The Persian coup d'état in 1921 and the coming of Reza Khan was the direct result of the continuing 19th-century British imperialist policy, and its flagship of the 1919 agreement, in Iran after World War I, an Iranian whose new nationalism was deep in its root. The United Kingdom needed tools to measure its interests in Iran; in fact, the United Kingdom was taking its own interests with an instrumental look. Perhaps British instruments could be distinguished for human and inhumane interests. The most important humanitarian tools of the British, the mercenaries and the well-to-do people who were headed by him, Reza Shah and his other practitioners, can be called the British inhuman (material) instruments of economic, commercial, communicative, cultural and military factors, all of which These tools have not only resulted in a series of political crises for Iranians. In this article, we describe and analyze the actions taken by Britain in violating the political sovereignty of Iran during the first Pahlavi era. Relations between Iran and Britain are among the oldest relations in the set of foreign relations of Iran. Since the outbreak of the first world war during the Qajar era, and its enormous impacts, as well as the presence of Allied forces in Iran, our political, economic, and security conditions have become more prevalent than before, so that Iran is more likely to play the military projects of the superpowers, especially the United Kingdom It had economic, agricultural and development programs.

Keywords: Iran, Britain, tyranny, deterioration, uprisings, multiplied, disagreement, administering

World War I faced major and powerful powers in Iran in different situations. On the other hand, the Ottoman Empire had been multiplied and Czarist Russia had undergone a communist revolution, so the great winner of this war was in fact Britain. The internal situation of Iran was also in this period in all the rioting and political divisions. The Kurdistan uprisings, Khorasan, the forestry movement in northern Iran, severe tensions in Azerbaijan and many other things indicate deterioration in Iran. On the one hand, Britain, which, due to public disagreement and the high cost of administering protected countries, was no longer able to It was not the direct management of these societies, and on the other hand, it never wanted to lose profits These countries, as well as the opening up of rivals to these areas, therefore, sought to preserve these areas, this time indirectly, the United Kingdom pledged to withdraw its troops from the area in 1300 solar years (1912), so to address the concerns The idea of replacing the communists in Iran and the emergence of rivals, such as the United States, Germany and even France, should have formed a powerful government in Iran to end these concerns and take steps towards the goals and demands of the United Kingdom, as well as A nationalist coup d'état, which has a markedly anti-imperialist and anti-British background, also prevents, The point is that Norman, the British Prime Minister in Tehran, explicitly states in his correspondence with Lord Karzan, and also speaks of Ahmad Shah's horror, which, with the withdrawal of British forces from Iran, he also escapes to Europe.¹

Interestingly, Britain was worried about the departure of Ahmad Shah from Iran, more than the coup d'état of the other active forces in Iran. In fact, it was for the UK to be convinced that a possible coup would happen with the departure of Ahmad Shah, so we are in the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ correspondence: "I'm afraid that I would dissuade the Shah from leaving Iran, if he leaves Iran, he will necessarily have to move one of the courtiers, otherwise we have to wait for the formation of the Republic of Iran. It is necessary to note here that the political, security and economic conditions in Iran were quite favorable and welcoming the coup. In such a way that if Britain did not run the pace and acceleration of the coup, the coup was likely to happen by nationalists on the one hand and the Soviets as a new power on the other. Indeed, the Soviet Union had a longing for the export of the revolution to the east. And the turbulent situation in Iran urged the communists to take power in Iran after the British, to the point where they considered Iran "the Suez Canal for the issuance of the revolution," Britain also, by magnifying Bolshevism, wanted Ahmad Shah The Iranian courtiers and politicians depend on the coup d'etat Britain, at its first rumor, dismissed British nationals, and subsequently transferred the Imperial Bank to Bushehr and, at the end, scared the other embassies. The French and American embassies also became frightened and defeated in the British political career, and they evacuated their nationals from Iran. Interestingly, even the British Minister of the Interior in Iran was deeply afraid until the main director of the coup, Lord Curzon, informed him of this scenario.² In this way, the king of Qajar and courtiers and other politicians obeyed the British embassy and, in order to prevent Iran's republic, came along with British policy. The United Kingdom, with full knowledge of Ahmad Shah's Ruhayat and his acquaintance with the consequences of the withdrawal of British forces from Iran, convinced him that he would call 500 Kazakh troops deployed in Qazvin to Tehran and invite them to form a strong central government.

