"Reza Shah's plan for a well-crafted transfer of power to his son was upended during the Second World War when on August 25, 1941, the combined armies of Great Britain and Soviet Russia invaded Iran on the flimsy pretext of preventing the kingdom's road and rail links and oil depots from falling into German hands. The real problem was Reza Shah's policy of neutrality and his refusal to be seen bending to the same foreigr powers who earlier in the century had divided the country among them. On the day of the invasion the Imperial Family gathered for lunch. The mood at the table was "so tense and so grim that none of us dared speak," recalled Princess Ashraf. "What I knew was inevitable has happened," her father told them. "The Allies have invaded. I think this will be the end for me---the English will see to it." In a moment of great drama, the Crown Prince handed his sister a gun. "Ashraf, keep this gun with you, and if troops enter Tehran and try to take us, fire a few shots and then take your own life," he told his sister. "I'll do the same." The next day bombers reached the outskirts of Tehran and dropped explosives. The Queen and the princesses sheltered in the palace basement and as soon as the all-clear was sounded packed and fled south to Isfahan.
The Shah and his eldest son stayed behind to rally the generals, but Iran's army disintegrated under the Allied onslaught. On September 16, 1941, Reza Shah signed the formal instrument of abdication, changed into civilian clothes, and drove to Isfahan to join his wife and daughters. He was told by his British captors that he must leave Iran to spend his days in exile---a fitting end for the former Cossack who came to the throne idolizing Napoleon Bonaparte. Princess Ashraf begged to join her father but he said no. "I would love to have you with me, but your brother needs you more," her father explained. "I want you to stay with him. I wish you had been a boy, so you could be a brother to him now." Stripped of his titles, rank, and wealth, Reza Shah boarded a British cruiser bound for his preferred destination of Argentina. Only when the vessel was at sea did the captain inform the deposed monarch that he was actually headed to permanent exile in South Africa. His son later noted the irony---unbeknownst to the British, at the time of their invasion his father had already set his mind on abdication and spending the rest of his life abroad. Mohammad Reza Shah later wrote, "You might say that Reza Shah was exiled by mutual desire and consent."
The British and Russian ambassadors considered turning out the Pahlavis and replacing them with the more pliable Qajars. Fearful of arousing nationalist opinion, they abandoned the scheme but nonetheless snubbed the Shah's investiture. In his maiden speech from the throne the new king assured parliament and the people that he would abide by the Constitution and return his father's estates back to the nation. His speech went down well, but his ministers and the Allied ambassadors were determined to see to it that the second Pahlavi king's wings were firmly clipped and surrounded him with forceful older personalities determined to reestablish constitutional rule and prevent the emergence of a second autocracy. The proud young monarch felt the sting of humiliation every time he drove in and out of the capital, where he was obliged to present his identification papers to the Russian troops manning the gates. Two years later, when Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill flew to Tehran to discuss their war aims, only Stalin made an effort to treat the twenty-four-year-old King with the respect he felt he deserved as Iran's head of state. Roosevelt said he would be happy to receive the Shah---at his lodgings in the Russian embassy. The Shah bitterly recalled that "it seemed a curious situation that I had to go to the Russian embassy to see him, while Stalin came to see me." Slights like this left their mark.
The Shah found himself "plunged into a sea of trouble," and perhaps his greatest achievement in those fraught early years was simply to survive. The U.S. embassy in Tehran informed the State Department that the young king had "no solid power base and no political machine" but nonetheless thought they saw promise in his idealism and character.
Mohammad Shah is a man of much stronger purpose than is generally realized. He stands almost alone, distrusts most advisers, is honest in his efforts to secure a democratic form of government in Iran. He is not easily influenced and cannot be shaken. Installed as a figurehead during the 1941 crisis, he may yet surprise the factions in his country and the outside powers. He thinks along Western lines, and is inalienably attached to his Iranian army. The military budget is half the national expenditure now. Yet, of course, the army is almost his only backing within Iran.The young monarch could barely hide his frustration with his lot. "I inherited a crown," he protested. "Before I put it on, I want to earn it." He had been on the throne a year when he met with a group of senior politicians to plead his case for far-reaching social and economic reforms "I told them that we must establish social justice in this country," he said, drawing on his tutelage in Switzerland and bearing in mind Madame Arfa's talk of revolutionary kings. "It is not fair that a number of people should be at a loss what to do with their wealth," he said, "while a number die from hunger." His ministers dismissed his "revolutionary ideas" as empty talk and the naive ramblings of a young man with too much time on his hands.
The Shah's brimming youthful idealism was never more fully expressed than during a reception he hosted for the country's religious leaders in the late forties. In words that would come back to haunt him later in life, he lectured the ulama on their responsibilities as moral guardians of the nation. No ruler of Iran was above the law, he reminded them. "People must not remain silent, or neutral, about the actions of their rulers," he said in reference to the farr, which sanctioned rebellion in case of injustice. "They must rise up if governments trample their rights or break the laws. It is indeed one of the major responsibilities of the clergy to awaken people and make them aware of their legal rights, and thus not allow rulers and governments to engage in reckless and lawless behavior." - An excerpt from, "The Fall of Heaven: The Pahlavis And The Final Days of Imperial Iran" by Andrew Scott Cooper, Picador, 2018, Pg. 60-63.
The number that bellicose American leaders keep citing when talking about Iran is 47.
They falsely believe that Iranian animosity towards America and England only began 47 years ago, in 1979, when the rogue Ayatollah, backed by the Americans and British themselves, was installed into power in Tehran following the Shah's exile.
The real history is much different. Relations between the Anglo-American empire and Iran were poisoned long before 1979, even prior to the 1953 CIA-MI6 coup that saw the Shah installed as the undisputed King of Iran.
America and England have insulted the Iranian nation as soon as they came into contact with it, just as they insulted Egypt, China, India, and all non-Western civilizations.
When the Americans, British, and Soviets invaded Iran during WWII they didn't ask how Iranians felt, or fret about what type of government model they had, they treated the country as a plaything and the Shah as a toy. In their colonial worldview Iran didn't exist.
And that history cannot be dismissed when discussing why Iranians today are so determined not to see their country fall into the hands of the Americans and British again. Come hell or high water, Iran will be respected.
When national egos are violated and insulted, especially of nations with long memories of statehood and prior episodes of glory and dominance, only war can wipe the disgrace away.
But the problem is that Iran today is not led by a nationalist minded government that is fighting a war for national liberation. It is led by an Islamic martyrdom cult that puts more emphasis on securing Palestinian rights than Iranian rights.
The same can be said for the other side, with American and British leaders more concerned with Jewish welfare and Jewish rights than those of their own citizens.
What we have here is a war between two uncivilized cults that have seized power in Tehran, London, and Washington.
So, do not speak of a war between the West and Iran. This is not an American war. America ceased to exist in 1963. This is a war between Islam and Israel, between two eschatological religions.
