Manon Barnes

(a)
[4]

Describe the nature of Saddam Husseins rule in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq as a president from 1979 the same way he ruled it as a
vice-president. He combined the stick of terror and indoctrination with the carrot
of social and infrastructure improvements including building new roads, bridges and
hospitals amongst other things. He carried out a brutal purge in 1979 against anyone
who might be a threat to him which included 500 members of his own party: the Baath
Party. He ruled with terror involving show trials, televised trials of a number of
opponents where 21 were executed. Saddam Hussein also became more aggressive
towards Israel and condemned Egypt for making a peace treaty with them in1979. He
created a cult of leadership in his country by constantly being glorified by the media
as being the leader of Iraq and the Arab World. As well as putting up paintings of him
and statues and by making his birthday a national holiday. He later on started
persecuting the shiites and the kurds as they were seen as potential opponents.

(b)
Why was Saddam Hussein able to come to power in
Iraq? [6]
Saddam Hussein was leader of Iraq from 1979 to
One reason Saddam Hussein was able to come to power was his strong power base.
He did this by making sure he had control of the key positions in the ruling party: the
Baath party. He also controlled the most important departments in the government
and in the army. He placed family and friends in positions of power. He kept the
military happy by spending a lot on defence so that they would not rebel. Furthermore,
Saddam and the Baathists needed control so they made trade unions, schools and
sports club under state control. This made sure that nobody could escape the
government and rebel against it.
A second reason Saddam Hussein was able to come to power was his popularity within
Iraq. He did this by overseeing the nationalisation of the Iraqi oil industry from the
British in 1972. He used this money to build up education, health and welfare services
that became the best in the Arab world. Moreover, in 1973, the Iraqis reduced oil
production and sales to Western countries to condemn their support for Israel. This
mean that the prices kept increasing and could then use the money to build up the
economy, build bridges, roads and schools.
Saddam Hussein also repressed the population in order to come to power in Iraq. As
he made a general in the army in 1976, when the president was very weak, he
effectively became the leader of Iraq. He controlled the army and the secret police.
The army was kept under control by regular indoctrination, rotating officers so that
none would become too comfortable and locking up and perhaps executing suspected
disloyal officers. This mean that the most powerful forces were constantly repressed
which gave him even more control on them.
To conclude, Saddam Hussein was able to come to power by having a strong power
base and control. As well as being popular with the Iraqi and the repression inflected
upon them. The most important reason his genuine popularity for his drastic
improvements within Iraq.

Manon Barnes

(a)
The 1979 Iranian revolution started because Irans
potential religious leaders were more popular than the
Shah. To what extent do you agree with this statement?
Explain your answer? [10]

The Iranian revolution started because Irans potential religious leaders were
more popular than the Shah. The Shah was incredibly unpopular because of his
extravagant lifestyle and because he was seen as a Western puppet. The religious
leaders: the Mullahs used this unpopularity of the Shah to their advantage at the
weekly prayer times were they criticised the Shah for his wealth, luxury and
corruption. The Mullahs were just feeding the Iranian population with what they
wanted to hear. The Mullahs also encouraged street demonstrations and protests and
because of how the Shah reacted to this, the Mullahs gained even more popularity.
Every time the Shahs army killed people in protests for the Shah to abdicate, they
would be followed with even bigger protests with up to a million strong in Tehran.
When the government introduced military rule in September of 1978, the army killed
500 people in another protests. After this, the military refused to shoot on innocent
people. The Mullahs used this incident to spark a revolution as they had become much
more popular than the Shah and that is why the Iranian revolution started.

On the other hand, the Iranian revolution started because of years of

dissatisfaction with the economical and social ruling in Iran. After the Second World
War, Iranians started demanding that their government take control of their old fields
and that they should receive at least 50 % of oil profits. Mossadeq took control of this
nationalist movement and he became a hero to millions both in Iran and beyond. As
the Shah received a lot of pressure from the West to stop this movement, he
imprisoned Mossadeq and appointed a pro-Western Prime Minister. After this, the
Iranians started receiving 40 % of the oil profits but this was less than what they had
demanded. This sparked dissatisfaction with the way Iran had given in to the West and
how its economy was handled. Moreover, there were 50000 Americans in 1979 in Iran
which contributed to this anti-West feelings. Another incident that caused
dissatisfaction with how Irans money was being spent was the Shahs incredibly
extravagant celebration of what he claimed (though no one believed) was the 2500th
anniversary of the Persian monarchy, where he spent $330 million. This was seen as
preposterous in a country where millions struggled to feed themselves. Therefore, the
Iranian revolution did not start because of the popularity of these religious leaders, but
because the population of Iran was dissatisfied with how it was being run socially and
economically.

Manon Barnes
To conclude, I believe that the Iranian revolution happened because the
religious leaders were more popular than the Shah. However, I also believe that it was
more that the Shah was very unpopular and that the Iranians had the fever for a
revolution and the leaders of this contrastive revolution happened to be the religious
leaders.