Scott Talentino

HIST 3410

Professor Izmirlioglu

Midterm Essay

The nations of Turkey, Egypt, and Iran all had different strategies and movements in the

post World War On era. Each nation sought different solutions and remedies for the new sets of

problems arising in the modern world. These were met with varying degrees of success,

acceptance, and resistance along the way.

Concerning Egypt, after World War One, conflict between the Egyptians and the Britsh

arose. British colonial representatives and soldiers often treated Egyptians as second class

citizens. The British were favored in court trials, and British soldiers were involved in more than

one massacre. Furthermore, on February 4, 1942 the British, with tanks stationed in front of the

Abdeen Palace, fearing pro-Axis elements close to the King, forced an abdication, and the

institution of the more pro-Ally Wafd party. This caused resentment against both the British and

the Wafd party, it is one of the factors that fueled the Egyptian revolution 10 years later.

In 1952, Mohamed Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser would lead a successful revolution

against the British. This would set the stage for Nasser to become a political star, not only in

Egypt, but throughout the Arab world. Nasser is undoubtedly the most important political figure

in modern Egyptian politics. In 1954, Nasser was able to nationalize the Suez Canal Company,

which had previously been controlled by French and British interests. This was a shock to

Western powers, and made Nasser hugely popular not only in Egypt, but in much of the Arab

world. This was key in securing Nasser’s position on the domestic and international stage.
 With the decline of Britain and France, and the rise of the USSR and the United States,

the power system was changing. During these changing Cold War years, Nassser decided to turn

to the Soviet Union for support, who supplied Egypt with weapons. The United States, who had

previously opposed Britain in some of the affairs in Egypt, viewed this action as unforgivable.

This hindered relations with the United States, yet brought in great support from the Soviet

Union. One reason for Nasser’s turn to the USSR during the tensions of the Cold War was

Nasser was unwilling to make deals with the traditional, “colonial” or “Imperial” powers, like

the British, that had previously manipulated Egypt.-This is very different from Turkey, who for

centuries has viewed Russia as a traditional enemy. Nasser’s deal with the Soviets brought both

positive and negative effects to Egypt, and put Egypt in a negative position with the U.S., and in

a way, helped play into the friendship between Israel and the United States.

Nasser dreamed of creating an Arab Empire, with himself as the leader. He set out to do

this by creating the United Arab Republic in 1958. This was overall a complete failure for

Nasser. In the beginning, it was a union between Egypt and Syria, however, Egypt was given

disproportionate representation, and had much more power in the Republic. Nasser was not a

democratic leader in Egypt, and he wished to maintain control in the United Arab Republic.

Unfortunately for Nasser, in 1961 there was a coup d’etat in Syria, and partly due to Nasser’s

less than democratic ambitions, the Syrians bowed out of the United Arab Republic. No other

Arab countries joined, making this part of Nasser’s dream a total failure. This was not attempted

by Turkey or Iran, and to some extent illustrates the lack of unity in the Arab world.
 Nasser also attempted to oppose Israel in the so-called Six Day War. Egypt, Jordan,

Syria, and Iraq coordinated an attack against Israel, hoping to seize the opportunity. However,

the Arab forces were met with a resounding defeat after going head to head with the Israelis.

This helped to solidify Israel’s position in the Middle East, and force the Arab nations to

recognize that Israel was not a country that could be gotten rid of overnight. This brought Nasser

into tension with Israel. Furthermore, with Israel’s increasing friendship with the United States,

and Nasser’s dealings with the Soviets, Egypt was moving further away from any semblance of

American sympathy or support on the international stage.

Overall, Nasser was a political leader with limited success. Nasser managed to oppose the

British in Egypt and market himself as a voice for the Arab peoples. In this sense, he truly was

able to become somewhat of a political superstar in the Arab world. Nasser was able to

understand the different elements in the Arab world that he could appeal to. Nasser applied

some modernization reform to appeal to the people, but nothing to radical so as not to oppose the

religious conservatives. Nasser was able to identify and utilize the different elements of the Arab

world to his own advantage, and to solidify his political power.

That being said, Nasser failed in his dream for a united Arab Empire, this being seen with

the utter collapse of the United Arab Republic. Nasser failed to see that his power grabbing,

while it might have worked in Egypt, would not work on other Arab countries far removed from

his administration. Nasser overestimated the unity of Arab countries, and downplayed the crucial

factor that in reality, many of the Arab states do not in fact get along with each other, or even

like each other.

 Furthermore, Nasser was humiliated by Israeli forces. Nasser did manage to create warm

relations with the Soviets, yet this caused bitterness among the Americans, who over the years,

became closer and closer to Israel. In the long run, this would not be the most beneficial

relationship for Egypt. Nasser lacked the foresight in sensing how putting off the Americans

could strengthen Israel’s relationships with Western powers.

Regarding Iran, Iran had long been infiltrated by British and Russian interests. This also

included the issue of Iranian resources, especially oil. In the 1950’s, Iran had a democratically

elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mosaddegh. During this era, problems arose with the

Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The British claimed to the United States, including to President

Truman, that the Iranians had stolen their property. Truman did not buy into British claims, so

for a time Mosaddegh remained in power. That being said, with the election of the fierce Cold

Warrior Eisenhower, the new American President paid attention to the Iranian affair when

certain officials asserted that the Prime Minister was communist leaning. Due to rampant

anti-Communist fears during the cold war, Washington DC and the CIA, felt the need to replace

him, and then make tthe Shah an authoritarian leader. In comparison, due to Turkey’s more

“neutral” position, and Egypt’s dealings with Russia, Turkey and Egypt managed to stave off

Western interference much more than Iran, in this political era. When the Shah’s regime

collapsed, however, the new totalitarian religious regime in Iran would change this.

