A look at how psychology, sociology & economics affect geo-poltitics: the envy and greed of others created wrath, which led to the downfall of dynasties and foreigners in the history of Iran.

When you meet Iranians & hear “I’m Persian,” it’s a repudiation of what’s happened since 1979, and a reflection of Iran’s rich history. Iran, the land of the 31 Aryan ethnicities that make up the country, is the oldest nation in the world, predating even Egypt and dating back to 3200 BC. Under the leadership of Cyrus the Great – or Kourosh-e-Bozorg – Iran created the first great world empire, invented and innovated aplenty, and, until very recently, had not attacked or invaded any country going back 1,000+ years. That all changed recently when the regime in Iran launched hundreds of missiles and drones from Iranian soil onto Israel, as a response to Israel’s 4/1 strike on Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) personnel in Damascus on a building adjacent to the Iranian embassy which the Islamic Republic of Iran viewed as part of its diplomatic presence on the Syrian capital. Since then, tensions between the regional and philosophical rivals escalated, dramatically.

Persians and Jews Have a Long History

Iranians ruled an empire that included modern-day Israel; when Cyrus the Great freed the Jews, it warranted him a mention in the Jewish people’s holy book – the only gentile to deserve such reverence. Today, the relationship between the governments ruling these two old civilizations could not be more different.

How we got here has a lot to do with

the paradoxes of Iranian history and geo-politics,
how leaders managed to ward off the urges – greed, pride, envy, sloth etc. (the so-called seven sins and virtues used to ward them off) – that crumbled empires and leaders over time,
unique psychological and sociological aspects of Iranian culture and society, such as Taarof (extreme etiquette) and Oghdeh (psychological complex rooted in insecurities and fueled by pride and envy) that have compounded over generations and centuries, amplified by foreign invaders and occupiers.
Humans are driven by insecurities, which lead to – in Farsi – oghdeh, complexes that are part nature, part nurture. But our sociological framework remains Taarof, not merely extreme etiquette but as coined by others “giving up the upper hand, or self lowering.”
Taarof effectively covers the Virtues, Oghdeh is the outcome of sins – if we were to run with the analogy.

The Land of Paradoxes

It may be tragically ironic and fitting that the nation that once ruled the world was then subsequently invaded by neighbors and far-flung powers after Darius III lost not once, but thrice, to the Macedonian commander Alexander the Great. After ascending to the throne at 20 after his father Philip’s death, Alexander consolidated power in the Greek city-states before seeking to avenge Xerxes I’s burning of Athens in 480 BC – a convenient excuse for the ambitious son to ask for himself another Kingdom, for that which Philip left was too small for him, and that meant aiming for the biggest empire there was: the Persian empire. By 26, he had defeated the Persians, a loss which the Iranians frankly never recovered from, exacerbated by subsequent invasions and occupations. Xerxes I had demonstrated no temperance when burning down Athens, and Alexander would go to unleash his wrath by ruining Persepolis, the spiritual capital of the Persian empire.

The Influence of Foreign Global Powers

While the first invaders of Iran were geographically close – Greeks, Romans (partly), Arabs, Mongols, Turks and then Russia – eventually later ones were from far-flung corners of the world – namely the British and American empires. 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. Throughout, Iranians’ pride helped them retain its culture, and language, Farsi.

Iran’s appeal was multi-pronged, but ultimately rooted in greed and as the first world empire, the envy of others to conquer. Iran didn’t only represent vast riches – gold during Alexander’s time and more recently, oil – but its geographic center in the middle of the old world made it a critical junction of trade, commerce, and transportation.

How Iranians reacted in the past gives a glimpse into the future of Iran. Today, we’ll examine how the ruling Mullahs are effectively repeating the same traits that led to the downfall of previous rulers.

Indeed, there have been so many various invasions throughout history – from Alexander the Great to Islam to Mongol invasion – that it is hard to suggest a golden rule. But the pattern and trends are clear, according to one historian and anthropologist I spoke to: the Iranian response to invaders or foreign influence has ranged from active resistance and revolt to periods of acceptance and assimilation, often followed by a resurgence of nationalistic or local cultural identity. The general pattern shows a robust cultural resilience, with Persia/Iran often absorbing elements of the invaders’ culture and then reasserting a distinct Persian identity.

The role of culture, social sciences in understanding Iran today

Another paradox is Iran’s relationship with Israel. Aside from Cyrus freeing the Jews, more recently Iran was the second Muslim nation to recognize Israel in 1953, supplying the Jewish State with weapons during its many wars with Arab nations.

