Iranian Revolution
There were many factors that lead to the Iranian revolution of the 1970s, and it had a lasting impact on the Middle East as we know it today. The revolution showed the world what could happen when a nation is fed up with a leader who’s been, from the people’s perspective, ‘bought’ by the western world. Revolutions have happed all throughout history, but the revolution in Iran was unique, because it was the first one where a leader who was backed by the West had been defeated. Key sources for this analysis include Dr. Andrew Wender’s lecture, two articles by Ervand Abrahamian, as well as an article named The Middle East and Islamic World Reader. What lead to the turmoil in Iran? One key factor was the role played by British and American governments
…show more content…
Abrahamian focuses on this side of the event. Abrahamian explains that many simply didn’t believe the Islamic Republic would survive, as well as shares four common misconceptions regarding how the republic survived, including the Iran-Iraq war, the oil industry, reigns of terror, and the strength of Shi’ism as a religion. The survival is due to economic and social populism, in particular social welfare programs, the author claims. He also states that for the most part, the Iranians have been successful in their quest to improve their country, through policies regarding poverty reduction, education rights, and medical availability for citizens. These successful advancements, according to Abrahamian, have led to a healthier, more educated population with, on the average, more money in their pockets. However, in a different article, Abrahamian tells a different story, though not a conflicting one. In Democracy or Theocracy: Iran’s Islamic Republic, Iran is described as a theocracy which enforced Sharia Law, a system that used brutal punishments such as amputations and stonings to keep the population in line. Abrahamian also points out that non-Muslims and women were and still are considered inferior to Muslim males. So while both articles have some common ground, the introduction of Sharia Law seems to contradict the claim that the quality of life and Iranian society as a whole got
Abrahamian focuses on this side of the event. Abrahamian explains that many simply didn’t believe the Islamic Republic would survive, as well as shares four common misconceptions regarding how the republic survived, including the Iran-Iraq war, the oil industry, reigns of terror, and the strength of Shi’ism as a religion. The survival is due to economic and social populism, in particular social welfare programs, the author claims. He also states that for the most part, the Iranians have been successful in their quest to improve their country, through policies regarding poverty reduction, education rights, and medical availability for citizens. These successful advancements, according to Abrahamian, have led to a healthier, more educated population with, on the average, more money in their pockets. However, in a different article, Abrahamian tells a different story, though not a conflicting one. In Democracy or Theocracy: Iran’s Islamic Republic, Iran is described as a theocracy which enforced Sharia Law, a system that used brutal punishments such as amputations and stonings to keep the population in line. Abrahamian also points out that non-Muslims and women were and still are considered inferior to Muslim males. So while both articles have some common ground, the introduction of Sharia Law seems to contradict the claim that the quality of life and Iranian society as a whole got