Chapter Fifty-Five: The Reign of Mohammad Shah Qajar and the Herat Campaign: Imperial Rivalry in the Era of the Great Game
Introduction: Succession, Legitimacy, and the Architectural Framework of European Balance
The death of Fath Ali Shah Qajar on Thursday, 1 Aban 1213 (23 October 1834), following his thirty-seven-year reign, precipitated a succession crisis that would fundamentally reshape the geopolitical dynamics of nineteenth-century Central Asia. The ascension of his grandson Mohammad Shah, son of Abbas Mirza, to the throne represents far more than a dynastic transition; it constitutes a critical juncture in the emergence of what historians have termed the "Great Game" - the systematic competition between imperial powers for strategic advantage in the buffer zones between their expanding spheres of influence.
The convergence of British and Russian support for Mohammad Shah's succession illuminates the sophisticated mechanisms through which European powers sought to manage peripheral state transitions while advancing their respective imperial agendas. The coordinated efforts of British Plenipotentiary John Campbell and Russian Count Ivan Osipovich Simonich transcended mere diplomatic courtesy, reflecting instead a calculated attempt to preserve what Austrian Chancellor Metternich had conceptualized as the post-Napoleonic "European balance" (Das europäische Gleichgewicht). This balance, predicated upon the Vienna Congress's institutional framework, required that peripheral disruptions be contained lest they destabilize the fragile equilibrium that had emerged from the defeat of Napoleonic hegemony.
The correspondence between British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston and his ambassador to Russia, Sir John Duncan Bligh, reveals the strategic calculus underlying this Anglo-Russian coordination. Palmerston's recognition that "England and Russia are both deeply interested in maintaining internal peace in Iran" reflected not altruistic concern for Iranian stability, but rather the pragmatic understanding that uncontrolled succession disputes could provide opportunities for rival powers to gain asymmetric advantages. The systematic nature of this coordination - involving detailed discussions about candidate selection, financial support mechanisms, and military assistance protocols - demonstrates how the Concert of Europe extended its influence into regions ostensibly beyond its formal jurisdiction.
The Geopolitical Architecture of Succession: Military Advisors and Financial Dependencies
The deployment of British military personnel under Major Passmore, including officers such as Captain Justin Sheil and Lieutenant Farrant, alongside Major Lindsay Bethune's appointment as military advisor, reveals the sophisticated mechanisms through which imperial powers projected influence without formal annexation. This system of embedded military advisement represented what contemporary strategic theorists might recognize as an early form of "indirect rule" - maintaining the facade of indigenous sovereignty while exercising decisive influence over military and administrative structures.
Campbell's pessimistic assessment that "the prince's treasury was empty... and the soldiers' wages had been in arrears for some time" identified the fundamental vulnerability that would shape Mohammad Shah's entire reign: the chronic fiscal crisis that rendered Iran dependent upon external financial support. This dependency relationship, far from being merely economic, constituted the primary mechanism through which European powers exercised political control over Iranian policy formation. The provision of military equipment - "rifles, cannonballs, mortars, and explosive shells" - created technological dependencies that reinforced political subordination.
The internal tensions within the British advisory mission, particularly the conflict between Major Passmore and Major Bethune over command authority, illuminate the organizational challenges inherent in projecting imperial influence through informal mechanisms. These disputes reflected deeper structural contradictions within imperial administration, where formal diplomatic protocols clashed with military hierarchies and competing institutional loyalties to the East India Company versus the Foreign Office created parallel command structures with conflicting objectives.
The Elimination of the Farahani Deputy: Institutional Consolidation and Imperial Manipulation
The assassination of Mirza Abul-Qasim Farahani, the Deputy (Qaim-e-Maqam), on the night of 31 Khordad 1214 (21 June 1835), represents a pivotal moment in understanding how imperial rivalries manipulated internal Iranian power structures. The systematic character of this elimination - involving Mohammad Shah's coordination with Mohammad Hossein Khan Ishik Aghasibashi and receiving tacit approval from Russian Minister Simonich - demonstrates the extent to which external powers had penetrated Iranian decision-making processes.
Simonich's detailed account of the Deputy's removal reveals the sophisticated intelligence networks that European powers maintained within Iranian governmental structures. His observation that "the Russian ambassador's threshold had become a meeting place for all the factions, parties, and discontented people" illustrates how diplomatic missions functioned as coordinating centers for domestic political opposition. The manipulation of factional rivalries - encouraging complaints about the Deputy's "injustice" while simultaneously positioning Russian interests as aligned with "reform" - exemplifies the indirect mechanisms through which imperial powers effected regime change without direct military intervention.
