Today in Middle Eastern history: Iran becomes "Iran" (1935)
Iranian ruler Reza Shah Pahlavi brings the rest of the world in line with Iranian tradition.
If you’re interested in history and foreign affairs, Foreign Exchanges is the newsletter for you! Sign up for free today for regular updates on international news and US foreign policy, delivered straight to your email inbox, or subscribe and unlock the full FX experience:
I know that title seems too cutesy and I apologize for that. It is both a historical oddity and a signifier of our general Orientalist indifference toward the peoples of the Middle East that the nation (kingdom, empire, whatever it was at any particular point in history) of Iran was never officially called “Iran” by anybody other than Iranians until 1935. Iranians, on the other hand, had been calling it “Iran” for millennia.
It fell to Reza Shah Pahlavi (d. 1944) to point out to the rest of the world that they were getting Iran’s name wrong, which he did in December 1934. He made a public request/demand that, as of the next Iranian New Year (Nowruz), all foreign governments should henceforth stop referring to his country by the name “Persia” and start calling it “Iran.” Often you’ll see Western writers describe this as something like “Reza Shah changed the name of the country from Persia to Iran,” but that’s simply wrong. “Persia” was an exonym, bestowed upon the nation by outsiders.
With all due respect to Herodotus or whichever Greek writer convinced the rest of the world that the land between Mesopotamia and the Indus River was properly called “Persia,” this was usually not how the people who lived there described it. You can go back to inscriptions from the second century CE that refer to the place as “Iran,” and that word or its variants (Iranshahr, Iran-zamin) go back far earlier than that. The ethnic identifier “Aryan,” the root of “Iran,” can be found in use as far back as the Achaemenid period (500s BCE) and in the Zoroastrian scripture, the Avesta, which reflects a tradition that goes back earlier than that (though the earliest extant complete copy of the Avesta dates to the 14th century).
The use of “Persia” to denote the same region could be characterized as a historical error. Cyrus the Great (d. 530 BCE), who founded the Achaemenid dynasty, started out as the king of Parsa, the region of southern Iran that is today called Fars, the “p” sound having been swapped out for an “f” sound when the Arabs conquered it because Arabic has no “p” sounding letter. Greek writers, demonstrating that a little knowledge really can be a dangerous thing, applied the word Parsa to the entirety of Cyrus’s domains, even though the actual Parsa only really referred to one part of his vast empire.
After the Arab conquests, the whole idea of referring to historical Iran by a single name became defunct, as the former “Persian” Empire was broken up into several provinces: Fars, for example; Iraq al-Ajam (“foreign Iraq”), the region in central-western Iran next door to Mesopotamia (if you’re wondering, Mesopotamia was called “Arab Iraq” or Iraq al-Arab); Sistan, in southeastern Iran; Khurasan, in northeastern Iran (including most of modern Afghanistan); Mazandaran, on the southern Caspian shore; and so on. Once the caliphate fell in 1258 and really independent kingdoms arose once again in Iran, the concept of “Iran” as a political and geographic unit became relevant once more. The rise of the Safavid dynasty in 1501 really marks the return of “Iran” to the world in the form we know it today—although the Safavids, during their heyday, ruled a territory that was considerably larger than the modern nation of Iran.
Why did Reza Shah ask the international community to start calling Iran by its proper name? Yes it was more accurate, but he also had geopolitical reasons for doing so, and unfortunately they involve the Nazis.
It would be wrong to describe Reza Shah as “pro-Nazi,” because of course that carries all kinds of connotations in terms of ideology and racial identity. You need evidence to support a charge like that and in Reza Shah’s case it’s lacking. The Jewish community in Iran, though not large, was not ill-treated under the Pahlavis, so on that point alone I think we can say Reza Shah was not sympathetic to Nazism. He was, however, pro-German. Or at least he was, by the mid-1930s, increasingly anti-British, and for a Middle Eastern head of state looking for a European patron in the 1930s, being “anti-British” probably meant that you were “pro-German.” As “Aryan” fever gripped Germany, the Nazis convinced the shah to emphasize the name “Iran.” This was supposed to affirm some sort of historical bond between the Germans and the Iranians, and give historical depth to the Nazis’ idea of a pure “Aryan” race. In return for bestowing some legitimacy upon Nazi race science, Reza got closer ties with the enemy of his enemy.
Reza may also have wanted to emphasize Iran’s roots as a display of domestic legitimacy, highlighting the fact that he was really the first “Iranian” ruler of “Iran” since the Arab conquests all the way back in the seventh century. The Safavids, who get credit for restoring “Iran” as a unique and whole political entity after it had disappeared with the fall of the Sasanian Dynasty, were of mixed ancestry but primarily Kurdish. Kurds are an Iranic people but they’re not Iranian per se, and anyway the Safavids’ authority rested heavily on the strength of their devoted Qizilbash cavalry, which was primarily Turkic. When the Safavids fell, it was those Turkic Qizilbash tribes that took over—first the Afsharid Dynasty of Nader Shah and then the Qajar dynasty, which ruled Iran from the late 18th century until Reza Shah’s ascent to the throne. Maybe Reza was trying to aggrandize himself by assuming the mantle of a truly “Iranian” ruler.
