Students of Iranian history and politics can only make sense of things if they first understand Iranian culture, psychology & sociology.

To understand Iran, you need to understand the psychology and sociology of its people. Taarof and oghdeh are two keystones of Iranian culture. 

What is Taarof? Wikipedia describes Taarof (pronounced Taw-roaf) as “Iranian form of civility or art of etiquette that emphasizes both deference and social rank.” I’ve discussed it when explaining the culture we have created at my media company, now in its 19th year of operations and having managed to retain its core group of founders, executives and managers (a rarity in corporate culture). Sarah Parvini’s LATimes article adds anthropologists trace the origins of taarof to an Arabic word meaning “acquaintance” or “knowledge.” 

Indeed, Taarof is more than that, especially to put Iran’s history from Ancient Persia to the Islamic Republic’s current regime into context: it’s customary elsewhere for people to seek gaining the upper hand, Parvini describes the decorum as a form of self-deprecating “self-lowering” to “get the lower hand.” Taarof’s goal, ultimately, is to be respectful: a combination of civility, deference, etiquette, empathy, sacrifice, even martyrdom to the extent that one strives to eliminate others’ pain and discomfort, even if it means somewhat masochist behavior.

What is Oghdeh? Oghdeh refers to the psychological complexes one develops (usually during childhood, but also throughout one’s entire life) through insecurities. This could include an inferiority complex, having a need to prove themselves and justify their value – especially vis a vis others and/or others perceive them. 

The Many Paradoxes of Iran

If oghdeh explains the psychology of Iranians, Taarof the sociology, their combination add valuable context to Iran’s history, a paradox that saw its earliest inhabitants build the first global empire under Cyrus the Great, but then after two centuries suffer a crushing defeat under Darius III to the Macedonian commander Alexander the Great, with the Greek Empire subsequently ruling over Persians. If that weren’t enough, adding insult to injury, subsequent centuries saw foreigners – Arabs, Mongols, Turks – rule over Iranians, who somehow managed to retain their culture and language. But imagine if after being the dominant empire in the world, you were then subjected to a non-stop litany of foreigners who either full or part-time lived on your soil and basically enforced the civil rules of engagement. Eventually, I’m sure it affects your psyche.

Though each time Iran managed to technically fend off the foreigners, those “invaders” also left their marks – namely, Islam, which Arabs converted Iranians to in the 7th century. Iran, or land of the Aryans, is home to multiple ethnicities, with Persians accounting for 61%, followed by Azeri, Kurd, Lor, Baluch, and many others. Iran is a mosaic if not an outright melting pot, especially post the urbanization that the Pahlavi dynasty (1925-1979) ushered, first via Reza Khan (1925-41) and then under Mohammad Reza Shah (1941-79).

In the context of psychology and sociology, it’s worth noting that Reza Shah became Shah at 47, his son at 21, with their experience and relative maturity explaining how each one ruled from day 1.

The Influence of Foreign Global Powers

While the first invaders of Iran were geographically close, eventually later ones were from far-flung corners of the world, a reflection of how innovations in transportation and industrialization tilted the global power structures.

Whereas the effects of Greek, Arab, Mongol, Turk occupation had various degrees of influence on Iranians’ culture today, Iran’s current political situation could very well be explained by more recent imperialist influences by Russia (from Imperial Russia, to Communist Soviet Union and the more recent Russian Republic), the United Kingdom, and the United States of America.

A 2500 Year Monarchy Ruled by Many Dynasties

The previous Qajar dynasty was an Iranian dynasty founded by Mohammad Khan of the Qoyunlu clan of the Turkoman Qajar tribe, a vestige of the Ottoman empire’s tentacles over Iran in previous centuries. One of the reasons the Pahlavis were even able to seize power after the Qajar dynasty ended in 1925 was the public outcry against the inability of the Qajar dynasty to maintain its political and economic independence from Great Britain and Imperial Russia in the face of events such as the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, which divided Iran into three segments that served their mutual interests but did little for Iranians. Indeed, the Russians gained control over the northern areas of Iran, which included the cities of Tabriz, Tehran, Mashad, and Isfahan. The British were given the southeastern region and control of the Persian Gulf. The territory between the two regions was classified as neutral territory.

History = Domestic + Foreign

Iran’s 1906 constitutional monarchy was a movement to reduce the absolute monarchy of the Qajars who weakened Iran through territorial concessions and poor economic policies. Iran’s 20th century was always a balance between domestic strife and foreign intervention. Reducing events in history to either/or is not just simplistic, it seeks to re-write facts in a partisan light. The reality is both growing internal frustration and the hands of Russia combined with the blessing of the British explain how the first brigadier general of the Russian-influenced & inspired Persian Cossack Brigade Reza Khan – with no loyal lineage whatsoever – emerged as monarch in 1925. Overnight, the Qajars were out, the Pahlavi dynasty was in. 