In fact, Ahmad Shah certainly knew about the coup, but when, instead of 500 Kazakh forces, 2,500 of them arrived in Tehran, they noticed huge losses, so ordered to return the Kazakh troops, but when the order came to the Kazakhs, they came from They crossed Karaj and were around Tehran. The British also assured the Shah that this was in the direction of strengthening the Qajar government. In addition to the shah that remained silent, other forces and politicians were also unable to take any action or boycott. On the other hand, the United Kingdom long ago considered individuals such as Sepahsalar Tonekaboni, Reza Khan Mirpayneh, Abdullah Khan Amir Tammasbi, Nusrat al-Dawl ah Firuz, Fazlullah Khan Major, Amir Mustaq and finally Mohammad Sadegh Khan, special commander for the military command of the coup, but somehow Either they either refused or could not take Britain's lead in conducting the command. Eventually, Reza Khan Mirpaneh and journalist Seyyed Zia al-Din Tabataba'i, in line with British interests, assumed the command of the political and military commanders of the coup. Reza Khan, a brave and fearless officer, due to his military abilities of the British and the General Ironside. In fact, when the British realized that he was very powerful in dismissal and coup against the Kazakh leader, Palonik Koljera, they were sure that the best option for the military command of the coup was Reza Khan. On the other hand, Sayyid Ziauddin Tabataba'i was also well known to the British. On the one hand, he said It was not aristocratic, which could have been a deceptive factor for the people and, on the other hand, had beneficial journalistic and revolutionary abilities. Sayyid Zia, from the very beginning, had a relationship with the British bourgeois in Tehran, as the French author later wrote in his book. Britain's name in Iran calls him and other British followers of British politics the sinister ghosts of Britain.³

Thus, the Kazakh troops entered a victorious and very small encounter with Tehran. Interestingly, in the first statement issued by the coup d'etat: "It was only for this reason that we came to Tehran to mean the true meaning of the oversight of the government, a state that only thinks of Iran and for Iran. A government that does not only look at the poverty and misery of your prosperity." The coup in his first act they started arresting Republican leaders. To the extent that they reached 400 by two days after the coup, while they were linked to some socialist doctrines or opponents of capitalist regimes like Britain, by examining the records of the detainees. British diplomacy would have been prepared, directed and implemented by the all-planned and planned skills of the coup. Ahmad Shah Qajar, who was severely barred from traveling to Europe after the coup before the coup, was also thinking about going abroad and under the pretext of treatment, this time the British supported Saddam with his request, because other plans The United Kingdom was in charge of its interest in Iran. So if we want to explain the coup process accordingly, we can state the procedure as follows: After the end of the First World War, the British were forced to evacuate their forces from Iran, and on the other hand, they needed a reliable alternative in Iran in order first to protect the influence of Soviet communists in Iran and prevent the emergence of a pro-Soviet regime in Iran. They tried to protect Iran indirectly in various ways. Britain initially began work with economic affairs, such as the 1919 agreement, but the lack of approval and final implementation of that plan and the implementation of the coup were in their minds. The coup's upgrade lasted about one year. On the one hand, after the fall of the Mashir al-Dawlah cabinet, as well as the expulsion of Russian officers from the Kazakh forces, and eventually the replacement and replacement of British officers and advisers in Iran's affairs, the grounds for the coup became more intense and more prominent every day. Ultimately, coup forces were selected by the election of the forces of the coup, which consisted of military forces and political forces. Indeed, the Great Britain increased the danger of communism and the imminent threat of the North Bolsheviks attacking the subjectivities of accepting the coup in Ahmed Shah and his courtiers, and when Ahmad Shah was disappointed with the persistence of the Qajar regime, his famous statement was as follows: "I'd prefer to sell cabbage in Europe Instead of reigning in Iran!!!" It seems that the violation of the political rule of Iran at this time of the Great Britain was mostly focused on the inadequacy of the Qajar kings; indeed, it was for the United Kingdom that Ahmad Shah was no longer capable of meeting the demands of the British, and on the other hand, the unpopularity, The lack of indigence and charisma of the Qajar kings among the people and the danger of tsarist Russians in the north is a catalyst and accelerates the occurrence of the coup. Therefore, the lack of triple cases mentioned above, the 1299 coup that had been designed long ago, Implemented.⁴