If you look hard enough, even today you can find arguments about whether the country should properly be called “Persia” or “Iran.” My sense is that Iranian (or Persian, I guess) folks who use “Persia” do so as a way to hearken back to the ancient empires as opposed to the image of the modern Islamic Republic. This phenomenon also gives rise to some of the silliest of the generally silly mainstream American media takes on Iran, like this thing from The Daily Beast called “Are We Negotiating with Iran or Persia?” One of those is supposed to be bad, I guess, but I haven’t actually read the piece and I am completely unable to make myself care what the point is, assuming there is one. For me I’m on the “Iran” side of this argument, and I think generally speaking that’s where the historical record lies as well.
"Mwaka 1935: Iran inakuwa ""Iran"" na mtawala wa Iran Reza Shah Pahlavi alileta ulimwengu wote kwa kufuata utamaduni wa Iran." Kama wewe ni nia ya historia na mambo ya nje, Foreign Exchanges ni jarida kwa ajili yenu! Jisajili leo kwa bure kwa updates mara kwa mara juu ya habari za kimataifa na sera ya kigeni ya Marekani, alitoa moja kwa moja kwa barua pepe yako inbox, au kujiandikisha na kufungua uzoefu kamili FX: Najua kwamba kichwa inaonekana cute sana na mimi kuomba msamaha kwa hilo. "Hiyo ni ""kitu cha kihistoria cha ajabu na kiashiria cha kutojali kwa ujumla kwa watu wa Mashariki ya Kati"" kwamba taifa (ufalme, milki, chochote kilikuwa katika hatua yoyote maalum ya historia) ya Iran haikuitwa rasmi ""Iran"" na mtu yeyote isipokuwa Wairani hadi 1935." Kwa upande mwingine, Wairani walikuwa wakiliita "Iran" kwa maelfu ya miaka. "Reza Shah Pahlavi (kufa 1944) aliwahi kueleza kuwa Iran ilikuwa ""na jina la makosa"" na kwamba ilikuwa ni ""kushindwa kwa jina la Iran.""" "Alichagua mwaka wa pili wa mwaka mpya wa Iran, ""Nauruz,"" na kuamua kuifanya Iran kuwa nchi ya kwanza ya Kiarabu, na baadaye kuifanya Iran kuwa nchi ya kwanza ya Kiarabu, na baadaye kuifanya Iran kuwa nchi ya kwanza ya Kiarabu." <unk>Uajemi<unk> ilikuwa jina la kigeni, lililopewa taifa hilo na watu wa nje. "Hata hivyo, Herodoto na wengineo waliosema kwamba ""nchi iliyo kati ya Mesopotamia na Mto Indus inaitwa Uajemi"" (Hesabu 1:8) ni watu wachache sana waliosema hivyo." "Hata hivyo, kuna maandishi ya karne ya pili ya K.K. ambayo yanaelezea eneo hilo kama ""Iran,"" na neno hilo au matoleo yake (Iranshahr, Iran-zamin) yanaanzia karne ya pili ya K.K." "Jina la kabila la Kiarabu ""Aryan"" linapatikana katika maandishi ya Zoroastrian, Avesta, ambayo inaonyesha utamaduni unaorudi nyuma kuliko hiyo (ingawa nakala ya kwanza ya Avesta iliyopo ni ya karne ya 14)." Matumizi ya <unk>Persia<unk> kuashiria mkoa huo huo inaweza kuwa sifa kama kosa la kihistoria. Cyrus Mkuu (kufa 530 KK) alikuwa mfalme wa Persia, eneo la kusini mwa Iran ambalo leo linaitwa Fars, na sauti ya <unk>p<unk> ilibadilishwa na sauti ya <unk>f<unk> wakati Waarabu walipoishinda kwa sababu Kiarabu hakikuwa na herufi ya <unk>p<unk>. "Wanafunzi wa Kigiriki walipoanza kuandika kuhusu utawala wa Koreshi, walitumia neno ""Parsa"" kurejelea milki yote ya Koreshi, ingawa neno hilo lilitumiwa kurejelea sehemu moja tu ya milki yake." Baada ya ushindi wa Kiarabu, wazo lote la kutaja Iran ya kihistoria kwa jina moja lilitoweka, kwani Milki ya zamani ya Uajemi iligawanywa katika mikoa kadhaa: Fars, kwa mfano; Iraq al-Ajam (Uajemi wa kigeni), mkoa wa katikati ya magharibi mwa Iran karibu na Mesopotamia (ikiwa