From Eran to Persian to Iran

A decade after seizing power, in 1935, Reza Shah asked the international community to refer to the country as its endonym Iran, instead of the exonym Persia, which the world had called it. Reza Shah, incidentally, was not part of the largest ethnic group in Iran – the Persians – but rather, Mazanderani, from Iran’s north… elementary psychology would suggest that this may at least partly explain why and how Reza Shah sought the name change, though sociology would explain why uniting all Iranians under one, new umbrella was astute and wise, as well.

It certainly is paradoxical that Iran ruled over a huge proportion of the then-known world from 590-330 BC, largely by understanding that local dwellers sought to live according to their mores (hence seen as “liberators” more than conquerors, and why Cyrus the Great is seen as the inventor of human rights (watch a video of the top 10 inventions here), but since 330 BC it has been occupied – through force, violence, and threats – by so many others. All actions have reactions, after all.

Are Leaders Born or Made?

USC management teacher Warren Bennis asked, are leaders born or made?

Reza Khan was undoubtedly born a leader, and embarked on an ambitious plan to end feudalism, redistribute land, secularize society and lead an urbanization drive. But with no “royal DNA” per se, you can imagine that his oghdeh may have explained some of his drive and ambition, where he nearly single-handedly ushered Iran into the 20th century. When Reza Shah’s supporters say that Iran would have been Afghanistan today were it not for him, I don’t think they are lying.

Being caught between a Russian rock and a British hard place, Reza Shah reached out to the then greatest industrial power Germany to strike commercial ties. It was smart to diversify, but as the Third Reich adopted a fascist path and embraced Nazism, World War II changed Iran’s course even though it sought to remain neutral. Needing Iran to replenish Soviet supplies, Reza Khan’s reign ended, and as a compromise to maintain his still nascent Pahlavi dynasty, he stepped down to let his son Mohammad Reza become Shah. If that’s not a combination of Taarof and Ohgdeh at play, I don’t know what is.

Russian-Iran Relations

As Russia morphed from an imperial kingdom to an autocratic communist state, its influence over Iran remained somewhat constant: a combination of geographic and commercial interests. The British empire’s interest in Iran was less geographic than economic. Yes, losing India was a blow to the commonwealth’s supremacy and reach, but Iran’s main value to the UK was commercial.

British-Iranian Relations

Iran has had political relations with England since the late Ilkhanate period in the 13th century when King Edward I of England sent Geoffrey of Langley to the Ilkhanid court to seek an alliance. But this was all child’s play relative to how Iran helped fueled the British economy via cheap oil in the 20th century.

In 1901, William Knox D’Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffar al-Din Shah of the Qajar dynasty. D’Arcy negotiated rights to prospect for oil in Iran. In 1909, British Petroleum (BP) was set up as a subsidiary of the Burmah company (eventually merged with Castrol) that had originally secured these rights. Eventually in 1923, Winston Churchill (then a mere consultant) lobbied the British government to allow the Anglo Persian Oil Company (APOC) to have exclusive rights to Persian oil resources. The earliest deal was largely beneficial to the UK, which at first Iranians needed to develop the industry, but over time the unequal revenue distribution angered Iranians, which led to the drive to nationalize the oil industry. In 1951, APOC was rebranded as the National Iranian Oil Company. By 1954, the Anglo Iranian Oil Company effectively became British Petroleum, and the Shah’s return did not mean that BP could continue to monopolize Iranian oil as before.

World War II Created a New Superpower, America

Under pressure from the US – and perhaps in exchange for the US’ support in Operation Ajax, or Boot, as the Brits called it – BP reluctantly accepted membership in a consortium of companies, founded in October 1954, to bring back Iranian oil to the international market.

Oftentimes, politics drive economic policy (eg. the Russian Revolution). Other times, economic matters determine what happens politically. 

One of the more popular myths in 20th century Iranian history is that Time magazine’s Person of the Year in 1953, 30th prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh was “democratically elected?” To read more myths and an FAQ on Iran, read this. The son of a Qajari princess, Mossadegh was never “elected” by the people. He was appointed by the 16th Majlis (parliament) and rose to become prime minister. 

How Culture Affects Economy & Politics

Iranian society has its share of “foozooli” (curiosity at best, nosiness at worse) which often focuses on “who earns how much doing what and paid by whom” essentially. Cyrus the Great was the wealthiest person of his era (so was Alexander. When the prevalent form of government was monarchy (usually absolute ones), most of the earliest wealthiest individuals were kings. As monarchies made way for republics & industrial and technological revolutions reinvented business & commerce, business founders and owners took that mantle.

