عباس نعیمی جورشری

The main aim of the present paper is to assess proper political structures affecting oil nationalization movement based upon Smelser Movement Theory. The main question of the study is that: How did the nature of political structures in Qajar and First Pahlavi periods helped to provide the proper conditions for the emergence of Oil Nationalization Movement? The data shows that the political structure in Qajar period can be explained through two major factors that are despotism and patrimonial. Moreover, collected data indicates that the years between 1920 and 1926 is the era of dual sovereignty and the nature of political structure in the period of First Pahlavi can be divided into two sectors: Pseudo-modern dictatorship (1926-1933) and Pseudo-modern authoritarian (1933-1941) periods. The paper concludes that the lack of rule of law in the long term political structure of Iran has provided proper conditions for oil nationalization movement in 1940’s. Research methodology in this study is historical and the data is gathered through library studies.

The main question which this paper aims to answer is that what were the dominant trends of Jangal movement and the main characteristics of these trends? To find an answer for this question, by assuming a central position for ideology, we have distinguished three main trends: religio-nationalists, right compromisers and leftist. Our method in this research is analyzing documentary data which are gleaned from library sources. Our research findings show that the religio-nationalist trend maintained an Iranian-Islamic attitude and were characterized by their charismatic leader Mīrzâ Kūchak Khan. While this trend was under a serious constraint by the central government, it had its native proponents among constitutionalists throughout Iran. In international arena, it was opposed by tsarist Russia and Britain. The right-compromiser trend maintaining an unstable stand, preferred to conform itself according to political conditions. Finally, the third party maintained a Leninist posture and its prominent figures were Iḥsân allâh Khân and Heidar Khân ‘Amūoghlī. This paper aims to give a survey within a socio-historical framework which, to our knowledge, is a new and unprecedented approach toward this subject.