Iran and America: The Spirit of 1908

So is it 1979 all over again?

It is certainly tempting to compare this week's events in Iran with the street protests and violent confrontations that brought down the Shah's regime thirty years ago. But for a whole host of reasons (lack of inspirational leadership; a bedrock of support for the regime, etc), the analogy is a non-starter, and most sensible analysts have been quick to set it aside. One scholar has suggested the uprising of 1963, in which the Ayatollah Khomeini first came into the spotlight, as a better analogy. Thousands of emotional young idealists poured into the streets then - only to see the Shah's goons swiftly gain the upper hand and send the ayatollah into exile. An interesting idea, but if we're looking for a historical parallel, the one that comes to mind is neither 1979 nor 1963. It is 1908. And it is chock full of lessons for America.

Is 101 years a bit far to go back to help us understand what's happening today? Not in Iran. If there is one thing that both fundamentalists and reformers will agree on, it's that the Iranian people's long (and largely unfinished) march to freedom began during the Constitutional Revolution, or 'Mashruteh,' of 1906-1909. Say that very word to a basiji thug or to one of Tehran's green-clad young twitterers today and both will tell you, insistently, that they are the true defenders of its legacy. The mashruteh is Iran's Federalist Papers and Boston Tea Party, all rolled into one; its Spirit of '76.

Iran's constitutionalist uprising was the first great revolution of the 20th century - an expression of spontaneous rage against a corrupt and bankrupt monarchy. Much like today's movement, it didn't demand a fundamental overthrow of the prevailing system. Instead, it unified the country's merchants, intellectuals, and (yes) clerics in demanding nothing more than an elected parliament and a constitution. The result? A remarkably progressive charter that enshrined the principles of equality, personal rights, universal public education, and freedom of the press. It was the first document of its kind in the Middle East, and it has formed the basis of Iran's political debates ever since.

Iran's shah at the time, Mohammed Ali, initially tolerated the constitutional movement, but with considerable reluctance. Then, after an assassination attempt in which a bomb was thrown at his car in February 1908, he became less sympathetic and more confrontational. After several weeks of turmoil, he began cracking down - arresting constitutionalists, declaring martial law, and even calling in the fearsome Russian Cossacks to run riot and intimidate protesters in the streets of Tehran. Finally, on 23 June 1908, the Cossacks stormed the new parliament building, precipitated an eight-hour gun battle, and killed several constitutionalists. It unleashed a civil war.

Despite a wave of indignation and demands for tough action from the United States (driven, no less, by politicians with close ties to the evangelical Christian movement and its missionaries living in Iran), official Washington maintained a dignified distance from events on the ground, and refused to take sides - at least not overtly. The US minister in Tehran was sympathetic to the revolutionaries, but projected an aura of quiet detachment. The State Department did the same. And all this during the rambunctious presidency of the original rough rider himself - Theodore Roosevelt. When William Taft took the oath of office in 1909, his inaugural address expressed optimism about the possibility of improved trade relations with Iran, but said nothing about the turmoil on the streets.

As the months dragged on and thousands were starved or beaten into submission, Iran's brave little experiment with democracy appeared dead on arrival. But eventually, the dust settled, and the United States found itself in an excellent position to reap the rewards of its fastidious neutrality. For months, as they battled for their survival and bled for their cause, Iranian constitutionalists had been struck by the contrast between America's hands-off attitude and the heavy-handed interference by Russia and Britain. They were impressed by this apparently unselfish new power on the world stage, and interpreted its silence as a form of subtle and tacit support - rather than lack of interest. So when the constitutional upheaval was over, its leaders turned to America to help them build a new Iran. In 1911, the newly minted parliament recruited a 35-year-old American lawyer, Morgan Shuster, to be 'Treasurer-General' - and gave him broad powers to restructure the country's finances. The Iranian public became steadily enamored of the United States, and thus began a remarkable 30-year love affair between the two countries - the kind of thing that has never been seen before or since. Shuster's turned out to be just the first of three such American missions - the last wrapping up its work in 1945.

President Obama is taking the long view, and he is dead right. This is Iran's struggle, not America's. And when the dust has settled, the Iranian public (for whom the specter of foreign interference is a longstanding obsession) will remember the note he struck this week. If, as appears likely, Khamenei is left standing but weakened, he will be in no mood to negotiate with a United States that was so overtly seen as licking its chops at the prospect of regime change. And if, by some miracle, the Islamic Republic is swept away and replaced with some new form of government, then it, too, will find it politically difficult to open the country up to American influence if it's seen by the people as an American 'puppet.' We have little to lose and, possibly, everything to gain from a little circumspection.