Who ran Ancient Persia or Iran was always a lucrative endeavour, though nationalism fueled it. It’s not a gig for just anyone, no reason lesser being that Iran is the world’s oldest nation but also one that counts 31 ethnicities. It was feudal until the 20th century, but since has discovered oil and natural gas, after having inventing some of the most incredible inventions in the previous millennia.

The avoid a partisan conversation about monarchies or the Shah, I use a business analogy, with Iran being a corporation and the Shah effectively being the nation’s CEO. To understand Iran as a business, read Iran Inc., d/b/a the Islamic Republic of Iran.

As the Qajar dynasty’s rule had ended in 1925, it would not have been inconceivable that Mossadegh viewed the younger Shah as an easy target to topple. One’s oghdeh is sometimes benchmarked to those around us, all of them, every single cohort/peer group and person you can imagine.

It’s not mere “oghdeh” for a nation’s human resources (its people) to seek to benefit from its own natural resources (in this case, oil). Richard Parsons, the former chairman of Citigroup and Time Warner would encourage businesspeople to “leave something for the other side” in negotiations, to avoid both resentment and ensure parties would want to work together in the future.

Were it not for Western imperialism and greed, the British could have signed a more airtight win-win deal. But by recognizing Iran’s desperate need for investment and Western expertise, it made it own bed and foreshadowed what ensued a mid-century later. 

Capitalizing on the people’s desire to nationalize the oil industry, Mossadegh sought to grow his power. While the 1906 constitutional monarchy sought to reduce the power of the Qajari Shahs, it also provided levers for ministers to ride populist themes to grow their own power – to a certain point. That same constitution gave the Majlis and the Shah to curtail ministers who went rogue. Thus, Mossadegh was dismissed, and subsequently put under house arrest. He became a mythical hero to many as he was popular and respected by many in the country.

UK to US: SOS

The British were undoubtedly distraught about the drive to nationalize the oil industry, concerned about the potential loss of oil revenue. Operation Ajax was orchestrated by the British (called Project Boot by the UK) and aided by Americans; but Mossadegh’s attempt to dissolve the parliament to strengthen his power angered Iranians and also led to his downfall. 

To suggest that “only” Iranians deposed him, or his downfall was “only” a result of UK and US intervention during Operation Ajax is dishonest. As with many political developments, a confluence of factors led to his dismissal (similar to what led to the Shah’s downfall), which undoubtedly planted seeds of distrust amongst Iranians who viewed the meddling of Iran’s internal affairs as an encroachment of its sovereignty.

Checks and Balances

The head of state or head of an organization needs to take into account previous agreements and relationships (which reflect ego, pride, and everyone’s oghdeh) before making decisions. Thus, while ministers could cry foul and want immediate change, the leader has to be more pragmatic and realistic – and Taarof, certainly, came into play with the way a still-young Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had to navigate the field. Using Warren Bennis’ leadership framework: unlike his father Reza who became Shah at 47 (born in 1878, becoming king in 1925), Mohammad Reza was “made” into a leader, ascending to the throne at the age of 21, one month short of his 22nd birthday.

Even the Shah recognized that the earliest oil agreements – signed by the Qajars, but maintained by his father – with the British were unfair to Iranians, but as any “CEO” he had to update the original agreements while recognizing the terms and conditions therein, whereas politicians like Mossadegh could ride populist sentiments and seek to “tear up” old agreements to establish something new, better and more equitable. 

Ultimately, taarof be damned, Iran’s oghdeh prevailed, and it nationalized the oil industry which angered the British who lost lucrative sources of revenue and a needed resource for their own industrial and consumer needs.

The USA Takes the Baton from the UK

Inasmuch as Russian influence on Iran lessened as England’s rose, over time – accelerated by World War II – America’s influence rose at the expense of the UK’s, setting up Iran a battlefront pitting America vs the Soviet Union. The US and USSR both helped Iran develop. For example, I was born in a Russian-built hospital – my parents joking that I was swapped at birth and possibly Russian. Our humour is what it is. 