Being a British Coup March 3rd, 1299, in the eyes of several political theorists and writers

Today, almost all the writers and scholars in politics have accepted Britain's role in the ongoing coup d'etat in Iran, in particular the coup d'état of March 1299 and the coup d'état of August 28, 1932, and many other crises that were considered as violations of political sovereignty in Iran. The first result of all these coups was the rejection of the political sovereignty of the Iranian government and nation. Below we describe a number of foreign and domestic writers who designate, implement and promote the coup and, ultimately, the crisis of political affairs in Iran during the late Qajar period.

John F Foran⁵ exploded in the book Breaking Resistance on the March 3 coup and the extent and limits of Britain's role in it: "Unless we go to extremes, Britain has played an important role in the coup." Evidence suggests that the British Foreign Office did not play much role in the coup, but significant military officials and personnel from the British embassy in Iran played a decisive role in the preparations for the coup, as Reza Khan, with the support of Arrowhead in the winter of 1299, The commander of the Qods Fudge arrived, Arionidsid writes in his memoirs: A military dictator can solve the problems of Iran, and we will be able to withdraw without any trouble from our forces. On February 25, 1229, Iroonidaid was summoned to Baghdad and reminded Reza Khan of Then he is the commander of the Cossack forces and can do everything right Knows it to act and only reza Khan pledged not to oust Ahmad Shah from the monarchy. Ironside writes in his memoirs on March 4th, 1299: Reza Khan has organized a coup in Tehran, but honestly promised me that he would not do anything to the work of the Shah and to He remains loyal to the day that the coup occurred. Brigadier Hick from the British Embassy said to the Swedish commander of the Gendarmerie of Tehran. Resistance to the Cossacks is useless, and the day after the coup d'état by Herman Norman, the British Minister of the Pre-Coup in the course of the coup He urged Ahmad Shah to give in to the coup d'etat. After the outbreak of hostilities, it recommended to its government that it should support the new regime, because it would be the most appropriate government for the British interests that could have come about.⁵

Nikki keddie

Nikir R Kadi writes in the book The Roots of the Iranian Revolution in relation to the role of Britain in the coup d'état of March 1299: There is no written evidence of the British civilian corporation in this coup. But now it has become clear that the commander of the British forces in Iran, General Auron Sayed, first helped Reza Khan win the power of the Kazakh type and then encouraged him to carry out the coup. Nicky Kadi, in his other book, "Iran of the Qajar era and on The coming of Reza Khan "in the analysis of the role of the British says: the documents that are available now show that the English did not monitor the design of the coup or what the leaders did after they came to power. The British paved the way for the coup d'etat by inducing Ahmad Shah to expel Russian officers of the Kazakh Brigade in 1299. Gen. Iruñaid, commander of the British Army who had influence over Kazakhstan, and other Englishmen, helped teach Kazakhs and gendarmerie. Ironside fingers at Reza Khan and promoted him to the command of the Kazakhs. In his memoir, he (Ironside) claims to have contributed to the encouragement and approval of the coup. The weapons and equipment of Qazvin Kazakhs were provided by the British, and they paid their salaries. Sometimes the British were interposed between Seyyed Ziya and the Kazakhs. Then Norman, the British secretary, proposed Colonel Smith in early February (Bahman) to replace Qazvin's troops with Tehran's Cossacks and, at the time of Reza Khan's return to Tehran, Norman advised the head of the Swedish police not to interfere and advised the king to The title is the only way to respond to their demands. Ardeshir Jay Riporthr writes in his will: At the request of the War Department in London and Nairobi, India, the close collaboration with General Auron Sayed and I began. I had a lot of credibility for Reza Khan's comments about the Cossack force, and eventually I introduced him to Iroonsid. Ironsaid saw the same qualities in Reza Khan as I had seen, and both of us had great respect for this man, with the great efforts of the colonel, the commander and the Russian officers, left the Qazvin division and the affairs were headed by the commander of the British forces in northern Iran. . Meeting of Iroonsid with Reza Khan and repeating it, British support from Reza Khan led to the coup eventually formed.⁶