The appointment of Haj Mirza Aghasi as successor Prime Minister introduces one of the most complex and misunderstood figures in nineteenth-century Iranian politics. Contemporary European sources consistently portrayed Aghasi as incompetent and backward - characterizations that subsequent historiography has uncritically accepted. However, a systematic analysis of his diplomatic correspondence and strategic decisions reveals a sophisticated practitioner of what might be termed "strategic ambiguity" - the deliberate cultivation of an image of incompetence to mask effective resistance to imperial encroachment.
Count Simonich and the Russian Strategic Vision: Military Background and Imperial Objectives
The appointment of Colonel Ivan Osipovich Simonich as Russian Minister Plenipotentiary represents the militarization of diplomatic representation characteristic of the Great Game period. Simonich's biography - a Dalmatian who had served in Napoleon's forces, been captured at Moscow, and subsequently rose through Russian military ranks - embodied the cosmopolitan yet intensely competitive character of nineteenth-century imperial service. His combat experience, including wounds received in Iranian artillery fire at the Battle of Ganja, provided him with both practical military knowledge and personal investment in Russian-Iranian relations that transcended conventional diplomatic detachment.
Simonich's subordination to multiple command structures - the Russian Foreign Ministry, General Staff, Orenburg military base, and Ministry of Asian Affairs - illustrates the institutional complexity of Russian imperial administration. This multiplicity of reporting relationships created both opportunities for autonomous action and potential conflicts between diplomatic and military objectives. His successor Alexander Opisevich Dyugamel's assessment that Simonich was fundamentally unsuited for diplomatic service reflected tensions between military and civilian approaches to imperial management.
The strategic vision underlying Russian policy toward Iran, as articulated through Simonich's actions, reflected General Paskevich's broader conceptualization of Asian expansion as essential to Russian great power status. The belief that "access to the fertile reserves of India and the warm waters of the Indian Ocean was the only way for Russia to achieve superiority over its European counterparts" positioned Iranian relations within a comprehensive geopolitical strategy extending from the Caucasus to Central Asia and ultimately to the Indian Ocean.
Herat in the Strategic Calculus of Empire: Geographic Determinism and Economic Networks
The emergence of Herat as the focal point of Anglo-Russian competition reflects the intersection of geographic determinism and commercial networks in shaping imperial strategy. Herat's strategic significance derived from its position at the convergence of five major trade routes - to Merv and Turkmenistan, to Mazar-e-Sharif, Samarkand and Bukhara, to Kabul, and to Kandahar and Lahore - making it what contemporary strategic theorists would recognize as a "critical node" in Central Asian commercial networks.
The productivity of the Harirud valley, which could "feed a large army for years" while providing "whatever was needed immediately," exemplified the agricultural surplus that underwrote military campaigns in pre-industrial contexts. British intelligence officer Arthur Conolly's assessment that Herat was "the key to opening Afghanistan" because its walls were "impregnable except by advanced infantry with fortified posts" identified the defensive capabilities that made control of the city strategically decisive.
The historical depth of Herat's cultural significance - as birthplace of figures like Kamaluddin Behzad, Khwaja Abdullah Ansari, and Abdur Rahman Jami - provided Iranian claims with legitimacy that transcended mere strategic convenience. This cultural dimension of territorial claims reflects what Benedict Anderson would later theorize as "imagined community" - the construction of national identity through shared cultural heritage and historical memory.
Financial Diplomacy and Economic Warfare: Debt Manipulation as Imperial Strategy
The manipulation of Iranian debt obligations to Russia reveals the sophisticated use of financial instruments as tools of imperial control. The Treaty of Turkmenchay's war indemnity provisions created a permanent mechanism for Russian pressure on Iranian policy formation. Haj Mirza Aghasi's recognition that "the British were very worried that Russia would use this loan to pressure Iran to get another concession" demonstrates his understanding of how financial dependencies translated into political vulnerabilities.
The triangular negotiation involving Russian debt forgiveness, British commercial treaty demands, and Iranian strategic autonomy illustrates the complex calculations required for peripheral state survival in a multipolar imperial system. Aghasi's manipulation of both British anxiety about Russian influence and Russian willingness to support Iranian expansion against British interests represents sophisticated diplomatic strategy rather than the incompetence attributed to him by contemporary European observers.
Ellis's crude attempt to leverage debt obligations - repeatedly reminding Mohammad Shah of payment deadlines while offering British financial assistance contingent upon commercial concessions - exemplifies the "debt trap diplomacy" that would become characteristic of imperial economic control mechanisms. The Shah's irritated response - "So far, the Russian ambassador has not said anything to me about this, so why do you keep bringing yourself up on this issue?" - reveals Iranian awareness of these manipulative tactics.
