Strait of Hormuz and the Iran War – Part 1: The Bogeyman of the Middle East
Published on HivePostify by @spectrumecons · Wed Aug 12 2026
Hi Everyone,
The potential repercussions of the Iran war on the world are enormous. The impact could far exceed even the Russia-Ukraine war. I have written a two-part series of posts to explain the rationale behind the war from both Trump’s and the US and Global Establishments’ perspectives; they are not the same. I hypothesise the longer-term ramifications of the impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which will compound existing crises in the West.
In Part 1, I discuss Iran/Persia and its transformation to the Islamic Republic of Iran. I discuss how the West has exploited Iran over the past century. This includes the overthrowing of the Qajar Monarchy in 1921 and the overthrowing of the Government in the 1953 coup. After the 1979 revolution, the West, the US in particular, has designated Iran as the regional threat that they have used to bolster their presence and control in the region.
Focus on Iran
-----
Iran, formerly known as Persia, has a very long history spanning thousands of years. There is an enormous amount of content that could be discussed. For the purpose of this post, I am briefly focusing on aspects of Iran’s religious and political ideology that I believe relevant to the current conflict.
Iran Centre of Shia Islam
-----
Iran/Persia became a predominantly Muslim country between the eighth and tenth centuries. By the end of the eleventh century, the population of Iran/Persia was 90% Muslim ([Transform](https://transformiran.com/learn/history-of-iran/)). Iran’s conversion to Islam was slower than that of Lebanon’s, which took around only three decades. I discuss Lebanon in my post, [Do You Strive to be Someone’s Pet?](https://peakd.com/hive-112018/@spectrumecons/do-you-strive-to-be-someones-pet) as a case study for how a predominantly Christian population can become Muslim in a matter of decades.
In the sixteenth century, under the Safavid dynasty, Iran/Persia officially became the centre of the Shia Islamic world ([World History Edu](https://worldhistoryedu.com/how-did-modern-iran-become-a-bastion-of-shia-islam/)). This made them a major rival to their Sunni Muslim neighbours, the Ottoman Empire in particular. The Safavid dynasty helped spread Shia Islam to other countries such as Azerbaijan, Iraq, and Lebanon.
The Safavid dynasty collapsed in 1722 and was replaced by the Qajar dynasty. Even under the new dynasty, Shia Islam remained the cornerstone of its national identity. The percentage of the population that was Muslim remained above 90% that entire time ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran)).
Despite Persia’s Islamic identity, the people and the monarchy still honoured their pre-Islamic past. The Persian national flag and coat of arms during the Qajar dynasty had the symbol of the lion holding a sword with a sun peeking over its back.
The lion represents strength and power. It was originally linked to the Persian hero Rostam and later linked to Iman Ali (first Shia Iman). Thus linking ancient Persian culture to Shia Islam. The sword was added later and represents Ali’s sword. The sun represents the ancient Iranian god of light, Mithra ([Symbol Sage](https://symbolsage.com/lion-and-sun-persian-symbol/)).
The Age of Puppeteering and the Love of Oil
-----
In 1921, with the help of the British military, Reza Khan led the Persian Cossack Brigade to overthrow Ahmad Shah Qajar and form his own Government. He forced the Qajar Government to appoint him as Minister of War and eventually Prime Minister. Over the next four years, Reza Khan suppressed tribal rebellions. After which, he finally deposed Ahmad Shah Qajar, and Reza Khan proclaimed himself the new Shah ([Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Reza-Shah-Pahlavi)).
The British Establishment wanted a Government they believed they could control because they wanted to control oil production and distribution. Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), which was taken over by British Petroleum, benefited the most from this arrangement.
Reza Khan’s loyalty soon shifted away from the British Establishment to the new Nazi German Government. Dictator puppets are a little harder to maintain control over than ‘democratically’ elected ones, who can be pushed out with an election.
Germany was a European power that had not historically oppressed Iran. It had also become Iran’s largest trading partner. Forming a relationship with Germany also enabled Iran to take back control over its own oil supply. Nazi Germany’s ideology also appealed to Reza Khan, now calling himself Reza Pahlavi. He believed in Aryan race ([The Lion and the Sun](superiorityhttps://thelionandthesun.org/1126/the-shah-the-nazis-and-the-invasion-impact-of-world-war-ii-on-iran/)). This motivated him to officially change the name of his country from Persia to Iran. ‘Iran’ means ‘Land of the Aryans’. We could argue that Iran’s definition of ‘Aryan’ did not align with that of the Nazis. This did not get in the way of their alliance.
