What was the response of the general Iranian public to the modernization policies of Reza Shah?

I found two excellent articles on this question one in the 27th volume of Middle Eastern Studies vol. 27, no. 1, pg. 35-45 entitled "Iranian Nationalism and Reza Shah" by M. Reza Ghods, and the other in the journal Iranian Studies, volume 26 no. 3-4, by the Iranian expert Houchang E. Chehabi entitled "Staging the Emperor's New Clothes: Dress Codes and Nation-Building under Reza Shah". The first of these sources starts with an overview of the Shah's public support during his reign:

"The Iranian public's discontent with Reza Shah at the time of his abdication in 1941 has been widely recognized. In fact, the Shah's eventual unpopularity has done to obscure an understanding of his initial support...probably because of Iranian nationalist subsequent disillusionment with the monarch, the role of nationalistic ideology in the first Pahlavi rule's accession to power has generally been neglected."[Ghods, 1991, p.35]

Apparently, the Shah's initial support came from his appeal to nationalists who appreciated his strong and centralized leadership. In Iran at the time, nationalist sentiment was influential among virtually every sector of Iranian society, as most Iranians (outside of a handful of reformers) were outraged by the exploitation they were subjected to by foreign powers, namely Britain and Russia. Yet despite this common factor, most of Iran still was divided by warring tribes. It was Reza Shah's ability to unite Iran, and to develop a strengthened and centralized government/military power, which apparently won the Shah a great deal of power and public support,

"This suppression of tribes was received gratefully by most politically aware Iranians. Even those opposed to Reza [Shah]'s dictatorship (including both Mudarres and Mossadegh) applauded this policy as a major contribution to the nation's internal security. Clearly, however, the manner in which the tribes were suppressed through the military, which Reza [Shah] controlled also added substantially the military leader's own power."[Ghods, 1991, p.35]

The second article is far more illustrative as to why Reza Shah's popularity declined so markedly near the end of his rule. The Shah's reign grew increasingly autocratic as his administration gained power, and to the ulama's opposition to a Turkish republic. Ironically enough, the ulama's opposition of the Turkish republic would ultimately give the Shah the power necessary to push through Turkish style reforms.

Reza Shah was very impressed by, envious of, the modernizing Turkish republic. One of the ways he attempted to emulate their success was by imposing a western-style dress code which was designed to reduce class and gender barriers. Chehbai explains the further utility of western dress in the mind of the Shah and other modernist reformers,

"State building had to entail nation-building,which was begun in light of the Jacobin tadition of equating unity with uniformity...But Turks and Iranians had to "form a new people" in a different historical context. International emancipation could best be achieved by showing the Europeans that one was worthy of their company in the society of nations, and what better way to prove this than to become physically like them?"[Chehabi, 1993, p.223]

Apparently, the westernized dress policy of Reza Shah was handled in a very ham-handed way, and the forced de-veiling of women was particularly harmful to the public's view of the Shah. The Shah was very strict in the enforcement of this policy and while there was a marked increase in the education of women, many women were outraged by this policy. Some of the more traditional women would not leave their homes. This also incensed the ulama who were repulsed in not only religious terms, but saw this as a direct challenge of their traditional authority.

Essentially, the popular support won by the Shah by stabilizing the country by providing internal security and a more modernized economy was to a large extent undone by a series of westernizing reforms which undercut his legitimacy. These actions laid the groundwork for future demonstrations and an alliance between the ulama, the bazaari, and the peasants.