Javad Sheikh Al Eslami,⁷ believes that any scholar or historian who has the least knowledge of the political processes of this period of Iranian history knows that the designer and actual plot of the third coup of March were no one but Arion Sayed. His historic meetings with Reza Khan in Qazvin and encouraging him to perform the coup in most of the authentic political documents of this period, including in his memoirs of Arionids, are clearly reflected. He was scheduled to head to Baghdad for a major post a week before leaving Iran for all the training and arrangement of the coup, and on the same day (March 1, 1299), the Reza Khan military forces were to move from Qazvin to Tehran. Arion Assad also quit Qazvin for a Baghdad military dual-engine aircraft. General Arion Assad wrote in his memos following the events of February 23, 1921, February 23, 1921. "I found out that Reza Khan had mapped the coup d'état with He has succeeded in Tehran and he has given him the promise in Qazvin that he was not to be subjected to a Shah, to act in a masculine manner and to show his sincerity to the monarchy ... I assume that all the Iranian people are of the opinion that I have mapped the coup d'etat and I've monitored the implementation of it behind the scenes, and if I want to write the truth, the truth is the same.⁷

British actions during the reign of Reza Shah

In the aftermath of the coup, Ahmad Shah was forced to sign Syd Zia's prime minister's order three days after the coup. Reza Khan, also headed by Sardari Sepah, was appointed president of the Kazakhstani Brigadier. The United Kingdom, which at that time achieved its purpose and established its domination in Iran for a few more years, welcomed the abolition of the 1919 contract for general satisfaction. Became Over time, with a significant reduction in the power of the Qajar apparatus and court, and the growing power of Reza Khan, the thought of the decadence of the Qajar dynasty was aggravated in his mind. Indeed, Reza Khan tried to spread the message to the Iranian people that the Qajar was only a fruitless misery For Iranians, then, in 1302, with the fall of the Mashir al-Dawlah cabinet, Britain's major obstacle to achieving its goals, and with its widespread support, Reza Khan reached the prime minister in the first place, and with the departure of Ahmad Shah Qajar for Europe, a few days later From the signing of Reza Khan's prime minister, the preparations for his government were provided in less than two years and with the approval of the ninth parliament, on the date He also announced the Qajar dynasty extinction Persian date Aban 1304 on 4 April 1305 and the assistance of the government and the Embassy of Great Britain was the coronation. In fact, Reza Khan was the British humanitarian tool in violation of Iranian sovereignty. On the other hand, throughout the Middle East, Britain was also influential throughout the Middle East; a number of countries in the region, such as Iraq, Palestine and the United Arab Emirates, were from the United Nations under the mandate of the United Nations, and others, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Contracts of special privileges and privileges were given to the English. The third group of countries in the Middle East was also indirectly influenced by the British, such as Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan. After the First World War, the British attempted to create it as a barrier to preventing Soviet influence towards India and the Persian Gulf and the wells of Iranian oil through the creation of robust and strong governments and by creating a defense pact between the countries of the Middle East. . Therefore, they tried to resolve disputes between the regional governments and create grounds for a regional cooperation agreement and non-aggression.⁸

Principles of British politics in Iran, pahlavi

Communication and business motivation: The most important tools for political crisis in many developing societies are economic, commercial and communication issues. The fact is that the first instrument that has made Iran a source of British policies and interventions is communication, due to its proximity Iran has been with India and later issues such as oil and southern ports, and so on. Iran was of special importance to England for its access to the trade route. Also, Iranian telegraph lines were sent to Europe and also to Britain with India. The Iranian consumer market was also of great importance to the UK. The British Imperial Bank, Lynch Company, and the Stricha Company and the Deans of the Institute of Business and Commerce in Iran were very active, all of which was considered a great wealth for Britain, who were not willing to lose it at all.⁹