In 1941, Britain and the Soviet Union invaded Iran to regain control of the oil fields. In doing so, they overthrew Reza Khan and replaced him with his son Mohammad Khan (Pahlavi). Iran transitioned to a semi-constitutional parliament. This gave Mohammad Khan less power than his father had. In 1950, a nationalist coalition was elected to Government. Mohammad Mosaddegh became Iran’s new Prime Minister.
In 1951, the Government nationalised its oil industry. In 1953, the British and US Establishment orchestrated a coup to overthrow the Government. This was successful, and Mohammad Khan’s power was restored. In 1954, the oil industry went back under Western control, with British Petroleum controlling 40% and US companies controlling another 40% ([Enclopedia Iranica](https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/oil-agreements-in-iran/)).
Mohammad Khan also attempted to continue his father’s ambition of westernising Iran. This was unacceptable to many of the more conservative Shia Muslims. At the time, more than 95% of the population of Iran were Muslims, most of them Shia Muslims. Mohammad Khan did not like opposition to his ideology. He banned all opposition parties, ensuring that he could not be easily removed.
In 1957, he established the secret police, SAVAK. They used brutal tactics to repress dissenters. According to a [Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1980/03/23/the-shah-as-tyrant-a-look-at-the-record/218c6a8e-dcb7-4168-ac9c-8f23609f888f/) article, the SAVAK tortured and murdered at least tens of thousands of people. These were typically conservative Muslims (supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini) and socialists. The most notable incident was the 1963 Jaleh Square riots ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IranianRevolution)).
Islamic Republic of Iran
-----
Prolonged repression with no opportunity for peaceful resolution would ultimately lead to an uprising or even a revolution. In 1979, there was a revolution, and Mohammad Khan was overthrown. Iran went from Khan’s quasi-Western dystopia to a strict Islamic Republic. A huge swing from one extreme to another can be expected when a large proportion of the population has been repressed for a long time.
The ideology in the earlier years of the Islamic Republic of Iran was radical. Any forms of opposition to this new Islamic rule were treated ruthlessly. This involved arrests, executions, and forced exile. The majority of non-Muslims emigrated from Iran to other countries to escape this ideology. This further strengthened the grip of Shia Muslim ideology on the country.
Reinforcing Iran’s Shia Islamic Ideology
------
Iran developed a sophisticated political system. After the 1979 revolution, Iran held a referendum asking the people if they wanted the monarchy replaced by an Islamic Republic. The public overwhelmingly voted in favour of an Islamic Republic. Later that year, there was a second referendum. This referendum was to replace the existing constitution with one based on Islamic principles. The public also overwhelmingly voted in favour of it. The full Iranian constitution can be found on the [University of Michigan Human Rights Library](https://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/iran-constitution.html) website.
Iran has executive, legislative, and judiciary branches and the Supreme Leader, who has overarching power over all three branches.
An elected president heads the executive branch. He selects his Council of Ministers, who are approved by the Islamic Consultative Assembly, which is the legislative branch (i.e., parliament). Their responsibilities include implementing policies, managing the economy, and foreign relations. The Supreme Leader maintains authority of the military, strategic decisions, and general oversight over executive branch decisions.
The Iranian Parliament (aka Majlis) consists of 290 elected representatives. Their responsibilities include enacting laws, approving the national budget, ratifying international treaties, and overseeing the executive branch. All legislation must be approved by the Guardian Council to ensure that it conforms to the constitution.
The Guardian Council consists of twelve appointed members. The Supreme Leader appoints six of them; these are Islamic clerics. The Chief Justice appoints the other six; these are jurists. The Supreme Leader appoints the Chief Justice, which is consistent with the constitution.
The Chief Justice is the head of the judiciary branch. He appoints all the judges, the head of the Supreme Court, and the General Prosecutor. The system is a hybrid of Islamic and civil law, which supports parallel court structures. These courts include public courts for general civil and criminal cases, revolutionary courts for offences against national security, special clerical courts to try clerics, and the Supreme Court for ensuring uniform legal application. The outcome of cases is determined by judges with the exception of cases relating to political and press offences.
The Iranian political system is built around their constitution and the authority of the Supreme Leader. The Supreme Leader is held to account by the assembly of experts. The assembly consists of 88 Islamic jurists who are elected by the public every eight years. The Guardian Council vets these candidates. The assembly of experts has the power to appoint and dismiss a Supreme Leader if they deem him unfit for his position.
