1

Acacia Chacon
Instructor Amy Lewis
POLS 241 10:00 am
10/16/14
The Causes of anti-Western Rhetoric: Iran
Introduction:
Both formal and informal institutions in Irans history acted as a catalyst in Irans current antiWestern rhetoric. Culture cannot be explained without credit being given to the historical
institutions which gave rise to cultural values. Also, Iran is not acting to their benefit in rejecting
Western states as it has led to sanctions placed upon itself. Therefore, a historical analysis of the
role of both formal and informal institutions behind the cause of Irans anti-Western philosophy
is the best approach in explaining why Iran is entrenched in anti-Western rhetoric today. The
structural/political approach will make use of the historical significance that the events leading
up to and surrounding the Iranian revolution of 79 had on transforming a once westernized state
into one full of western dissent. Historical institutions, both formal and informal, in the form of:
the 53 coup, Irans conversion to an Islamist Theocracy, Shah Pahlavis exile into the United
States, and the blowback of American involvement in Iran are evidence of the historical
explanation in explaining Irans anti-Western rhetoric.(Lewis, 9/22)
Alternative Explanations:
The cultural approach to explaining western dissent in Iran would revolve around the ideas of
Islamist religion and Muslim culture clashing against Americas secular, capitalist and
consumerist culture. The cultural approach would point towards religion as a cultural value
which clashes against Americas secular culture. This approach fails in two ways which inhibits
its ability to explain the cause of western dissent in Iran. First, this approach fails to recognize
the institutions in Irans past which shifted Iran from a westernized state to one of Islamist law

2
which was done when Khomeinis reformative sharia law de-westernized Iran. Second, the
cultural approach assumes cultural cohesion. When the leftists and Islamists revolted against
constitutional monarchy they fought as allies but for separate causes which is an example of the
dissonance amongst the movement which caused the dissent in the first place.(Lewis, 9/24)
The rational/economic approach to explaining Irans anti-Western rhetoric would highlight the
individual interests and strategies held by Iranians in exercising their agency. This could be
supported by detailing the leftist secular groups alliance with the Islamist groups in revolting
against the monarchy. Both groups had their own interests and desired outcomes and exercised
their agency to overthrow the government. (Lewis, 9/26) What this approach fails to do is
explain Irans current rejection of cost/benefit analysis in regards to its refusal to improve foreign
relations with western states, specifically America. This foreign policy is not in the best interest
of Iran because it has caused U.S. sanction against the nation. (Werman, 2012)
Defense/Support:
The West has a history of supporting Islamist groups in Iran. Before the overthrow of Prime
Minister Mossadegh in 1953, Irans oil was controlled by British powers. (BBC, 2014) When
Mossadegh nationalized Irans oil industry Great Britain allied with America in a planned coup
in support of their economic best interest and justified by anti-communist red-scare rhetoric. The
Coup resulted in the installment of Shah Reza Pahlavi, who would westernize the nation. (Al
Jazeera, 2014) The planned coup was used to rally anti-Western sentiment in the later revolution
in 1979. The formal declaration of negative foreign relation between two big western states by
Iran followed by a western allied coup resulted in a point of revolt towards Western states during
the 79 revolution. This piece of evidence is indicative of historical political institutions causing
disdain in Iranian rhetoric towards western societies.

3
The transition of religion as an informal to a formal institution through the shift in power from a
constitutional monarchy to a theocracy widened the contempt for western culture in Iran. With
Khomeini as a figurehead for the revolution, the clergy were able to organize a movement which
supported Islamist law. (Lewis, 9/24) Religion was influential in rallying supporters of the
clergys role in the revolution which overthrew constitutional monarchy in Iran. Once Shah
Pahlavi was sent out of Iran and Khomeini entered Iran as the supreme leader, religion
transitioned from an informal institution to a formal institution as Sharia Law was put into effect.
This transition from a western constitutional monarchy under the control of Shah Pahlavi to an
Islamist theocracy under the control of Khomeini shifted religion from an informal institution to
a formal institution as religion was now being enforced by law. This change in political power
and religious institutions was a historical shift which deeply affected Irans acceptance of
westernization.

A third factor which influenced the widening distrust amongst the West and Iran was when Shah
Pahlavi fled Iran and eventually took sanctuary in the United States. Iranians had protested the
overthrow of Shah Pahlavi. Pahlavi had been appointed by the United States and Great Britain
after their coup in 1953. (Lewis 9/19) Iranians took this western interference offensively and
when they were protesting the overthrow of Pahlavi, the issue of Pahlavis instatement was used
as source of discontent. Shah Pahlavi turned to the United States to take refuge for cancer
treatments. Americas acceptance of Pahlavi outraged Iranians and they fought for his return in
order to sentence the Shah on their own accord. (Bruno, 2008) When the United States took the
Shah in they were implicitly making a point of supporting the overthrown ruler and his

4
monarchy which outraged Iranians who were growing resentful of Western interference in their
internal affairs.
The structural/political approach points to path dependency in its explanations. In the case of
Iranian anti-Western rhetoric, the United States faced Blowback against its interference in Iranian
affairs. When the United States overthrew Mossadegh, funded Islamist groups, and took in
Pahlavi they were tarnishing their foreign relations with Iran. (Risen, 2000) We see the effects of
this blowback in the strained relations between the two nations in the case of the Iraqi wars, and
9/11. Americas interference in Iranian affairs over the past fifty years pushed Iranians to
mistrust the nation which further increased anti-western and anti-American rhetoric throughout
Iran.
Conclusion:
Understanding the institutions and events that occurred in the past is important because it allows
for better decision making on current foreign affairs. Using the structural/political approach to
understanding the origins of modern-day Iranian anti-Western rhetoric is useful in that it states
the role that past institutions, both formal and informal, play in crafting current anti-western
dissent in Iranian culture and policy. Path dependency also helps to explain how this antiWestern rhetoric remains relevant after these past institutions and events have occurred. The
1953 coup, the political transition to an Islamist Theocracy, the Shahs exile to the United States
and the blowback from interference by the west in Irans personal affairs all led to Iranians
strong rooted anti-Western rhetoric and dissent.

Works Cited
Al Jazeera. Anatomy of a Revolution. (02/09/09)
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/general/2009/01/2009.html

Al Jazeera. Legacy of a Revolution. (02/09/09)

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/general/2009/01/2009.html
Bruno, G. (2008/07/02) Religion and Politics in Iran. Washington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/02/AR2008070201131.html
Lewis, A. Iranian Case Study. Retrieved from Lecture Notes. (09/19/2014)

Lewis, A. Comparative Methods. Retrieved from Lecture Notes. (9/01/14)

Lewis, A. Comparative Approaches. Retrieved from Lecture Notes. (09/22/14)

Risen, J. (2000/06/18) WORD FOR WORD/ABC'S OF COUPS; Oh, What a Fine Plot We
Hatched. (And Here's What to Do the Next Time). The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/18/weekinreview/word-for-word-abc-s-coups-oh-what-fineplot-we-hatched-here-s-what-next-time.html

Werman, Marco. Sanctions Against Iran Make Life Hard for Teheran Man, (and His Cats) pri.org
podcast; (2012).