Imperial bank

Undoubtedly, economic agents are the first factor in intervention in societies dominated by the imperialist era, an intervention that seriously challenges the political sovereignty of these societies and the political crises that have long arisen in these societies. One of the tools of British pressure and interference in Iran has been economic, monetary and banking issues. Issues that have been fueled by the weakness of the central government in Iran have always facilitated and catalyzed the British influence on internal and even foreign issues in Iran.¹⁰ The Kingdoms Bank, under the 1307 patent, established and governed Baron Julius Reuter, a German Jew, who had accepted British nationality and Christianity for sixty years, for 60 years. However, the privileges of the establishment of the bank from the time of Nasir al-Din Shah began, But the bank actually operated in 1307, and the British at the start of the royal decree at the Thirty-Year-Old Bank of Kurdish Bank issued a decree issuing this decree to the bank as an important success, as the UK government sponsored the bank with its legal protection and the bank Subject to the regulations of the Royal British Bankers, including banks authorized to issue banknotes. Thus, Iran's state-owned bank, backed by the British and foreign citizenship, was established abroad with the private capital of the foreign capital.

The Imperial Bank, in pursuance of its policies, supported the Reza Khan government, whose program was to restore order and security, but Lord Curzon, using a ban on paying the government loan, used the Imperial Bank as a war against Iran. Reza Khan reads the bank, which was actually an English bank and as a state bank in Iran, unable to solve the financial problems of the government. It was not time for the Iranian bank, Lord Karzan, or the ordinary trading company. In 1921, the position of the bank was strengthened by the appointment of Sir Lauren to the post of British Minister of the Interior in Iran. With the establishment of the National Bank in 1309, the scope of the Bank's activities was limited. In the same year, the government bought a monopoly issue of the banknote issue, which belonged to the Bank of England, for a total of two hundred thousand litas, and was owned by the National Bank. A large portion of the bank's deposits was transferred to the National Bank. Despite these restrictions, the Imperial Bank was still profitable, and, like the first years of its foundation, owned 8% of the stock. In general, the bank, rather than helping Iran's poor economy, rebelled against Iran, for example, in the First World War as the Monetary Fund of the British Government in Iran and the region , Was acting. With the support of the bank, General Mullson, the commander of the British Army, was able to fund large amounts of money to fight the Bolsheviks in the Transcaucasian Khanate, and in western Iran, with the support of the Imperial Bank of Hamedan Branch, the commander of the English troops of the area, Danestree, This branch may have been prepared by collecting a large sum of money from Iran and surrendering it to Denstroil, allowing the financial campaign to Baku to dominate the currency fluctuations in that region. Undoubtedly, the bank has been instrumental in advancing British goals in Iran, and whenever Britain has been opposed to its intentions in Iran, it has been pushing for pressure (such as imposing sanctions and calling for the repayment of loans from the kings of Iran) Used the Iranian government and nation.¹¹

Persian gulf and Southern ports of iran

The Persian Gulf was always important in southern Iran for shipping raw materials to Britain and importing British goods to the eastern territories. Britain's commercial and economic share of the Persian Gulf was so large that it had deployed a naval fleet to protect the interests of the government and British businessmen. Most British politicians believed that Russia was closest to the Gulf or had to enter the war with the Ottomans or go through Iran, Iran was closest and most cost-effective. Corzent writes in this regard: The tsarist regime's appetite for the work of Jahangir is not limited to the same system and regions, and because it is not enough to overcome half of all the spoils of Iran in the north, it is pleasing to the south, and wish to find a way to the Gulf Fars and the Indian Ocean. ... The Russians are eager to infiltrate the British power base in southern Iran in the South Seas and provide a base for their offshore operations.¹²

With this view, the British were determined to find a way to keep the hands of Russia and, of course, every other force from the south of Iran and the Persian Gulf. On the other hand, the Germans swallowed the British more than any other in the turbulent way of wrapping the rail into Baghdad and reaching the Gulf in the early twentieth century. Altogether, the reasons for the importance of the ports of the South and the Gulf for British politics are as follows:

1. Economic importance: Businessmen from different regions of the world have been active in the region since the past. The Persian Gulf was in the process of trading goods from Hind, China and the Indo-China Peninsula to Ottoman Empire and Europe. The British entered the military fleet, like all other Europeans who had heard of the infinite wealth of the area. First, they defeated other European colonial governments, such as Portugal and the Netherlands, and, after weakening the great states of the region, expanded their domination to the rich and the rich.
2. Another reason for British interest in the Persian Gulf at that time was the use of the Gulf to control India. They were worried that European powers would expand their influence in the Persian Gulf, attacking India from there, and those large regional governments such as Iran and the Ottoman Empire threaten the interests of England in India.

