فهرست مطالب رضا رئیس طوسی

The United States Policy toward Iran during 1985-7 is a significant issue. The US had followed a confrontationist policy toward Iran after the 1979 revolution but a shift in the policy could be observed in the mid 1980's in the form of US attempts to make a rapprochement possible. This article explains this shift through the examination of the impact of this variable: solving US problems in the Middle East. US attempts to solve the problems it faced in the Middle East during these years led to a shift in its policy towards Iran

Seistan was one of the important ancient urban centres in south eastern Persia. The ruins of the city show the prosperity and fertility of this city to the extent that a British civil officer considered it as the ancient London of Asia. This article attempts to describe the enormous latent wealth of this ancient city which made it important for strategic, political and commercial reasons. Due to strategic importance, it fell into the power struggle of 19th and 20th century especially between British and Russia. This power game was the main reason of the poverty of the peasant of Seistan. East India Company had extensively taken Seistan as the major point for its trade after its penetration in Afghanistan and likewise Russia’s penetration in the Central Asia. Western penetration in Seistan had already started in 1809. When Samarqand was annexed in 1867, the British raised the question of establishing neutral zone between Britain and Russian in Central Asia. In 1872 thus, Seistan was divided between Afghanistan and Persia. Government of India had proposed building a new trade link between Quetta and Seistan, just to establish the supreme interest of Britain in those parts of Persia bordering Baluchistan. In the later half of the 19th century, the whole policy of the British government was to capture the strategic locations to further its economic interest, which are evident from the official and non-official records. With this evil intention and local power struggle, the richness and fertility of Seistan was destroyed and local peasantry faced dire straits.

During late nineteenth century, Khuzistan was considered to be the most fertile land of Persia which at one time had yielded $ 50 million if calculated on 1962 price index. Many British officials presented in Iran and India office have recorded the abundance of water through a network of five rivers and canals, making Khuzistan a fertile ground for major staple and cash crops. At the time when the general populace was affected by the famine, Khuzistan stood unaffected. But thoroughly and gradually Khuzistan had faced deplorable condition owing to the British policy and power struggle. With the opening of the Karun River, the British influence had reached to the extent that they started interfering in the appointment of governors and granting of Khuzistan developmental projects to French, Dutch or Germans. The present article highlights the increasing influence of British in the political and economic affairs of Iran especially Khuzistan which was considered to be the 'second Egypt' next to Seistan. They had even assisted by the principle Arabs and Bakhtiaris tribes of Khuzistan as well as the influential trading and commercial figures to sabotage the irriga-tion project which could hamper the water flow to Karun River, a back bone for their commercial interest. In the first quarter of 20th century the British policy in Khuzistan proved detrimental to their vested interest.