4/01/2010

Turkish and Iranian reform were very similar. Iran seemed to be getting ideas from Turkey as to how to go about reforming it. Mustafa Kamal was an authoritarian ruler, and got alot of things done; Iran admired Kamal. Cleveland attempts to explain what was going on very well. He doesn't dive as deeply into Iran as Turkey though; I think that could be because Turkey transformed more rapidly, and modernized better than Iran. However I am not saying that great things did not happen to Iran. The Qajar dynasty was replaced with the Pahlavi dynasty, and Reza Shah. I think it is more easy to say that Kamal had more control over Turkey than Iran because Iran had been under colonial rule. All of the things going on in Iran had been orchestrated by the British. However like in Egypt, british takeover ruined the economy, and things were done to the benefit of Great Britain. Iran was a pawn on the great chessbord of colonies which England sought to maintain. England was definitely interested in the abundance of oil prevalent in Iran, and policy was definitely surrounded in that bubbling crude also known as black gold. Turkey did not have any colonial overlords to be bossed around by, but it did fall under the influence of Britain in many instances, and shook its head yes to many things the British deemed fit for them to do.