During the Iran-Iraq war, Israel was the only country to sell military parts and weaponry to the Islamic Republic which had been sanctioned after its 1979 revolution (to be fair, Israel was also supplying Iraq, because why not?). Israel also supplied Iran with critical intelligence, which helped Iran tilt the conflict in its favor early on after Iraq’s surprise ground and aerial attack left it vulnerable. That Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was cast as villain post-first Iraq war & 9/11 after the West financed his 1980 invasion of Iran & ensuing 8-year war highlights the hypocrisy in the eyes of Iranians, many of whom today despise the Mullahs & seek liberties, but who would view foreign military intervention unfavorably.

Of course, this dynamic was all under the previous regime, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s reign as the final monarch – or Shah – of Iran, who was building a secular democratic society until the marxists and clerics joined forces to sway Western powers to cease their support for the Shah in the late 1970s. The Shah, struck with cancer, left to quell down protests and avoid a civil war, but he never returned. It was his father, Reza Khan and founder of the Pahlavi dynasty, who had led Iran down a path of modernization, urbanization, secularization – all of which alarmed the clerics, who had lost land when Reza Shah ended feudalism and redistributed land to the people.

For the post-revolution regime, Israel was the “little Satan.” But as younger generations revolt against the Islamic regime, it’s not surprising to see them embrace and align themselves – as any normal teenager would – with Israel, hence the trending hashtag IraniansStandWithIsrael, which must infuriate the clerical rulers in Tehran.

Zoroastrianism Influenced Good vs Evil Thinking

Iran’s fate was forever altered in the 7th century when Arab Muslims conquered the Zoroastrian nation and converted Iranians to Islam – making room for the caliphate. In all fairness, Iran continued to thrive with further advances in the arts & sciences, but from a psychological, sociological, anthropological and cultural let alone religious perspective, the Iranian culture was effectively reset, and reconstructed in some ways around religion.

Iran was the home of Zoroastrianism – the religion that influenced all three Abrahamic religions – and rooted around good thoughts, good words & good deeds. But Islam wiped that slate clean, even though the good versus evil framework influenced the Sins & Virtues in Judeo-Christian thought.

Shia Islam Enters the Chat

In the 16th century, to differentiate from Arab Muslims, the Safavid dynasty introduced Shia Islam to both differentiate from Arabs, but also to build a wedge between itself and the predominantly Sunni Turks of the Ottoman empire – whom had ruled over Iran previously, before the Mongols showed and whom under Genghis Khan had built an empire even larger than the Persian, Greek, Roman empires. If we’re discussing the sins, Genghis Khan was notable not only for his insatiable appetite to conquer, but also his ruthlessness. The greed, lust and wrath was strong with this one:

“The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.”

If that doesn’t leave much to the imagination: the Mongols’ bow-and-arrow wielding cavalry was highly effective, and dominating. The ruling Khwārezmian dynasty in west Asia and part of Iran would be the jewel of Genghis Khan’s crown. Genghis Khan was – even by his ruthless standards – quite violent: sacking cities, murdering residents, scorched earth was the policy, using the captured as body shields.

The Iranian people bore the brunt, with both invaders and rulers showing little temperance. When Arabs converted Iranians, it was through the sword. Even when the Safavids “introduced” Shia, they did so with force, expelling and killing Sunni Iranians.

Russian-Iran Relations

Every time Iranians saw a light at the end of the tunnel, a new foe emerged. For example, until 1720, Iran and its larger neighbor to the north, Russia, were friendly. But when Peter the Great’s greed led to his imperialistic ways, he attacked Iran (and others in the Caucases). 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 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 – explaining why they are seen as an ineffective and destructive dynasty.

British-Iran Relations

Iran has had political relations with England since the late Ilkhanate period in the 13th century. 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. Eventually in 1923, consultant Winston Churchill 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.

It’s hard to truly determine if Iranians saw the Brits as “better” than the Russians, but it’s human nature to view anyone balancing or reducing the power of your occupier as a better alternative.

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.

American-Iran Relations: The New Superpower

The Shah understood he needed to update the lop-sided agreement with the UK, but ministers could ride populist sentiment to accumulate power. It’s not a coincidence that the prime minister who led the charge, Mohammad Mossadegh, was the son of a Qajari princess.

It’s impossible to look at history without understanding psychology. Imagine the setting: it’s only been a couple of decades since Reza Shah had seized power from the Qajar dynasty in 1925, he abdicates in 1941 after sixteen years, making room for his 21-year old son Mohammad Reza, in order to preserve the fledgling Pahlavi dynasty. If you are Mossadegh, given your lineage, do envy, greed, pride, gluttony and so on cross your mind? Or can you manage to heed to diligence, patience, humility and ignore those deep, dark urges? Leaders are humans, after all.