The Emergence of Iranian Nationalist Discourse: Territorial Claims and Historical Legitimacy
Ellis's observation that Mohammad Shah and "all his subjects" considered Iranian rule over Herat and Kandahar as legitimate "as in the days of the Safavid dynasty" identifies the emergence of what contemporary political theory would recognize as territorial nationalism. This Iranian conception of historical territorial rights - that lands "had belonged to Iran since the Safavid era" - paralleled the justifications employed by Sassanid kings regarding eastern Mediterranean territories during their conflicts with Rome.
The pervasiveness of this belief system across Iranian society, despite the absence of modern mass media, suggests the operation of what Antonio Gramsci would theorize as "cultural hegemony" - the naturalization of particular political arrangements through shared cultural assumptions. Colonel Borowski's confirmation of this "universal" belief among Iranians indicates the effectiveness of traditional cultural transmission mechanisms in creating national consciousness.
This nationalist discourse provided Iranian policy-makers with domestic legitimacy for territorial expansion that transcended immediate strategic calculations. The framing of the Herat campaign as recovery of historic Iranian territories rather than aggressive expansion enabled mobilization of popular support while positioning Iran as defending legitimate rights rather than pursuing imperial ambitions.
British Strategic Responses: Treaty Manipulation and Defensive Realignment
The British invocation of the ninth clause of the 1814 Treaty of Tehran - stipulating British neutrality in Iranian-Afghan conflicts except as mediator "at the request of both parties" - exemplifies the selective interpretation of legal instruments to advance imperial interests. This clause, originally designed to limit British obligations, was transformed into justification for opposing Iranian expansion while simultaneously supporting Herat's independence through covert assistance.
Ellis's frank admission that "the British Government, with a view to internal peace in India, cannot afford to entertain the Persian invasion of Afghanistan" because "such an expansion would immediately bring Russia to the threshold of our empire" reveals the defensive nature of British strategy. The recognition that Iran could no longer serve as "a defensive outer wall against India" represented a fundamental shift in British strategic thinking from utilizing Iran as a buffer state to containing Iran as a potential threat.
The proposed creation of an independent Afghanistan through unification of Iranian Afghan provinces reflects what contemporary international relations theory would recognize as "buffer state creation" - the establishment of nominally independent entities designed to prevent direct contact between rival imperial powers. This strategy required simultaneous weakening of Iranian territorial control and strengthening of Afghan political coherence under British influence.
McNeill's Diplomatic Strategy: Personal Relations and Strategic Miscalculation
Dr. John McNeill's appointment as British Minister Plenipotentiary represents the professionalization of imperial intelligence gathering through medical expertise. His background as physician to British troops provided both legitimate cover for presence in Iran and access to Iranian elite circles through medical services to the royal family. This combination of professional competence and political mission exemplified the multifunctional character of imperial personnel in peripheral regions.
McNeill's systematic character assassination of Iranian officials - describing his "hatred of Iranians" and attributing Iranian pride in cultural superiority to "institutional strength" - reflects the racialized discourse that legitimized imperial intervention. His role in the Griboyedov assassination and attempts to prevent Abbas Mirza from recovering Herat demonstrate the integration of covert operations with diplomatic representation.
The detailed instructions provided to McNeill by the British Foreign Office - including consultation with Ottoman representatives, prevention of Iranian expansion, insistence on Russian debt repayment, and coordination with Indian administration - reveal the systematic coordination required to implement imperial strategy across multiple theaters and governmental institutions.
The Diplomatic Theater of Herat: Performance, Deception, and Strategic Communication
Ellis's conversations with Haj Mirza Aghasi regarding Herat reveal the theatrical dimensions of diplomatic negotiation, where explicit statements served multiple audiences and strategic communications were layered with multiple meanings. Ellis's "frank" warning about British displeasure with extensive Afghan conquest was simultaneously a negotiating tactic, intelligence gathering operation, and signal to domestic British constituencies regarding ministerial vigilance.
Aghasi's responses - questioning whether "the criminal conduct of the Afghans in collaborating with the Turkmens in enslaving the citizens of Iran" should be tolerated - reframed the territorial dispute in terms of humanitarian intervention and protection of Iranian citizens. This rhetorical strategy parallels contemporary justifications for international intervention while grounding claims in traditional concepts of sovereign responsibility for subject protection.
The proposal for British mediation with Kamran Mirza represents what contemporary diplomatic theory would recognize as "forum shopping" - the selection of negotiating frameworks that advantage particular parties. Ellis's offer to write conciliatory letters himself while allowing Iranian officials to avoid appearance of weakness illustrates the complex protocols required to manage face-saving in hierarchical political cultures.