In any case, the Brits went from “owning” Iran’s Big Oil to the US emerging as the growing power. Indeed, the new Iranian Oil Participants (IOP) included 

  • UK’s British Petroleum (40%), 
  • The USA’s Gulf (later Chevron, 8%), 
  • Netherlands’ Royal Dutch Shell (14%), and 
  • France’s Compagnie Française des Pétroles (later Total, 6%). 
  • The USA’s four Aramco partners (32%) each holding an 8% stake in the holding company, namely:
    – Standard Oil of California (SoCal, later Chevron) 
    – Standard Oil of New Jersey (later Exxon, then ExxonMobil) 
    – Standard Oil Co. of New York (later Mobil, then ExxonMobil) 
    – Texaco (later Chevron) 

Overnight, America was an equal partner alongside the British in Iran’s Big Oil industry with a 40% interest each, but politically, America was in the driver’s seat. 

How Iranians View America vs British & Russians

The 1953 coup made America “the Great Satan;.” Iran’s dubious 1979 embassy attack and hostage taking made Iran evil to America. Losing Western support after 1980, Iran was weak, so Western powers egged Saddam to invade Iran, who relied on its population, size, outstanding US weapons to fend off Iraq – over 1M died. Using chemical weapons against both Iranians and Iraqis, Iranians never forgot this transgression and its enablers.

Yet another paradox of Iranian history is that today the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran holds the greatest animosity towards America as the Great Satan, even though objectively, the USA’s influence was less nefarious and sinister than Russia’s or the UK’s. The Russians not only wanted to dominate economically, but geographically (the way it did over its republics). The Qajars exacerbated matters by giving up Georgia, Azerbaijan etc. from Persian territory.

The UK made their bed by enforcing lopsided deals, which would invariably result in disagreements. The US – whose foreign policy I criticize as a hobby but whose culture and principles I generally hold in the highest of regards – were definitely pulled into Iran due to WWII weakening the British empire and to some extent, enabled by the Shah to help him retake power (in 1953, he and his wife left for Italy, but returned after a few days).

As we enumerate paradoxes, it should be stated that while Iran was a constitutional monarchy, it was one in name by the second half of the century. The Shah, who began his career as a mere figurehead and was harshly scrutinized by local powers and super-powers, “emerged as an absolute monarch” (according to the online Iranica encyclopedia created in the 1970s during the Shah’r rule), determined to proceed in his development plans to modernize – and effectively westernize – the nation. It’s hard to blame him, given the foreign meddling and the internal risk posed by marxists and clerics. For more on this, read Iran’s 20th century and the FAQ on Myths.

Emergence of Israel in Iranian Policy

By losing Iran under its sphere of influence, the US needed a new ally, and that led to the emergence of Israel becoming the new, regional beachhead for US foreign policy. Iran and Israel were allies before. Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion coined the “periphery concept” – in the absence of relations with its neighbors, Israel should seek the friendship of “the neighbors of the neighbors,” and Iran being non-Arab was a natural potential friend. While today Iran calls Israel the “little Satan,” Iran itself helped Israel by being the second Muslim nation to recognize the Jewish State back in the 1950s, supplying it with weapons and oils during Israel’s many wars with Arab states. In turn, Israel helped Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (though in theory, Israel also helped Iraq). Iran’s incredible attack on the H-3 airfield in Western Iraq at the onset of the Iran-Iraq war was assisted by satellite intelligence provided by Israel.

There are countless criticisms of the Islamic Republic – especially around a lack of freedoms and liberties, particularly its harsh treatment of women – but one has to be historically deficient and intellectually dishonest not to recognize why the oldest nation in the world – predating even Egypt and dating back to 3200 BC – would not want to continue being “oppressed by Western, imperialist powers.”

Critics of the Islamic Republic of Iran and members of the opposition groups call these “regime talking points,” but they are also factually correct to understand the IRGC’s and the ruling Mullahs arithmetic.

An Occupation by Any Other Name?

Of course, therein lies another paradox: many in Iran – who are an Indo-European people – have grown increasingly disgruntled by the Arab-influenced, Muslim Shia brand of theocracy that has taken over Iranian culture, society, and economy since the revolution. You saw Iranians take to the streets this year to celebrate traditional Persian and Zoroastrian influenced traditions like Chaharshanbe-Suri and Nowruz to repudiate the regime’s efforts to silence such traditions.

By not wanting to find itself as a sitting duck, Iran has taken a proactive approach to develop proxies and a sphere of influence in Lebanon, Palestine, Syria and elsewhere to expand its Shia worldview – exacerbating Iranians’ frustration domestically and amongst the diaspora. A very large part of the criticism of the ruling regime’s policies are rooted in foreign and economic policy: that the IR now uses its oil and gas revenues to fund proxies around the world.

The irony isn’t lost that despite the bravado and independent chest beating, after having “successfully” kicked out the British and Americans, Iran finds itself once again under Russia’s (and China’s) influence.

Iran, land of Aryans, and of Paradoxes.