One of the more popular myths is that Mohammad Mossadegh was “democratically elected?” To read more myths and an FAQ on Iran, read this.

History somewhat repeated itself in 1953 when these populist trends posed a risk considerable enough to the Shah’s reign that he left for a few days in Italy, before the UK sought the help of the USA in Operation Ajax (or Boot in the UK) to diffuse Mossadegh’s power grab. Under pressure from the US – and perhaps in exchange for the US’ support in the Operation – the parties (some reluctantly) demonstrated humility and charity (the virtue opposite of the sin of greed) compromised, bringing back Iranian oil to the international market, but divvying up the proceeds – the deal would be somewhat fairer to Iranians, but more notably, US interests (Standard Oil, Chevron) would have an equal share to British Petroleum (BP).

In other words, by not managing their greed earlier, and better, the UK made their bed by enforcing lopsided deals, which invariably resulted in disagreements and resentment.

In other words, while Russia’s interest was highly imperialistic (envy, pride) and Britain was rather economic (greed, gluttony), America entered the picture at the behest of the fear (effectively what tempers all sins) that its war time ally Britain, perhaps explaining the kindness the Iranian people demonstrate to America, even though the current regime paradoxically calls America as the Great Satan, ironic, since objectively, the USA’s influence was less nefarious and sinister than Russia’s or the UK’s.

While Iran was a constitutional monarchy since the 1906 revolution, The Shah had according to the online Iranica encyclopedia (created in the 1970s during the Shah’s rule) “emerged as an absolute monarch” to fend off the internal risk posed by marxists and clerics (against the foreign meddling of imperial powers). His CIA-trained secret police SAVAK could have certainly demonstrated less wrath, more temperance and kindness in dealing with these risks, but in the end, the Shah was doomed due to his evolution from an influenceable young king to a confident Shah who was leading one of the fastest growing economies in the world and building the fifth largest military in the world, largely supplied by America’s military–industrial complex, who was happy to count Iran as its main regional ally. While the US and UK only detected the popular sentiment of change when it was too late, Israel’s Mossad and other intelligence services had warned that something was brewing in Iran.

Iranians, of course, didn’t care about “why” America intervened to assist the UK in deposing Mossadegh, they understandably viewed 1953’s Operation Ajax as an encroachment on Iranian sovereignty. When after the 1979 revolution Iranian students stormed the US embassy and held diplomats hostage for a year, America’s friendship with Iran was naturally irreparably harmed, as it did not care about the “why?”

By leaving Iran, it created a vacuum that – after a bruising 8-year war with Iraq and sanctions by the West – eventually Russia and China filled. Today, China buys Iranian oil; Russia buys weapons, as well.

China-Iran Relations

America’s loss, of course, has become China’s gain. In 2020, China and Iran signed a 25-year agreement whereby China agreed to invest $300-400 billion in the Iranian energy sector in exchange for discounted oil – much to the chagrin of outsiders who disagree with the bargain Iran gave China.

Envy, Greed Leads to Wrath

The leader of Iran has always been a well-remunerated person: as the King of Kings, Cyrus the Great’s wealth in the 6th century BC has been estimated to represent $350 billion in current terms. Alexander the Great came along two centuries later in the 4th century BC and built a net worth of $500 billion, while Genghis Khan’s dominance of the world in the 12th century provided him with an astronomical fortune of $100 trillion (yes, trillion) in modern terms. You can take these inflation adjusted lists with a grain of salt, but they show how rules of emerging empires would become wealthy through imperialism and conquest.

While rulers were not primarily driven by so-called “greed,” they were invariably fueled by power (and thus to some extent envy), and all of the corresponding sins that come with these desires and wants.

Humans have limited needs but infinite wants – and no one captured this better than Genghis Khan who died with no real possessions or shiny objects, despite his immense wealth. Before him, when Alexander the Great died, his three ultimate wishes included

– The best doctors should carry his coffin;
– The wealth he has accumulated (money, gold, precious stones etc.) should be scattered along the procession to the cemetery; and
– His hands should be let loose, hanging outside the coffin for all to see!

In other words, two of the greatest (and coincidentally, wealthiest) leaders ever realized that you come into this world empty-handed and leave it empty-handed, and don’t take any of your material possessions with you.

In the 20th century, when the Shah built Iran into the fifth largest army and one of the fastest growing economy, his alleged fortune became a source of criticism amongst his denigrators. It’s not about the form of government, the current Supreme Leader of the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran, has been reported to have built a portfolio of assets valued at $85 billion.

