Four decades on, this is what people still don’t understand about the Iranian revolution

Western media has marked the 40th anniversary of Iran’s Islamic Revolution in much the same way it has every year since 1979. And so we see videos of truculent and jingoistic Iranians burning American and British flags dominating the Western press. The uprising is portrayed as an obscure phenomenon and little energy is expended on understanding its provenance.

But how did Iran become an Islamic theocracy? Why do so many Iranians maintain a deep political disdain for America and Britain? And, for that matter, how did the slogan “death to America” surface?

Iran, which boasts the world’s fourth largest oil reserves, was once a burgeoning democracy. Back in 1951 the country elected Mohammad Mossadegh as prime minister, who had a virtuous plan, which included nationalising Iran’s vast natural wealth. However, his decision was met with deep concern by Britain, which had finagled its way to control Iran’s oil reserves via the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Better known now as BP.

Mossadegh was eventually overthrown by the CIA and MI6, in 1953, with America and Britain regaining control of Iran’s resources. The coup d’état allowed the country’s king – more commonly known as the last Shah – Mohammad Pahlavi, to consolidate power, while serving the interests of the West, particularly America and Britain.

The Shah ruled for close to four decades. His opulent lifestyle and passion for Western culture, however, became incessant. And his attempts to rid the country of its Islamic identity, while furthering the interests of the US and Britain simultaneously, brought about his downfall.

Iran’s revolution did not come out of nowhere. The population is 99 per cent Muslim, of which about 89 per cent are Shi’a and eight per cent Sunni. The West’s attempt to impose its culture upon the population, with the Shah serving as a conduit, was utterly counterproductive. What’s more, the mistake allowed Iran’s clergy to co-opt suspicion of the West and use it to adopt an isolationist stance towards geopolitics.

The provenance of the revolution is ignored, because it is politically convenient. The US and Britain, two countries that seek to present a sense of moral superiority around the world, are reluctant to admit their central role in what happened to Iran and in its shift to global pariah in the years since. To do that would shatter their standing as the world’s insurers of democracy.

Media coverage of Iran since 1979 has been misleading. Orientalism has allowed commentators to depict the Islamic Republic as a backwards nation, with little, if any, cultural capital. Numerous clickbait listicles, contrasting how Iranian women dressed before and after the revolution, imply that the country has regressed, while subliminally suggesting that Westernisation is synonymous with democracy.

This is deeply ironic considering it was the West that overthrew Mossadegh. Meanwhile, many Iranian women continue to wear fashionable clothes – including Western brands – and find ways to circumvent the constraints of their otherwise pious appearance.

For many in Iran and the Middle East, westernisation doesn’t equate with democracy. It was Britain and France in 1956 that attempted to overthrow Egypt’s leader, President Nasser, after he nationalised the Suez Canal, an artificial sea-level waterway that allows goods – especially oil – to travel from Asia to the West more efficiently. Meanwhile, it was the US and Britain who assisted Saddam Hussein in using chemicals weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, with some reports claiming both countries helped the dictator to produce nerve agents. America and Britain invaded Iraq two decades later, of course, based on the fear that Hussein possessed chemicals weapons.

The Middle East is the world’s most politically volatile region for a good reason. Cursed by its vast natural wealth and neocolonial economic policies, third parties have continually attempted to control it. From the Sykes-Picot agreement, to the overthrow of democratically-elected leaders, Western powers have squabbled over the Middle East, while refraining from accepting responsibility for their actions.

Iran, is not a democracy. Of course not. But, like any good doctor, politicians and commentators need to understand the root cause of the Islamic Republic’s political shortcomings. Treating the symptoms of an illness doesn’t cure the disease. It masks it. And attempting to thwart the manifestations of Iran’s social ills will do the same. To further relations with Iran, constructive dialogue must see Western powers renounce their veneer of humanitarianism and accept the errors of their past.