[brraverishhh]

Neither. It wasn't dark age fundamentalism, but it also wasn't fully "westernized." Prior to the overthrow of Mosaddegh, Iran was still very feudal. Peasants were forced to work the land for their landlords and extra-national interests held control of the oil field (UK). The reason why Mosaddegh was so popular was that he and his party, eventually, eliminated the aristocrat controlled land and gave peasants greater share of what they produced from the land. They also nationalized the oil fields, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) was only giving Iran 16% of profits. A big part of the displeasure over such a tiny sum was that the United States authorized the Arabian-American Oil Company (ARAMCO) to split profits 50-50. When Iran turned around and asked for equivalent treatment, the British balked. And eventually Iran would nationalize the oil fields. Which in turn led to the British embargo of Iran.
The embargo crippled Iran drastically. Even with freeing up production to the people, forcing employers to pay into a sort of unemployment insurance for workers and nationalizing the oil fields the poor were even poorer. Eventually Mosaddegh gets booted, Shah comes in and appoints his own PM.
Much gets said about what the Shah did or didn't do. And how Iran was or wasn't. But pretty much Iran was just like every other colonial holding. It was definitely its own country that didn't need to be liberated. But, like China, it had a history of Western States exploiting its resources through corporations. Which did little to help the day-to-day life of its common citizens. Sure, when the Shah was backed by the UK and US, the middle and upper classes benefited. Up until the Iranian economy had to face so many educated members of the work force. These students who couldn't find jobs ended up disenfranchised and siding with the poor when the Iranian Revolution hit.