visible “frontstage” signals of support, while supporting other protégés through less visible, but nonetheless costly, “offstage” signals. From an international strategic perspective, it is puzzling that major powers do not always send the most visible signal possible. We argue that this can be explained by considering the domestic environments in which the leaders of major powers and protégés operate. Focusing particularly on the United States as we develop our theory, we argue that the US will prefer to send offstage signals of support for more autocratic protégés for several reasons. First, sending frontstage support signals for autocracies would expose US leaders to charges of hypocrisy. Second, frontstage signals of support for autocracies face an impediment to credibility because of the public backlash in the United States that overt support for dictators could generate. Third, many autocratic protégés would be reluctant to accept a frontstage signal of support from the US because it could undermine their regime stability. We test our theory in a data set that records various support signals sent by the United States for other countries between 1950 and 2008, finding strong support for our expectations. We also find evidence of the causal mechanisms posited by our theory in a case study of relations between the US and the Shah's Iran.

show abstract

American–Iranian Alliances: International Education, Modernization, and Human Rights during the Pahlavi Era

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

The politics of street names: Reconstructing Iran’s collective identity

The politics of street names: Reconstructing Iran’s collective identity

“A Latter-Day Hitler”: Anti-Shah Activism and British Policy towards Iran, 1974-1976

The Logic of “Offstage” Signaling: Domestic Politics, Regime Type, and Major Power-Protégé Relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About