Therefore, England was of great importance to preserving the Persian Gulf and, with a divisive policy, tried to keep the countries of the area still weak.¹³ undoubtedly, the most important cause of Iran's instability in the 20th century for Britain was oil and energy. Where Britain's charcoal ships turn into oil-fired ships in 1913. In fact, in order to maintain British domination in the time of Reza Shah, he was more than afraid of the existence of oil and energy and the presence of the Persian Gulf and southern ports of Iran, to the extent that the design and implementation of the third coup of Esfand undoubtedly could be attributed to the British's attitude towards Iran's oil. The above has always made Britain the biggest interventionist, disruptive, and eventually fueled by Iran's political crisis over its internal affairs. In fact, the Persian Gulf, its southern ports and its sources have been damaged by the United Kingdom as a series of crises. Created on the one hand, it violated the sovereignty, maritime, economic, and even military status of this region, in some way, the sovereignty of the central government of Iran to these regions, the final result of which was the creation of major political crises for Iranians.

Iran, a strong gate against communism

One of the other tools that the United Kingdom always used to intervene in Iran and its political crisis was to confront the invasion of communism in Iran. The fact is that Britain has never lost its presence in the northern regions of Iran long ago. In fact, the history of British and Russian competition (tsarist Russians, communist Soviets, and even the current time of the Russian Federation) has a long history. Russia's and Russia's rivalry in Iran, which began in the 18th century, culminated in the development of Russia in Central Asia. The goals of Tsarist Russia, such as the acquisition of free waters such as the Persian Gulf, were brought to the heart of the British Empire, India, and ... It provoked the intense struggle of Britain, so direct and indirect interventions in Iran under various pretexts to confront Tsarist Russia and later the Soviet Union were inevitably inextricably geographically, Iran in the south of the Soviet Union and in the head The English route is located in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. Iran was on the way to India, Britain's largest and most belligerent. The downfall of red forces towards the southwest or east was irretrievable catastrophic catastrophe. The interests of Britain required the nucleus of a strong central power to evolve to prevent the instigation of Bolshevism in the way of the British colonies, before 1917 all measures taken by either of these two colonial superpowers in Iran should be coordinated and had an approximate satisfaction on the other side. For example, if the Russians had the influence of the Cossack force, the British created the Southern Police Force. In contrast to the granting of the privilege of the Bank of the Bank, the Russian borrowing bank was established or, most importantly, the country of Iran was divided into their interests in the areas of influence of these two colonial powers. But after the communist revolution of 1917 and the coming of the Soviet government and the early claims of the new government to fight imperialism and support the working people in the world, England initially felt uncomfortable in Iran, but after a short time And breaking European powers to overthrow the Soviet government in Russia by supporting its opponents, the United Kingdom was aware of the dangers of this northern neighbor of Iran for its own interests in southern Iran and in general in all the lands exploited by them.⁹

New heads of government have publicly revealed and disclosed colonial confessional contracts between the Russian tsarist states of the world, such as the 1915 Treaty, in order to expose the policies of the colonial powers of the world, including the former tsarist regime or England in other lands, which is accompanied by fascinating statements The leaders of the new regime, supported by all the toilers and oppressed people of the world, have welcomed the oppressed people of the world, especially the Iranian people, from the communist ideology, especially that the nature of the new regime and the contradictions that the new regime has found with religion has not yet been revealed to the Iranian people. In fact, the Soviets, who demanded the issuance of Bolshevism to the East from the very beginning of the revolution (such as Iran), initially called on Iranians to call communism, that the new Russian government was ready to negotiate with the government in line with the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Iran is the Iranian people who were tired of their rights by the oppression of the colonial powers and considered the Soviet government to be the protector of the oppressed nations of the world. As the interim Soviet political agent in Tehran writes, Tehran is really shocked by the general demonstrations. They even welcome me on the street. On the other hand, the Great Britain, which was extremely threatened, could not stand the current situation, especially as it was accompanied by anti-British revolts, along with more regional tendencies in the region. Also, in the northern regions of Iran, such as Tashkent, Khorasan and Sistan, the situation in Britain was more critical.¹⁴

