At the turn of the 20th century, Persia was a country caught between the imperial ambitions of Great Britain and Tsarist Russia. Despite its declared neutrality during World War I, its strategic location – bordering the Ottoman Empire, Russia, and British India, and possessing vast oil reserves – made it an unavoidable theater of conflict. As the war raged on, Persia was plunged into a series of crises: military occupation by various foreign powers (including British, Russian, and Ottoman forces), widespread drought, and a devastating cholera epidemic. These factors converged to create a perfect storm, leading to one of the most severe famines in modern history. Villages were decimated, entire regions depopulated, and the social fabric of the nation was torn apart. While precise figures are difficult to ascertain due to the chaos of the period, estimates of the death toll range from 1 to 10 million people, a staggering proportion of Iran's then 10-12 million population. This catastrophic loss of life, however, remains largely absent from mainstream Western historical narratives of World War I, a silence that itself warrants critical examination.

Britain's involvement in Persia was not altruistic but driven by core imperial considerations. The country served as a crucial buffer zone protecting British India, a vital source of oil (especially after the discovery of vast reserves and the establishment of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company – APOC), and a strategic corridor to counter Russian influence. With the outbreak of WWI, these interests became paramount. Britain's primary goals were to secure its oil supplies, prevent Ottoman or German incursions towards India, and maintain control over key trade routes. Persia, therefore, became a chessboard upon which the Great Game continued, albeit under the brutal guise of a global conflict. The lives and well-being of the Iranian people were, regrettably, secondary to these larger geopolitical objectives, paving the way for policies that would have devastating consequences.

The British presence in Persia during World War I was extensive. They maintained a significant military force, including the South Persia Rifles, and exerted considerable influence over the country's administration and infrastructure. While British officials often cited the complexities of war and natural disasters as the primary causes of the famine, their own policies and actions undeniably exacerbated the crisis. From controlling vital supply lines to requisitioning local foodstuffs, Britain's strategic imperatives often superseded any humanitarian concerns, leading to a direct contribution to the widespread starvation.

The Great Famine of 1917-1919 was not merely a period of hardship; it was an existential crisis for the Iranian people. The death toll, though debated, represents an unimaginable loss. Beyond the immediate deaths from starvation and disease, the famine led to widespread social breakdown. Reports describe instances of cannibalism, mass migrations from rural areas to cities in desperate search of food, and the abandonment of children. The country's population was severely reduced, and its demographic structure profoundly altered. Economic activity ground to a halt in many regions, and the political instability deepened. The famine left a legacy of trauma, resentment, and a deep-seated distrust of foreign powers, particularly Britain, which many Iranians perceived as having actively contributed to their suffering. This collective memory, though suppressed in some historical accounts, continues to resonate in Anglo-Iranian relations to this day.

The relative obscurity of the Great Famine of Persia in Western historical discourse is striking, especially when compared to other famines or atrocities of the same era. Several factors contribute to this historical silence. Firstly, the focus of WWI narratives tends to be on the Western Front and European powers, often overlooking the devastating impacts on non-European nations. Secondly, Britain, as a victor in the war, had a vested interest in shaping a narrative that highlighted its triumphs and downplayed less savory aspects of its imperial conduct. The British government's official records on the famine are often sparse or strategically framed, making it difficult for researchers to piece together the full picture without extensive cross-referencing and declassification efforts. Thirdly, Persia itself was a weak and fragmented state, lacking the capacity to systematically document the catastrophe or advocate for its recognition on the international stage. This combination of external suppression and internal weakness allowed the narrative to be controlled, or simply ignored, for decades. Today, as scholars like Mohammad Gholi Majd bring new evidence to light, this forgotten history demands a re-evaluation, not just for historical accuracy but for its implications on contemporary understanding of imperialism, accountability, and the long-term impact of geopolitical maneuvering. Acknowledging this dark chapter is crucial for a more complete and honest understanding of the past and for fostering genuine reconciliation.