unajiuliza, Mesopotamia iliitwa Iraq al-Arab); Sistan, kusini mashariki mwa Iran; Khurasan, kaskazini mashariki mwa Iran (ikiwa ni pamoja na Afghanistan ya kisasa); Mazandaran, pwani ya kusini ya Caspian; na kadhalika. Baada ya kuanguka kwa ufalme wa Iran mwaka 1258, na ufalme wa Kiislamu kuanzishwa tena, dhana ya Iran kama jumuiya ya kisiasa na kijiografia ikawa muhimu tena. Kuibuka kwa nasaba ya Safavid mnamo 1501 kwa kweli huashiria kurudi kwa "Iran" kwa ulimwengu katika fomu tunayoijua leo, ingawa Safavids, wakati wa upeo wao, walitawala eneo ambalo lilikuwa kubwa sana kuliko taifa la kisasa la Iran. "Kwa nini Reza Shah aliomba jamii ya kimataifa kuanza ""kuita Iran kwa jina lake sahihi""?" "Hata hivyo, ni muhimu sana kwa sababu ya ""sababu za kijiografia"" ambazo zinahusisha Nazi." Ingekuwa makosa kumfafanua Reza Shah kama "mwenye kupendelea Nazi", kwa sababu bila shaka hiyo hubeba aina zote za maana katika suala la itikadi na utambulisho wa kikabila. Unahitaji ushahidi ili kuunga mkono mashtaka kama hayo na katika kesi ya Reza Shah inakosa. "Jumuiya ya Wayahudi nchini Iran, ingawa haikuwa kubwa, haikuhukumiwa vibaya chini ya utawala wa Pahlavi, kwa hivyo kwa suala hilo pekee nafikiri tunaweza kusema kwamba Reza Shah hakuwa na hisia-mwenzi kwa Nazi.""" Hata hivyo, alikuwa msaidizi wa Ujerumani. "Kwa hivyo, wakati wa miaka ya 1930 na 1930 wakati wa utawala wa Hitler, ""anti-Ujerumani"" ilionekana kuwa ni neno la kihistoria kwa sababu ya kuunganisha na ""Ujerumani"" na ""Ujerumani"" na ""Ujerumani"" na ""Ujerumani"" na ""Ujerumani"" na ""Ujerumani"" na ""Ujerumani"" na ""Ujerumani"" na ""Ujerumani"" na ""Ujerumani"" na ""Ujerumani"" na ""Ujerumani"" na ""Ujerumani"" na ""Ujerumani"" na ""Ujerumani"" na ""Ujerumani"" na ""Ujerumani"" na ""Ujerumani.""" Kwa kubadilishana kwa kutoa uhalali fulani kwa sayansi ya jamii ya Nazi, Reza alipata uhusiano wa karibu zaidi na adui wa adui yake. Reza pia anaweza kuwa alitaka kusisitiza mizizi ya Iran kama onyesho la uhalali wa ndani, akisisitiza ukweli kwamba alikuwa kweli mtawala wa kwanza wa "Irani" wa "Iran" tangu ushindi wa Kiarabu nyuma katika karne ya saba. Safavids, ambao wanapata sifa kwa kurudisha <unk>Iran<unk> kama chombo cha kipekee na cha kisiasa baada ya kutoweka na kuanguka kwa nasaba ya Sasanian, walikuwa wa ukoo mchanganyiko lakini hasa Kikurdi. Wakurdi ni watu wa Iran lakini wao si Wairani kwa wenyewe, na kwa vyovyote vile mamlaka ya Safavids ilitegemea sana nguvu ya wapanda farasi wao wa kujitolea wa Qizilbash, ambao walikuwa hasa Waturuki. Wakati wa utawala wa Safavid, makabila ya Qizilbash ya Uturuki yalichukua utawala wa nasaba ya Afsharid ya Nader Shah na kisha nasaba ya Qajar, ambayo ilitawala Iran kutoka mwishoni mwa karne ya 18 hadi Reza Shah alipopanda kiti cha enzi. Labda Reza alikuwa akijaribu kujikweza kwa kuchukua vazi la mtawala wa kweli wa "Irani". "Ikiwa utaangalia kwa bidii, hata leo unaweza kupata hoja kuhusu kama nchi inapaswa kuitwa ""Persia"" au ""Iran."" hisia yangu ni kwamba watu wa Iran (au Kiajemi, nadhani) ambao hutumia ""Persia"" hufanya hivyo kama njia ya kusikiliza nyuma ya milki za kale kinyume na picha ya Jamhuri ya Kiislamu ya kisasa." "Hii ni moja ya mambo ya kushangaza sana katika vyombo vya habari vya Marekani, kama vile ""Wewe ni kujadili na Iran au Persia?"" ambayo ni muhimu sana kwa ajili ya kujadili." Kwa ajili yangu mimi ni upande wa "Iran" ya hoja hii, na nadhani kwa ujumla kuzungumza kwamba ni ambapo rekodi ya kihistoria liko pia.