Russian Financial Support and Strategic Calculation: Investment in Iranian Expansion
Simonich's arrangement of Russian financial support for the Herat campaign - including debt forgiveness contingent upon successful conquest and direct monetary contributions to military expenses - demonstrates the sophisticated use of economic incentives to align Iranian actions with Russian strategic objectives. This financial partnership transcended simple alliance formation, creating shared investment in territorial expansion that aligned Russian access to Central Asian trade routes with Iranian recovery of historic territories.
The contradiction between official Russian Foreign Ministry disapproval of the campaign and covert support through ministerial action illustrates the institutional complexity of imperial policy formation. Foreign Minister Nesselrode's public characterization of the expedition as "foolish and unwise" provided diplomatic cover while Simonich's practical assistance enabled Russian strategic objectives.
The promise of Russian consular establishment in conquered territories - providing "reconnaissance and surveillance, both covertly and openly, throughout Afghanistan" - reveals the integration of commercial and intelligence networks in imperial expansion. This system of consular intelligence gathering would provide Russia with institutional presence throughout Central Asia without requiring direct military occupation.
The Crisis of British Influence: Institutional Limitations and Strategic Adaptation
McNeill's detailed self-assessment of diplomatic failure provides unprecedented insight into the limitations of imperial influence when confronted with sophisticated local resistance. His recognition that Iranian officials had "cleverly pretended" cooperation while pursuing independent objectives reveals the effectiveness of strategic deception in asymmetric diplomatic relationships.
The fundamental miscalculation underlying British strategy - the assumption that personal relationships and financial leverage would translate into policy control - reflects broader imperial assumptions about the rationality and predictability of peripheral state behavior. McNeill's discovery that Mohammad Shah and Aghasi "supposed that by giving me the hope that I would achieve my object, they could induce me to waste the money of my countrymen" illustrates Iranian understanding of British decision-making processes and ability to manipulate imperial expectations.
The recommendation for naval demonstration in the Persian Gulf - to "awaken him to the dread of it" and dispel "the foolish notion" that Britain was dependent on Iranian cooperation - represents the resort to coercive diplomacy when indirect influence mechanisms failed. This escalation from financial incentives to military threats illustrates the structural limitations of informal imperial control when confronted with coherent resistance.
Systemic Implications: The Transformation of International Order
The Herat crisis represents a critical moment in the transformation of international order from the post-Napoleonic Concert of Europe to the multipolar imperial competition that would characterize the later nineteenth century. The breakdown of Anglo-Russian coordination in Iran demonstrated the limitations of the Vienna system when extended beyond European territorial boundaries.
The emergence of sophisticated peripheral state strategies for manipulating imperial rivalries presaged the development of what contemporary international relations theory recognizes as "strategic non-alignment" - the systematic exploitation of great power competition to maximize small state autonomy. Iranian success in securing both Russian financial support and British military technology while maintaining strategic independence provided a model for peripheral state survival in multipolar systems.
The integration of economic, military, and cultural dimensions of imperial competition in Central Asia established precedents for the "spheres of influence" system that would dominate international relations through the early twentieth century. The recognition that territorial control required not merely military conquest but also economic integration, cultural hegemony, and institutional penetration shaped subsequent imperial strategies across Asia and Africa.
Conclusion: The Legacy of Strategic Complexity
The Mohammad Shah period and the Herat crisis illuminate the sophisticated diplomatic, economic, and military strategies employed by both imperial and peripheral actors during the formative period of modern international relations. The systematic character of Iranian resistance to British and Russian manipulation - through financial diplomacy, strategic ambiguity, and alliance diversification - challenges conventional narratives of passive peripheral state victimization by imperial powers.
The complexity of institutional relationships, personal animosities, and strategic calculations revealed in diplomatic correspondence demonstrates that the "Great Game" involved far more sophisticated players than traditionally recognized. Figures like Haj Mirza Aghasi, dismissed by contemporary European observers as incompetent, emerge from systematic analysis as skilled practitioners of defensive statecraft under conditions of extreme external pressure.
The ultimate significance of this period lies not in its immediate military outcomes, but in its demonstration of how peripheral states could exploit imperial rivalries to maintain strategic autonomy despite overwhelming material disadvantages. The diplomatic strategies developed during the Herat crisis would influence Iranian foreign policy formation through the constitutional period and beyond, providing institutional memory of successful resistance to imperial encroachment that would prove crucial during subsequent periods of external pressure.
The geopolitical dynamics established during Mohammad Shah's reign - the triangular competition between British India, Russian Central Asia, and Iranian territorial recovery - would structure Central Asian international relations through the twentieth century, with contemporary echoes in ongoing struggles over energy networks, transportation corridors, and spheres of influence in the region. Understanding this formative period remains essential for comprehending the deep structural forces that continue to shape political development across this strategically critical region.
Comments
Post a Comment