Comments

[RoloTomassi]

Indeed, this is the Iranian people's struggle, and we would do well to remember that; we seem to widely make the false assumption that such protests in this country would be tolerated.

Here's an article by Juan Cole that puts much of this in a realistic perspective for Americans:

http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/washington-and-iran-protests-would-they.html

From the article “Washington and the Iran Protests: Would they be Allowed in the US?”:

“The kind of unlicensed, city-wide demonstrations being held in Tehran last week would not be allowed to be held in the United States. Senator John McCain led the charge against Obama for not having sufficiently intervened in Iran. At the Republican National Committee convention in St. Paul, 250 protesters were arrested shortly before John McCain took the podium.”

Also from the article:

“I applaud the Iranian public's protests against a clearly fraudulent election, and deplore the jackboot tactics that the regime is using to quell them. But it is important to remember that the US itself was moved by Bush and McCain toward a 'Homeland Security' national security state that is intolerant of public protest and throws the word 'terrorist' around about dissidents. Obama and the Democrats have not addressed this creeping desecration of the Bill of Rights, and until they do, the pronouncements of self-righteous US senators and congressmen on the travesty in Tehran will be nothing more that imperialist hypocrisy of the most abject sort.”

[RRonin]

A while back, I read an excellent newspaper article about a young American who got caught up in the revolt of 1908. He became one of the leaders of the revolt and was killed by the Shah's troops. The Iranians put up a monument to him in one of their cities (Qum? I think...) and he's a hero there to this day. Perhaps some knowledgable person out there could flesh out this story for us.....

[shoutingatmytv]

The guy's name was Howard Baskerville, and you might have read it here on HuffPo - John Ghazvinian wrote a post about him in March:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ghazvinian/howard-bakersville----an_b_172906.html

[sokolof]

Such great stories need to be told to American people not the neocons' manipulative story.

[ketchupandfries]

President Obama is not perfect, no human being is. But, his thoughtfulness and ability to see beyond the moment are refreshing and remarkable. I am not an expert on the history Iran, but my own instincts and common sense tell me that the people of Iran are more than able to settle their own conflicts. Screeching voices in the USA keep demanding relentlessly that President Obama make known to the world "the consequences" that Iran should face if it doesn't shape up, according to US specifications. At the same time they ignore perilously Iran's history. They forget that it is an ancient land, with a long memory to accompany its long history. These same screeching voices supported our shoot-from-the-hip cowboy-style international policy under Bush/Cheney, which made them feel pumped up and fully macho, but which got us nowhere in the eyes of the world. Iranians' sense of history makes them keenly aware of the interplay of nations, in ways that too many Americans are not.
Those in this country who are pushing for American interference in Iranian affairs, corroborate the long-held fears and suspicions of the Iranian people and of others in the Middle East with regard to the USA. I agree with Mr. Ghazvinian, circumspection is exactly what is called for at this time. I also thank him for the history lesson.

[fedupwiththis]

Can it be that intelligence has returned to America? It has been sorely missed.

[FloresdelaHoz]

Excellent article. So far, Obama is very impressive on foreign matters.

[beaupritchard]

I missed this when first posted but caught a MSNBC Oberman's show where it was mentioned and so came back to the post to read it. My thanks to Keith for pointing me to an eye opening account by John Ghazvinian of Iranian history.

More and more I am convinced that sticking our nose in other countries business makes america less secure. I am wondering when and who how this became a part of foreign policy.

[Jaywalkker]

Washington, in his farewell address actually warned the country to "beware foreign entanglements."
But it was the Monroe doctrine where we did get caught up in foreign entanglements by telling Europe hands off the Americas. T. Roosevelt is the one who expanded on the Monroe Doctrine with the Big Stick policy.

Add into the above Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism, and you get a lot of foreign entanglements.

[shoutingatmytv]

This is a fascinating historical perspective. Our history with Iran makes it unsurprising that Iranians bristle at the slightest indication of interference in their affairs. It's nice to know that there is some history that doesn't support that narrative, and the fact that it involves Theodore Roosevelt makes the lesson all the more poignant (we spend a lot of time talking about TR's big stick, and not nearly enough time talking about his imprecation to speak softly).

[agandia]

Great post.
Also for an excellent accounting of how the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953 - because he wanted to nationalize the oil companies - read ALL OF THE SHAH'S MEN. You will understand why Middle Eastern distrust Americans.
Great book.

http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0471265179