|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
102708
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper is based on an earlier one about James Baillie Fraser's trip to Khorasan in the 1820s, the first European to travel there in the Qajar era. But instead of focusing on Fraser's experience, the information given by him is used to view the circumstances in Khorasan from an Iranian perspective, which, in turn, is derived from a study of the three main categories of people met by Fraser. Through them and their careers, the paper analyzes the problems, both inherited and new, that the early Qajars faced from the outset. Each of the three categories is dealt with separately under the headings of Prince-Governors, Princes in Exile or in Obeisance and, finally, High Priests. Together these complete the overall picture in Greater Khorasan and, by extension, throughout Iran at that particular time. What emerges from a study of their careers are the seeds of some of the major trends that were to mark nineteenth-century Iran. Khorasan, with its size and position, was particularly well placed to afford a view of a society still dependent on tribal vagaries and the dominant role of the religious hierarchy. Above all, the geo-strategic location of the province affords a privileged view across to the outlying parts of Greater Khorasan which, although still viewed from inside as a part of Greater Iran, were, due to inherent instabilities, liable to manipulation by British and Russian imperialism. The most effective tool of the latter was a propensity to promote new national entities on the ruins of an empire struggling to sustain itself without means and with a dated mindset of which most people were sorely unaware. By projecting the circumstances of time and place onto the future, one can perceive a certain degree of inevitability in the upcoming history of Qajar Iran.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
164535
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Over the past four decades, the relationship between Iran and the US has been marked by conflicts, ranging from hostage-taking and sanctions to military confrontation. The present research aims at explaining the dispute by referring to the mindsets of the two countries’ leaders and exploring their epistemological origins. The main question this article seeks to answer is: what are the roots of disputes in US–Iran relationship in the post-Revolutionary era? The hypothesis is that the US governments’ materialistic and Iranian leadership’s idealist, ideational and identity-oriented approaches have led to diverging perceptions on different issues at stake. This has precluded a common understanding between the leaderships of the two countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|