Introduction
One of the most contentious topics in the historiography of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution is the question of its influence by the Ottoman Empire. The geographical proximity and the extensive political, cultural, and economic relations between the two countries provided a fertile ground for such influence. However, the nature and extent of this influence remain subjects of debate among historians of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution. Broadly speaking, there are two prevailing views on this matter: 1) Those who deny any influence of the Ottoman Constitutional Revolution on Iran, and 2) Those who acknowledge the influence of the Ottoman Constitutional Revolution on Iran. Representatives of the first group include Adamiyat, Nategh, and Tabatabai, while the second group is represented by figures such as Taghizadeh, Hazrati, and Feirahi. Other scholars, such as Zarinebaf and Raisnia, although not explicitly stating their positions, have discussed the Ottoman Constitutional Revolution and its relation to the Iranian Constitutional Revolution in a way that aligns them with the second group. Alongside the information based on historical documents and evidence, what makes the first group's perspective untenable is their contradictory discourse and misinterpretation of the second group's views. The perspective that denies the influence of Ottoman Constitutionalism on Iranian Constitutionalism began with Fereydun Adamiyat, was continued by Homa Nategh, and was further emphasized by Javad Tabatabai. This essay aims to address the contradictions in Adamiyat and Nategh's arguments and critique Tabatabai's misinterpretation. This misinterpretation stems from his belief that proponents of Ottoman influence argue that Iranians learned constitutionalism—entirely and directly—from the Ottomans, and that without the Ottoman Constitutional Revolution, Iran could not have experienced constitutionalism. Even though such a claim has never been made. While emphasizing the necessity of avoiding a 'single-cause' explanation for historical events, it must be acknowledged that during the period in question, the wave of constitutionalism had already begun and would inevitably reach Iran sooner or later. Nevertheless, in Iran's encounter with this wave, the Ottoman Empire played a more significant role compared to other centers of constitutionalism. This is precisely the focus of this research. Otherwise, in addition to the Ottoman Empire, England, France, India, Russia, and Japan each contributed to some extent to familiarizing Iranians with the 'idea of constitutionalism'. Considering what has been said, this research aims to review various perspectives on the influence of the Ottoman Constitutional Revolution on Iran, test them against historical evidence, and evaluate their validity using historical sources.
Materials and Approach
This research adopts a descriptive approach and relies on historical sources and studies to address its central question. 
Results and Discussion
The influence of the Ottoman Empire on the Iranian Constitutional Revolution is one of the most debated topics, leading to diverse viewpoints. This study aimed to review these perspectives, assess their validity using historical evidence, and evaluate their accuracy based on historical sources. To this end, the study first categorized proponents and opponents of the influence of the Ottoman Constitutional Revolution on Iranian Constitutionalism Accordingly, Taghizadeh, Hazrati, and Feirahi, who acknowledge this influence, stand in contrast to Adamiyat, Nategh, and Tabatabai, who reject it. Next, by examining the Tanzimat reforms as a precursor to the constitutional movements in both Iran and the Ottoman Empire, the study explored various perspectives on the Tanzimat in Iran and its influence by the Ottoman Tanzimat. In this regard, Nategh, Tabatabai, and Feirahi argue that Iran imitated the Ottoman Tanzimat reforms. Hazrati, by rejecting the imitation view, asserts that the relationship between the Iranian and Ottoman Tanzimat was more about influence than mere imitation, while Adamiyat completely denies any imitation or influence. Based on the evidence presented in this study, the views of Nategh, Tabatabai, Feirahi, and Hazrati align more closely with 'historical reality' than Adamiyat's perspective. Similar disagreements exist regarding the constitutional movements. Adamity, Nategh, and Tabatabai, by rejecting that the first Ottoman constitution was truly 'constitutional,' also do not accept the influence of the Ottoman Empire on Iran's constitutional movement. The flaw in this perspective lies in its disregard for the historical context and its one-dimensional, purely legalistic view of the constitutional movement. It is undeniable that, despite its flaws, the First Ottoman Constitution embodied a form of constitutional governance. Tabatabai further argues that the intermediary for Iranians' familiarity with constitutionalism was not the Ottoman Empire but India. This claim is made even though no one argues that the Ottomans were the sole intermediary. Just as other countries such as Japan, Russia, England, and France played roles in introducing Iranians to constitutional ideas, so did India and the Ottoman Empire. What matters is the nature and manner of this role. Before Shushtari, whom Tabatabai references, encountered the 'Justice House' in India, Abu Bakr Ratib Efendi, the Ottoman ambassador to Vienna, had already discussed the 'new system' in his diplomatic reports. In the final step of this research, by examining the influence of Ottoman modernization (particularly the Tanzimat and constitutionalism) on Iranian constitutional pioneers such as Mirza Malkam Khan, Sepahsalar, Mostashar al-Dawla, and Mirza Agha Khan Kermani, the profound impact of Ottoman modernization and its models on their Iranian counterparts became evident. 
 
Conclusion 
Based on the findings of this study, it can be argued that the Ottoman influence is clearly visible in Malkam Khan's promotion of the Tanzimat idea, Sepahsalar's implementation of reforms, and Mostashar al-Dawla and Mirza Agha Khan Kermani's efforts to legitimize constitutionalism. An important point to note is that, except for Mostashar al-Dawla, who had a brief stay in Istanbul during his travels to France, all these individuals had a long history of residence in the Ottoman Empire (at least ten years). As long as the dominant discourse of reform was the Tanzimat, Iranian reformers were influenced by their Ottoman counterparts both in theory and practice. The similarities between the theoretical efforts (e.g., writing works such as Defter-i Tanzimat (Book of Reforms), Majlis-i Tanzimat (Council of Reforms), and Ketabcheh-ye Tanzimat-e Hasaneh (The Book of Beneficial Reforms) ) and practical endeavors (e.g., establishing institutions like the 'Majlis-i Showra-ye Dowlati' (State Consultative Assembly) and the 'Maslihatkhaneh' (House of Expediency) ) of Iranian reformers and their Ottoman counterparts further highlight the extent of this influence. This influence is also evident in the discourse of constitutionalism. It was in Istanbul that Malkam Khan recognized the role of the people in "legislation" and, for the first time, moved away from the Tanzimat discourse toward constitutionalism. Sepahsalar, as Iran's ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, acted as a "reporter of Ottoman reforms" for Iranian statesmen and played a significant role in introducing Naser al-Din Shah to the Ottoman Tanzimat and its outcomes during the Shah's visit to Arab Iraq, alongside Midhat Pasha. Later, as prime minister, he devoted all his efforts to advancing his reform project (Tanzimat-e Hasaneh). Mostashar al-Dawla, who took significant steps in legitimizing constitutionalism, was in contact with the Young Ottomans, and his discourse closely resembled theirs. If 'justice' is considered the central theme of his legal discourse, the influence of the Young Ottomans on him becomes even more apparent, as they had previously used the concept of justice in the same manner. Additionally, it is important to note that a significant portion of works containing constitutionalist thought in the Ottoman Empire (primarily Istanbul) were written there. It was in Istanbul that Mirza Agha Khan Kermani defined constitutionalism as the 'best foundation and form of governance.” Following the approach of the Young Ottomans and Mostashar al-Dawla, sought to legitimize constitutionalism by introducing concepts such as 'human rights” and “national interests' to his audience; an achievement that would have been impossible during his time in Iran.