While many readers may not be familiar with the inner workings of constitutional monarchies, it is important to keep in mind that a prime minister serves at the pleasure of the monarch, in whose name the prime minister forms a government. While not common, the monarch can remove the prime minister due to a loss of confidence. In the case of Iran (1953), the Shah saw Mosaddeq as a threat to the constitutional order, which, in fact, he was.

The Shah’s restoration of constitutional order in 1953 also addressed three important geostrategic issues. The first concerned the nature of Iran’s government and how its leadership would be determined. In 1951, as a member of the parliament or Majles, and subsequently as prime minister, Mosaddeq pushed for a public referendum to have the parliament dismissed and the constitutional monarchy eliminated, which would have given him virtual dictatorial powers to rule.

By 1953, as prime minister, Mosaddeq again called for just such a public referendum to choose between his government by decree and what he viewed as an antiquated monarchy. The referendum passed overwhelmingly, and Mosaddeq signed a decree calling for the results to be implemented although Iran’s constitution recognized no such role for referendums. The prime minister was clearly seeking to engage in unconstitutional activities.

The second issue was Mosaddeq’s long sought effort to nationalize Iran’s oil reserves, then controlled jointly through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. In 1951, prior to becoming prime minister, he led parliament to pass legislation nationalizing Iranian oil assets. The United Kingdom took Iran to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), but because Iran did not recognize the authority of the ICJ, the court dismissed the lawsuit in 1952. This ultimately led the UK to organize a boycott of Iranian oil exports, which was effective in preventing Iranian oil, 50 percent of the nation’s foreign currency assets, from being sold on the international market.

The third issue was Mosaddeq’s growing rapprochement with the Soviet Union (USSR) and reliance on the pro-Soviet Tudeh Party as an important source of political support. Moscow was looking to control more oil resources, particularly those in Iran and the Middle East, which led the Soviets to actively engage in the spread of communist propaganda and revolutionary efforts in the region.

The American Role

For supporters of today’s regime in Tehran, it is an article of faith that the US and UK illegitimately overthrew a popular and democratic ruler, Mosaddeq, over a desire to keep Iranian oil resources under British control and an unwarranted fear of communism.

The Associated Press for example, concluded that what they saw was a “reactionary CIA-led 1953 coup against revolutionary Mosaddeq” which “lit the fuse” for the 1979 Islamic revolution a quarter century later. All the elements were there—greed for oil, a supposed push to stop popular democracy, and an irrational fear of communism—to make the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) the “bad guys” in this narrative.

By accepting the narrative that Iran’s path toward progressive democracy was hijacked by the CIA, wholesale excuses are possible to explain away Iran’s terrorist enterprise over the past four decades. For many fellow travelers in the West, the fictional “coup” against Mosaddeq provided an excuse for avoiding a confrontation with Iran over its rogue behavior.

Iran’s mullahs describe American and British action from 1953–1979 as “the great arrogance”—the meddling in Iranian affairs by foreign interests. However, the legitimate constitutional restoration of the Shah (1953) was led by a completely legitimate loyalist-royalist coalition made up of members of the Iranian military, the Iranian theocracy, Shah Mohamed Reza Pahlavi’s supporters, and supporters of the Iranian constitution. The Shah legitimately issued two decrees on August 19, 1953, dismissing Mosaddeq as prime minister and appointing General Fazlollah Zahedi as prime minister.

The American desire to staunch the spread of communism was a perfectly legitimate concern that led President Dwight D. Eisenhower to support constitutional government under the Shah. For the British, without whose investment in infrastructure, processing, and export there would be no Iranian oil to export, legitimate financial interests were at stake. The Soviet Union also cared about oil. In the early 1950s, Iranian oil and gas reserves were a growing part of known oil and gas reserves. Control over them would provide economic and diplomatic leverage for an economically impoverished Soviet state.

It should come as no surprise that a false narrative surrounding Mosaddeq’s removal developed almost immediately. Reality, however, is far different. Mohammad Mosaddeq was legitimately removed from power for attempting to topple the constitutional monarchy on behalf of the Soviet-supported Tudeh party. American and British support was exactly what the Shah required to restore the constitution. The ultimate collapse of the Shah’s government and its replacement with an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy is a tragedy the United States regrets even to this day.

Peter Huessy and Joe Buff are Senior Fellows at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. The views expressed are their own.

Iran’s 1953 Coup that Wasn’t was originally published on Global Security Review.

Challenges of the New Security Environment

Western decision-makers tend to think about what characterizes the current strategic environment in terms of great-power rivalry. As President Joseph R. Biden’s National Security Strategy asserts, “The post-Cold War era is definitively over and a competition is underway between the major powers to shape what comes next.” Indeed, Russian military aggrandizement and Chinese economic, political, and military expansionism led American decision-makers to think and plan in terms of great-power competition. The problem set is, however, much greater.

The Islamic Republic of Iran’s Strategic Culture

As Michael Eisenstadt notes, with the Islamic Revolution in Iran (1979), “The IRI’s strategic culture marked a distinct break with the strategic culture of Iran under Mohammad Reza Shah’s rule, which was heavily influenced by Western thought and practice.” Since then, the Islamic Republic of Iran perceived the United States of America and Israel as its arch enemies. To confront the two enemies, the IRI deployed its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as its main instrument of power.