The British and support of the Baha'i sect to fight clergy and religion

Before reaching power, Reza Khan identified himself as a fanatical Muslim because he knew that religion in Iranian society was deeply rooted and if, on the contrary, it would never succeed in reaching its goals (which was the formation of the Pahlavi regime). During this time, he showed great religious appearances in order to attract the attention of the clergy and ordinary people, went to the pilgrimage of the Atabat and participated in the mourning groups of the month of Muharram with the naked feet, formed the houses of rosadeh and, in order to appease the scholars, travel to Qom many times He showed himself as an advocate of Islam. On the other hand, Reza Shah, accompanied by nationalist and patriotic slogans, was able to cope with the plight of many nationalists. With the advent of Reza Shah, the nationalist and anti-Semitic slogans sought to restore the ancient Iranian culture and Zoroastrianism along with the Westernization of the country and put aside religious slogans. By excluding clerics from state and educational affairs, the discovery of hijab and the adoption of the law of separation of religion from politics and the opposition to the culture of Islam and the adoption of some anti-Islamic laws and the change of lunar year to the solar year ... and try to remove Islam and promote Western culture And the European. He also excluded the clergy from judicial and educational matters and created restrictions for them, and promoted the culture and customs of Western customs and clothing against the traditional and Islamic culture of Iran, as well as the adoption of the law separating religion from politics and lamenting the slogans of antiquity and The propaganda of Zoroastrianism as an ancient religion of Iranians, etc., tried to Islam, which had more than thirteen dam Iran was linked with the fabric of society, set aside. However, his move was confronted with the intense opposition and reaction of the masses of the people, clerics and the religious community of Iran. One of the cases that clearly illustrates the opposition of Reza Shah and the British to Shi'ism and Shi'ism in the first Pahlavi era, the British support for the promotion process Baha'ite sect tendencies. Of course, before that, the British used the basic Babylonian sect to use the Shiite clergy of Iran. Similarly, the clerics in Iran, because of the inadequacy of the Qajar kings, had a high reputation among the people, and with the formalization of the Shia religion during the time Qajar concerns about the government and the British Embassy intensified, because it was a clerical regime in Iran.¹⁵

One of the main reasons that made Britain hard to support Babi'a and its next descendants, Bahayit, were the basic elements of Baha'i's belief that they included:

1. Exclusion of religion from the sphere of government and politics
2. Justification of colonialism as the sole factor of modernity and progress
3. The consolidation of Western-oriented forces in the country's policy and decision making body.¹⁶

Later, the British tried to bring all Zoroastrians to Baha'ism by a person named Limeji Matria Houshang, who was a Zoroastrian religion. In addition to her ability to promote Baha'is, she has the role of determining the waste in creating Freemasonry circles in Iran so that The Baha'is view the ceremony as an attribute to him. The Freemasonry Society, known as the British Army in Iran, has frequently been involved in combating religion and clergy over its lifetime from individuals belonging to the Freemasonry, which has a broad partnership with Reza Khan, before and after the kingdom, Habibollah Oinolmolk, father It can be mentioned that some of the writers believe that the Western actions of Reza Shah have been in line with the interests of Britain and the demands of the Baha'is, to the extent that they reciprocate Reza Shah for their anti-Semitic policies. He regarded the Ulema as a sign of his interest in Baha'ism and considered the policy of discovering the veil of Reza Khan in accordance with the law of Baha'ism.¹⁷ After the reign of Reza Shah and under the direct authority of the British and British delegates in Iran, many Freemasonry and Baha'i leaders in government agencies, especially educational ones, were in high positions. In fact, these people, such as Zabiullah Ghorban, the boss University of Shiraz, Manouchehr Taslimi, the head of the Tabriz University, who played a significant role in cultural policies of the country in exchange for their good offices. The fact is that the main reason for the success of Baha'ism in the first Pahlavi era, their cooperation with the Association Freemasonry was directly under British supervision and to deal with it With the Shiite clergy was rapid.¹⁸ In fact, the most important of the policies of the secret Freemasonry in Iran, which is the most important and most important cultural instrument of the violation of the sovereignty of Iran in the United Kingdom, were banking privileges such as the establishment of a bank of Iran and Britain and the conclusion of cultural, commercial and oil contracts.