Humans Don’t Learn & Repeat Their Mistakes

Human beings don’t learn from history, we tend to repeat many of our behaviors, which is why cognitive behavior psychologists are in high demands. Today, many Iranians consider the latest occupiers to be the Arab Muslims who invaded Iran, converted the Zoroastrians to Islam by force, and have more recently used the country’s balance sheet to underwrite proxies in Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Yemen, to create a so-called axis of resistance to counter American presence in the region.

Inasmuch as Iranians may have viewed the Brits better than the Russians, and the Americans better than the British, I think today Iranians who oppose the regime seem like a lost puppy looking for a home. America is, especially after two costly and futile wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, tired of the mideast. It understands it needs to defend its ally Israel if things escalate, but otherwise, it will happily divest from the region slowly but surely. The British have their own issues and challenges post Brexit and in light of the rise of Islamism. To them, Iran is ancient history. Russia and China will stay engaged, especially if the respective regimes stay put.

Israel

One nation whose history and current affairs (especially post tit-for-tat military strikes) is intertwined with Iran is Israel. Israel’s economy has been challenged by the conflict in Gaza, where many in the workforce have been called for duty in the IDF. But at a high level, America’s special relationship with Israel and the Jewish community in America have built commercial ties with the Jewish state.

Working in media and tech, I have seen first hand how most venture capital firms in the US have strong presences in Israel. Many technology firms have bloomed out of the desert.

When Martin Sorrell, the dean of the advertising industry, says that Iran remains the last untapped ad market, it’s a reflection of advertising’s saturation elsewhere, but also that as a nation under sanctions with a population of 90 million and median age of 31, Iran is a goldmine.

Iranian Coup D’Etat?

With 5-20% voting in the most recent elections, and more and more videos of citizens chanting against the regime, it is clear that Iranians do not feel like the 1979 revolution delivered them the kind of change they sought.

Historically, you cannot suppress people infinitely, and with reforms proving underwhelming, there’s a growing revolutionary sentiment. But without a second amendment, it’s hard to envision how regime change actually happens.

Naturally, with the Supreme Leader aging and in failing health, eventually he and the regime will have to find a successor. Invariably this will lead to a bit of internal struggle amongst the clerics, some of whom may not support the idea of Khamenei’s son Mojtaba defaulting as his successor. Meanwhile, the IRGC may seize the opportunity to tilt the power structure in its favor. We’ve seen throughout history multiple military coup d’etats; while Africa seems to be the world champions, the current Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman rose to power in a 2017 coup. As Bahrain, UAE joined Egypt & Jordan in detente with Israel, Hamas’ act was to blow up the possibility of Saudi Arabia following suit.

Thus, Iran is not immune from this possibility, either. Mind you, for Iranians, to replace the clerics with the IRGC is not the kind of change they’re seeking. I wonder if Iranians would accept a military leadership that continues to fund proxies but shifts to a more secular society. Of course monarchists in the diaspora would not, but they don’t live inside the country. I’ve always said that technology and demographics will lead the change in Iran, but I acknowledge that Iranians want more change, faster.

While Russia and China won’t go anywhere, it’s doubtful that America invests in Iran the way it did. The one country who will be eager to fill the void is Israel.

Since Israel’s creation in 1948, 134,000 Iranians relocated to the Jewish state. An additional 15,000 flocked to Israel after the 1979 Islamic revolution, especially when Jewish businessman Habib Elghanian’s arrest and execution (to be fair, he was first arrested by the Shah in 1975, but released, and subsequently arrested post-revolution and charged on a myriad of dubious claims). Moshe Katsav – Former President and Shaul Mofaz – Former IDF Chief of Staff and Israeli Minister of Transport are but two of Israelis of Iranian descent.

Throughout Iran’s history, those who sought to invade and influence tapped into discontent and those willing to work with foreigners to destabilize whomever was ruling at the time.

In the battle of Qadisiyah, the commander of the Iranian army, Rostam Farokhzad, described his “enemies” not as foreigners, but the Iranians who followed outsiders. While the only thing that Iranians seem to agree on is territorial integrity, it’s telling that Israeli media has been beating the drums and calling for those seeking regime change to empower and arm the various non-Persian ethnic groups, namely the Kurds and Baluch.

Will History Repeat Itself?

When said and done, the crackdown on Iranians by the regime will only fuel further resentment and animosity. Given the trauma that the UK and US have from their experience in Iran, it’s doubtful they rush back in. Russia and China are not going anywhere. Israeli politicians and businesspeople will not hesitate one second to tap into Iran’s consumer base, especially given the spectre of boycotts from other parts of the mideast. The mullahs are seen as clever and calculating, but if they were students of history, they would be well served to avoid creating (arguably, they already have) an environment that hands Iran – and its vast riches – to the state they hate so much.

History doesn’t always repeat itself, but it does rhyme.