Over the years, the IRGC’s power substantially increased within the Iranian system of government. Indeed, as strategic history shows, in a revolutionary state civil-military relations are in a state of flux. “Revolutions have a dynamic all their own. They begin with high ideals, but conclude with (military) dictatorship.” In Iran, the IRGC became so dominant an economic and political power that it has turned the theological system of government gradually into a theological-military system.

At the early stage of its establishment in the 1980s, “The notion of combating imperialism, in all its forms, was central to the operations of the IRGC.” Since then, the Revolutionary Guard saw its mission as “exporting the revolution,” the practice that is defined as “a form of revolutionary or radical internationalism, which, unlike other forms of internationalism (such as liberal or imperialist), sees international relations through the lens of [constant] conflict.”

Implications

Kenneth Waltz maintained that Iran should build nuclear weapons because a nuclear-armed Iran would restore stability to the Middle East. Waltz argued that the IRI, like other would-be nuclear powers, is run by rational ayatollahs with no propensity for self-destruction,  which would ensure deterrence holds. He also argued, “No other country in the region will have an incentive to acquire its own nuclear capability, and the current crisis will finally dissipate, leading to a Middle East that is more stable than it is today.”

Waltz’s arguments were flawed at the time and remain so. Firstly, the mullahs, unlike leaders in current nuclear-armed states, are willing to use nuclear weapons in certain circumstances that defy deterrence norms. The IRI and its military force, the IRGC, since their establishment, were, and are, engaged in “revolutionary internationalism” by way of irregular warfare and terrorism. As such, they conceive of nuclear weapons as an “equalizer” which compensates for their inferiority in conventional warfare.

Accordingly, nuclear weapons embolden ayatollahs and IRGC generals in their irregular activities against the United States and Israel. This increases malign activities and the “feeling” of having formidable power, which can lead to unintended direct confrontation with the United States. Most importantly, intended conventional confrontation with Israel whom the IRI’s leadership seeks to eliminate.

Waltz believed the nuclear threat against Iran prevents the IRI from achieving its policy objectives. Yet Waltz failed to consider two points. Firstly, any direct confrontation that the IRI finds itself in with Israel becomes a “war of honor.” In that case, the war becomes an ideological war for the religious government in which death for God’s sake is justified. Martyrdom is an important value in Shia Islam.

Secondly, Waltz confined his observations about the political system to the theological, failing to understand that, in strategic history, authoritarian and revolutionary systems of government are subject to political metamorphosis. Waltz was trapped by presentism.

The IRGC with its aggressive Islamic value system is the dominant power in Iran—increasing in power since Waltz originally wrote. The IRGC spends time on the battlefield, outside Iran, fighting American and Israeli forces.

Thus, they can carry with them the culture of war where “war exercises a powerful fascination in its own right” serving no political objectives. Deterring these ideological military forces poses a great challenge to exercising deterrence.

Additionally, a nuclear Iran could usher in the proliferation of nuclear weapons in an already destabilized region. As Muhammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince, has vehemently asserted, “If they [the IRI] get one [nuclear bomb], we have to.” The threat is not in the bomb, but in who possesses the bomb. In the turbulent region where there are various religious Islamic ideologies, and a Jewish state, deterrence is not an easy task.

Recommendations

The focus of recent American administrations on preventing the IRI from achieving nuclear weapons by pursuing economic sanctions is a failure. The Islamic Republic is closer than ever to building nuclear weapons. Negotiation, demand for concessions, periodical hold out, and changing tactics are the methods that paid off for North Korea, allowing them to build a robust nuclear arsenal. The Islamic Republic is following suit.

To prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, there is only one option the United States can pursue—military action. There are costs to the use of force, but it is the only option that prevents the mullahs from possessing nuclear weapons. Force is feasible.

However, with the use of force, there are second and third order effects that are certain to follow. Most importantly, the Islamic Republic will launch missile strikes and use proxies against American forces in the Middle East and Israel and will attempt to close the Hormuz Strait. Here, the United States should send a clear message to the IRI that should the Islamic Republic decide to escalate, the United States will opt for the IRI’s centers of gravity—the political leadership, IRGC elites and forces, and IRGC bases in Iran. This threat focuses on Iran’s centers of gravity and works.

The reason threats against the centers of gravity are effective is not because the IRI is in and of itself afraid of losing its leadership or its forces, but because the Iranian government faces a legitimacy crisis and popular uprisings within the country. The attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria and the limited responses by Iran and Israel may prove the catalyst to change the current state of play.

The ayatollahs and the IRGC worry about being overthrown by the Iranian people once they are at war with the United States. Carl von Clausewitz’s point about the need for support from government, the army, and the people during war is relevant in the case of Iran. The ayatollahs and the IRGC know that support from the people is lacking. Their total war efforts against America and Israel are difficult without the people.

This leaves the United States in a good position to pressure the regime through military strikes and support for dissident groups. In short, the regime is more brittle than many in the West may think. The time to test the regime is now.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Nuclear Iran: A Strategic Culture Perspective was originally published on Global Security Review.