Undoubtedly, all of Britain's actions in Iran can be summarized by a few points that, at any given time, one or more of the time seemed to be more prominent for the British. For the United Kingdom, it was important in the first place to preserve India as a colossal economic colony, so the priority of British goals was to preserve this colonial gem in any way. Subsequently, much of the country's efforts were aimed at protecting interests, oil and energy reserves, supporting puppet regimes, and ultimately confronting powerful rivals (under the pretext of Communism, Nazism, etc.) and preventing their influence. In order to account for these multiple interests in Iran at different times, the United Kingdom needed the most powerful domestic and foreign forces and mercenaries to study these interests as best they could. Reza Khan Mirpleen supported them as long as they best served their interests and provided them with a Kazakh soldier to the command, the prime minister and, finally, the kingdom of Iran, all of which except with the support and will of the British did not take place. With the arrival of Nazi and Hitlerites, Reza Shah's tendency towards the Germans was for Britain, and after a while, Britain realized that no further education of interest in Iran would be achieved by Reza Shah. In fact, the actions of Reza Shah, such as the invitation of the British advisers who were the enemy of England, abolished the privilege of the Imperial Bank and, for many other reasons, decided to relinquish Reza Shah, the British and other scholars. Reza Shahi, who repeatedly ignored the warnings of the British in the wake of Al-Watta and in the hope of German support, finally forced the British to step down in September 1920 in the wake of the Second World War and with the occupation of Iran by the Allied forces. From the monarchy and left Iran. Reza Shah entered the power duct with a military-British coup and was deposed after about 21 years. In other words, the danger of tsarist Russians and later communism turned Reza Khan into Reza Shah. As time went by, the danger of Nazism was the fall of his monarchy, and Reza Shah was no more than a tool for assessing the interests and policies of Britain.

None.

The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest.

1. Kasravi Ahmad. The 18 Year History of Azarbaijan.Tehran: Amirkabir Publications; 1991. 22 p.
2. Manshour Gorgani, Mohammad Ali. Russian and British competition in Iran. Tehran: Ataei Publications; 1989. 285 p.
3. Farbod Nasser. The 1921 Persian coup d'état in contemporary Iran. Journal of Literature and Languages. 2004;1(2):1–19.
4. Dolatabadi Yahya.The Life of yahya. Tehran: Ferdows Publications; 2009.
5. Foran John. Fragile Resistance. Tehran: Rasa Publications; 2005. 460 p.
6. Madani, Seyyed Jalaleddin. The History of political developments and foreign relations in Iran. Tehran: Paydar Publications; 1988. 437 p.
7. Sheikh Al Eslami, Javad. The murder of Atabak and sixteen other research papers. Tehran: Ettelaat Publications; 1979.
8. Amini Alireza. History of Iran's Foreign Relations during the Pahlavi era. Tehran: Sedaye Moaaser Publications; 2002.
9. Moatazed Khosrow. Great tension in Iran's foreign relations during Reza Khan. Tehran: Peykan Publications; 1988.
10. Moberly, Frederick James. Operations in Iran, World War I 1919-1914. Tehran: Rasa Publications; 1970. 252 p.
11. Densterwill Agra. British imperialism in Iran and the Caucasus. Tehran: Manouchehri Publications; 2004.
12. Zargar, Ali Asghar. History of political relations between Iran and Britain during Reza Shah. Tehran: Bayat Publications; 1993. 640 p.
13. Farman farmaeian Manouchehr. Blood and Oil: Memoirs of a Persian Prince. Tehran: Qoqnoos Publications; 1998. 558 p.
14. Fatemi NS. Diplomatic History of Persia, 1917-1923, Anglo-Russian Power politics in Iran1953. New York: Russel F Moore Publications; 2001. 17 p.
15. Namdar, Mozaffar. Colonialism and quasi-religious practices. Journal of Ayyam. 2003;29(12):39–62.
16. Faghih Hagghani, Mousa. Baha'i and the British intelligence service. Journal of Ayyam. 2003;29(5):18–34.
17. Mansouri, Javad. The date of the 15th Khordad uprising in the narrative of the documents. Tehran: Markaz Asnad Publications; 1998. 64 p.
18. Taba Tabaei Hassan. Freemasonry Influence in the Management of Iranian Cultural Institutions. Tehran: Markaz Asnad Publications; 2005.