The Iranian political system appears deeply centralised around the authority of the Supreme Leader. However, in reality this is unlikely to be the case. The Supreme Leader delegates much of his authority to others. They run the country in accordance with his ideology. When the Supreme Leader was killed, the country did not grind to a halt. Instead, it continued almost unhindered. Strategic military decisions were made with little delay.
After the 1979 Revolution, the Revolutionary Council (interim Government after the revolution) ordered the nationalisation of many industries. These included banks, insurance companies, medium and large-scale manufacturing, the oil industry, and agriculture industries ([Iran Chamber Society](https://www.iranchamber.com/history/islamicrevolution/revolutionandiranafter19791.php)). This approach closely resembles communist policies but differs in terms of ideology. The nationalisation process after the revolution served the main purpose of giving the Islamic State more power and control as well as preventing foreign Western interference.
The communists and socialists who played a key role in the revolution became the opposition to the new Islamic Government. This opposition was not tolerated. This led to arrests and executions. Many others were forced to flee or were exiled. The leading opposition to Iran’s Islamic Government leadership is the Mojahedin-e-Khalq, which has a combination of Islamic and Socialist ideology ([International Socialist](https://internationalsocialist.net/2023/01/learning-from-history-iran/)).
Iran’s political system, most notably its constitution, and its nationalisation of industries have offered it considerable protection from Western influence. The constitution and the architecture of the system blocks Western ideology and Western democracy from creeping in. Nationalisation of industry blocks Western ideology from infiltrating the country through commercial interference.
Many socialist/communist countries have used this approach to inhibit the growth of Western ideology and Western democratic values. However, these systems do not protect them from NGOs that have had some success in turning people against their leadership. The January 2026 riots are an example of the power of this influence.
Sources for the section: [Study.com](https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-political-structure-of-iran.html), [PBS](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/inside/govt.html), and Google Search Engine summaries.
Rise of Sunni-Shia Tensions
-----
The US (Establishment), which had taken over from the UK as the main western presence in the Middle East, was unable or unwilling to stop the revolution and the eventual overthrow of Mohammad Khan. It is possible that the US Establishment was willing to let go of their puppet in exchange for heightened tensions in the Middle East. The US Establishment could more easily convince the Gulf States to allow them to establish bases in their countries for the purpose of ‘security’. The real reason was to give the US Establishment greater control over the region ([MERIP](https://www.merip.org/1991/01/the-us-in-the-persian-gulf/)).
The US presence in the Middle East also served the purpose of stoking tensions between the Shia and Sunni Muslims. Historically there have been tensions between Sunni and Shia Muslims, but these had mostly diminished centuries ago ([George Town University](https://acmcu.georgetown.edu/news/sunni-shia-tensions-are-more-about-politics-power-and-privilege-than-theology/)).
In 1980, Iraq invaded Iran. Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein wanted to capture Khuzestan because of its vast oil reserves. The US Establishment backed this invasion to stop the spread of the Shia Islamic Revolution to other parts of the region as well as reduce Iran’s control over the Persian Gulf’s oil reserves ([YRIS](https://yris.yira.org/column/u-s-involvement-in-the-1980s-iran-iraq-war-americas-haphazard-extension-of-gulf-insecurity/)).
Iraq was a predominantly Shia Muslim country (two-thirds of the population were Shia Muslims) led by a Sunni Muslim Government. It was quite possible that the war could cause an uprising in Iraq. US funding to Saddam Hussein would have played a role in preventing that from happening. The war evolved into one between Shia Islam (Iran) and Sunni Islam (Iraqi leadership) ([Harvard Kennedy School](https://studentreview.hks.harvard.edu/sectarianism-and-conflict-legacies-of-the-iran-iraq-war/)). This ultimately increased tension between the two groups of Muslim faiths, which would have been a goal of the US Establishment.
The 2003 US invasion of Iraq was a huge trigger of tension between the Sunni and Shia Muslims. The fall of the Iraqi Government (Baathist Regime) led to a power vacuum in Iraq. These led to the creation of Sunni terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS as well as Shia militia groups. Thus enabling the most radical people from each side.
The Sunni-Shia divide enabled the US to spark civil war in Syria, which the US wanted to use to remove Bashar al-Assad ([Modern Diplomacy](https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2024/10/21/how-western-lies-about-the-sunni-shia-divide-have-set-the-middle-east-ablaze/)). They finally succeeded in December 2024 when Assad was replaced by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham terrorist leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani.
Tags: #middleeast#war#iran#economics#history#politics#islam#shia