The CIA and both British and American agents succeeded in removing the Prime

Minister from power. The Shah was propped up and his powers greatly increased. The Shah

created a secret police, and severely mismanaged Iran. Unfortunately for Iran, during this time

the Shah was seen as an ant-Communist defense by the United States, a buffer against Russia.
This led the United States to largely ignore the Shah’s human rights violations, and his status as a

widely unpopular ruler. The Shah embraced the identity of the pre-Islamic, Persian Empire over

its Islamic past. This irritated many conservative religious powers and groups in Iranian society.

However, under the first time, under the Shah, women were allowed to vote.

The Shah managed to antagonize various groups throughout all parts of Iranian society.

The Shah underestimated the force of opposition against him, especially with more than just the

religious conservatives chafing under his authoritarian regime. The Shah, and the United States

government, did not count on the notion that Iranian individuals might believe that any regime

would be better than the rule of the Shah. When the Shah’s regime came crumbling down, it

paved the way for extremist elements in Iranian society, and led to a diplomatic loss for the

United States and a catastrophe for the daily life of the Iranian people. The CIA’s removal of

Mohammad Mosaddegh from power, and the propping up of the Shah, led to a backfire in the

long run.

Turkey took a different path from both Egypt and Iran. Turkey did not play into

friendship with the Soviets, nor did it adopt a complete totalitarian dictatorship like the Shah, or

a fundamentalist Islamic regime like the one the Shah was replaced by. Turkey was not

completely democratic either, with leaders like Atatürk and Ionu having authoritarian tendencies.

Turkey did not embrace capitalism or communism, but embraced a form of Etat-ism, or

state-ism. This can be thought of as somewhat of a mixture between the two ideas. Thus overall,

Turkish history in the 20th century can be thought of as a middle ground in some ways.

However, in terms of modernization, Turkey was willing to do more than leaders like Nasser,

and in doing so antagonized some religious conservatives.

 After World War One, Turkey having suffered a humiliating defeat and going through the

collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey sought to avoid making the same mistakes. Turkey was

heavily pressured to join the Allied forces this time around, but decline with the results of World

War One fresh in their minds. While this spared the lives of many Turkish men, it also meant

that at the end of World War 2, Turkey would not reap any of the benefits of the victors table at

the end of the war.

The most important figure in this era was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Atatürk Romanized

the Turkish alphabet and thoroughly changed the language from its Ottoman form.While this did

“modernize” Turkey in some ways, it severed connections to the Ottoman in a way not seen in

Iran and Egypt, and carried with it ac certain loss of cultural heritage. He also implemented many

modernization campaigns and granted more rights to women, including the right to vote and the

encouraging females to adopt Western clothing. Atatürk was more willing to modernize and to

Westernize Turkey. Atatürk antagonized many more conservative, religious elements of society.

In the long run, some of his policies could be seen as fueling the religious conservative backlash

on sees in Turkey today. That being said, Turkey did reap some benefits from these

modernization reforms and a certain level of industrialization and political freedom for certain

groups of people.

Atatürk’s main failure was in leaving somewhat of a power vacuum. This can be seen

with the relatively lackluster ascent of his successor, ​İsmet İnönü​. ​İsmet İnönü​ was another,

more dictatorial figure, yet he lacked the personal charisma and persona that was embodied in

Ataturk.​ İnönü​ managed to retain control over Turkey, but times were more tumultuous and

domestic unrest more common.​ İnönü​ managed to avoid many of the disasters of World War
Two, yet conflicts between Greeks and Christians, and political and religious (Islamic)

opposition within Turkey, also created shaky conditions in his regime.Turkey did not have as

much political unity as Nasser did in Egypt, and being less totalitarian than Iran, had less control

over domestic conflicts in comparison with Egypt and Iran.

Turkey also made motions more towards the Western world. Turkey helped the American

forces in the Korean War to prove itself to the Western Powers, after having avoided World War

Two. Turkey, looked more towards the West than Egypt, and later on, definitely more than the

Islamic regime that eventually replaced the more pro-Western Shah in Iran. However, this legacy

is starting to change with the rise of more conservative Islamic groups in Turkey in recent years,

and some levels of domestic unrest in current times.

Overall, Egypt, Turkey, and Iran faced divers political and social situations, and reacted

to them in unique ways. Each country and their most important leaders-Nasser, Atatürk, and the

Shah and the Islamic fundamentalist regime that replaced him, had varying degrees of success

and failure. Many of these success came due to the ability to appeal to the people, whether it be

through anti-Colonialism to Arab unity. Many of their failures came hostility from political

groups at home and abroad, some of the policies enacted over the 20th century alienated many

segments of these 3 societies, and created varying degrees of backlash. All of them have had a

direct impact on the conflicts and issues that one witnesses in the Middle East in 2019. With the

collapse of the Soviet Union, and the rise of the War on Terror, these countries have fallen into a

more unstable position on the international stage in current affairs.

.