Despite a succession of scholarly studies over the years, the relationship between Reza Shah’s Iran and National Socialist Germany has not been fully explored. Rather than focusing on the supposed Aryan ideological sympathies that bound the two countries together, this article argues that the real driver of the German–Iranian relationship in the 1930s was economic and based in the mutual interaction of state economic initiatives. It states that Iran’s place in Nazism’s economic system was the outcome of two factors: the “New Plan” of Reich Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht, and its focus on clearing agreements as a motor for depression-era trade, and the connections of Schacht’s system to Reza Shah’s strategy to modernize Iran. In exploring this issue the article focuses on relations between Germany and Iran during three distinct moments: first, the period from 1918 to 1928 and the working out of a new relationship after the First World War; secondly the period of Schacht’s New Plan in Iran in the mid-1930s; and finally the period from the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939 to the British–Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941. During this last period Iran both belonged to the Nazi–Soviet trade zone created by the Pact and attempted to defend its neutrality.

Homa Katouzian’s exceptionally perceptive, influential, and wide-ranging scholarship has been marked by three mutually reinforcing characteristics: a profound and detailed mastery of Iran’s multi-civilizational heritage; a comparatively informed focus on the country’s distinct historical trajectory; and an existentially grounded pluralist perspective in examining and evaluating the country’s major political turning points and actors. These features are already fully displayed in his early magnum opus, The Political Economy of Modern Iran (1981), whose historical and political conclusions have been underlined time and again by the subsequent and often shocking national and international turns. In the intervening period, Katouzian has developed the cyclical theory of Iran’s history as an “aridosolatic,” “pickaxe” or “short-termist” society. Of the important questions that his contributions raise or address, this paper examines the long-term continuity of Twelver/Imami Shi‘ism’s trajectory which uniquely in the twentieth century Muslim and other worlds produced the leaders of two great revolutions. The result entails the addition of a still unfolding evolutionary-institutional layer within Katouzian’s research program which may enhance its explanatory power and reinforce its political vision.

The Iranian trade delegation’s visit to the USSR in April–May 1935 was an event of global significance, underscored by its extensive coverage in the international press. Marking the culmination of a new turn in the Soviet Union’s policy approaches towards Iran with respect to bilateral economic relations, this event is also considered in view of earlier incidents involving Iranian merchants who had boycotted Soviet trade organizations. Along with these political developments, the perspectives of Iranian government officials on foreign trade and industrialization are analyzed within the context of the increasing expansion, centralization, and bureaucratization of Iran’s national economy during the 1930s.

The 1941 Anglo-Soviet occupation of Iran is a topic that continues to interest historians. Work on this period has mainly focused on the reasons behind the occupation and its impact on the political situation in the country. This article looks at the psyche of the occupying forces by studying their propaganda tactics during this period. It was through propaganda that both were able to manipulate local players to either further their own interests or damage the reputation of the other. Such tactics were reflective of the dynamic nature of British‒Soviet relations and had a direct consequence on the politics of Iran. A key aspect of this was the British machine’s promotion of the Tudeh Party’s legacy as a tool of the Soviets. The propaganda patterns reveal the reactive nature of the occupying force’s policy in Iran, and reflected their changing interests.

This paper assesses the extent to which the modern historiography of Iran is indebted to a nationalist construction of Iran’s past, rather than proceeding from impartial and critical historical research. The paper pursues this aim by applying the distinction between history (as a scholarly discipline) and memory (as a nationalist construct) to one of the central tropes of the country’s historiography. According to that trope, Iranian history can be summarized as a succession of violent invasions by foreign “races,” which never stamped out Iran’s separate ethnic identity. This resilience is attributed to Iranian civilization’s inherent superiority, which Iranianized the invaders and thus ensured Iran’s survival as a primordial nation. The analysis shows that—counter-intuitively—twentieth-century Iranian historians, instead of subjecting this narrative to critical assessment, have in fact played a central role in developing it into a self-serving historiography. Special attention is given to Zarrinkub’s seminal Two Centuries of Silence.

Iranian modernity has chiefly been examined in the context of a dialectical antagonism between “traditionalists” and “modernists”—the main categories comprised of related sub-headings such as “Islamist” versus “secular,” “reactionary” versus “revolutionary,” and “regressive” versus “progressive.” Following this binaristic approach, Iranian adaptations of modernity have often been (de)historicized as a theatre of national “awakening” resulting from the toils of secular intellectuals in overcoming the obstinate resistance of traditional reactionaries, a confrontation between two purportedly well-defined and mutually exclusive camps. Such reductionist dialectics has generally overwritten the dialogic narrative of Iranian modernity, a conflicted dialogue misrepresented as a conflicting dialectic. It has also silenced an important feature of Iranian modernity: the universally acknowledged premise of the simultaneity and commensurability of tradition with modernity. The monāzereh (disputation or debate) is the account of the interaction between rival discourses that engaged in opposing, informing, and appropriating each other in the process of adapting modernity. Narrativizing the history of Iranian modernity as the conflict between mutually exclusive binaries overlooks its hyphenated, liminal identity—a narrative of adaptation rather than wholesale adoption, of heterogeneity rather than homogeneity, of dialogics rather than dialectics. The monāzereh is the account of modern Iranian histories.

The prominent modern Iranian author Ṣādiq Hidāyat (1903‒51/1281‒1330 sh.) was arguably the most observant expositor of the contortions within the inner world of Iranian demonology during the first Pahlavī period (1921‒41/1299‒1320 sh.). Through an investigation of his many interbellum titles, such as “Zindah bih Gūr,” “S.G.L.L.,” and “‘Alavīyah Khanum,” the purpose of this paper is to flesh out Hidāyat’s role as a demonographer, meaning someone who inscribes the demonic in his works. It is argued that Hidāyat’s uniqueness was located in his ability to allow the demonic, “the world as it is before the human imagination begins to work on it,” to interact with man at his most nihilistic moment. As such, it is unsurprising that recognition of the demonic was often simultaneously the moment when the voice and visage of Nature itself became apparent.