War and Peace in Qajar Persia: Implications Past and ... - Oguzlar.az

The Turko-Persian War 1821–1823 101The Shah asked his son Mohammad Ali Mirza to spare the city of Baghdadand Sheikh Muasa Najaf, the son of a celebrated Arab jurist (who hadperformed a similar function twice before) was sent to mediate between thetwo protagonists. This period of reflection and negotiation, coupled with thegrowing incidences of cholera, meant that the opportunity to strike ebbedaway while Mohammad Ali Mirza struggled to feed his army and shake offillness. Soon he had no recourse but to withdraw and another opportunitywas missed. Subsequent forays into Iraq’ by forces under Mohammad AliMirza’s son, Hossein-Ali Mirza (and new governor of the southern provinces),lacking his father’s inspirational skills, came to naughtCross-border loyaltiesIf Persia had taken Baghdad earlier, could they have held onto it and thuschanged the history of the region? As we have seen, the Persians certainlycould take ground; but they found it difficult to hold onto their gains becauseof their need to demobilize in order to save money and allow the irregularsto tend the flocks and harvest the crops. To hold onto new territory requiredlocal political support from the affected region. The mere appointment ofnew governors and Beys, thought to be more reliable, often did not turn outas hoped. Most proffers of loyalty from Ottoman exiles in the north werebut expedients. Ironically in the south the Persian forces did not stay longenough to set up an alternative administration and the appointment of theex-Kaihya (commander-in-chief ) of the Ottoman army as Pasha seems to havecome to nothing. The experience of internecine warfare amongst the bordertribes highlights the mercenary and ephemeral nature of loyalty to the centralgovernments amongst these tribes and peoples. Accommodations wouldbe made but it was common for individuals, whether ruler or peasant, tochange sides. This was because they were actively playing off one empire againstanother and sought autonomy from all.The most significant group straddling the frontier were the Kurds. Theyplayed the two empires off against each other in the hopes of attaininglocal autonomy rather than experiencing absorption. Jealousy and rivalriesbetween Kurdish tribes on both sides of the border and religious differencesbetween the Sunni Kurds and Shi’a Persians prevented their possibleannexation by Persia. The Machiavellian politics practised within theKurdish Baban dynasty led protagonists to switch sides at bewilderingspeed and was surely seen for what it was, a naked struggle for personaladvancement. Persian hopes of a permanent blessing for Qajar rule overthe district of Shahrizor were thus misplaced. In the north, the Kurds wereeven more hostile to the predominantly Turkic Azerbaijanis, and were morelikely to raid east into Persia than west, and were a constant threatto the protected Christian and Assyrian minorities around Lake Urmia.Thus overall there was little appetite amongst Kurds to be dominated byeither empire.