著者

貫井 万里

出版者

日本中東学会

雑誌

日本中東学会年報 (ISSN:09137858)

巻号頁・発行日

no.18, pp.159-185, 2003-02-28

---

The nationalization movement of oil industries was developed into a large-scale nationalization movement under Mohammad Mosadeq, a charismatic leader, by attracting most of Iranians who suffered during the depression after the WWII. The uprising on July 21, 1952 was caused the anti-Mosadeq alliance's attack on the Mosaddeq reformative policies. The anti-Mosadeq alliance consisted of the royalists, the pro-British faction and the pro-Qavam faction in Iran. On July 16, 1952, Anti-Mosadeq alliance and the British government maneuvered to make Mossadeq resign from office and Ahmad Qavam assume office as Prime Minister, in accordance with Loy Henderson, U.S. ambassador to Tehran. The Siom-e Tir (July 21) uprising was a historical incident that returned Mossadeq to the prime ministerial post again in consequence of national resistance. For a long time, the question of the main agent(s) behind the uprising has been a controversial focus reflected by actual politics, such as the cold war and the Islamic revolution in 1979. Some researchers believed that the main agent(s) was the Tudeh party (Iranian Communist Party). This opinion actually influenced the subsequent American diplomatic policy toward Iran. Some have insisted secular-nationalist leaders played an important role. Other have asserted that the famous political cleric, Ayatollah Kashani, performed a very significant role to mobilize Iranian people against Qavam and his patrons, the Foreign Powers. The aim of this paper is, therefore, to describe not the leader's role, but people's political action, especially the Tehran Bazzaris' one, during the uprising of July 21, 1952. The analysis employs mainly Qiyam-e Melli-ye Siom-e Tir compiled by Muhammad Torkaman. After observing the Bazaaris' collective action in detail, the study explains how the Bazaar people had a more significant role than previous researchers have suggested. To be more precise, they participated in the resistance in their own interests rather than under the unilateral order from religious or nationalist leaders