So Let’s Go Down Memory Lane
A brief history of Iranian-American relations by Admins E-Lo and ExSquid with Admin V
Historically, Iran’s relations with the US are interconnected with Britain’s, characterized by imperial exploitation and an eventual shift toward American influence. Britain controlled the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later Anglo-Iranian, even later: British Petroleum) and, through the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention, divided Iran into spheres of influence, which undermined Iranian sovereignty. Further, the British backed a 1921 coup by Reza Khan, who became the Shah. During WWII, to protect supply lines and especially oil, the British and USSR occupied Iran. The Shah was forced to abdicate in favor of his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Throughout the 1940s, the US began taking a more active role, providing advisers and assisting with economic modernization, often acting as a counterweight to Britain and the USSR.
Not many still alive remember 1953 well. That was the year the CIA and MI-6-backed a coup that restored the Shah–that is, restored the monarchy–because they didn’t like the democratically elected Prime Minister. Threats of Iranian oil nationalization were a major driver of the decision to facilitate regime change. In 2011, documents that were declassified proved that “the military coup that overthrew Mossadeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government.”
Richard Nixon shared a close, decades-long alliance with Iran’s Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, forged during Nixon’s 1953 vice-presidential visit and solidified through mutual realpolitik views during Nixon’s presidency. Nixon viewed the Shah as a vital Cold War bulwark against Soviet influence, boosting arms sales sevenfold and prioritizing Iranian primacy in the Persian Gulf via the Nixon Doctrine. During his administration, Nixon supplied the Shah with American military equipment, including F-14 Tomcats and P-3 Orions. This partnership peaked with state visits like 1972-1973, but Nixon’s loyalty endured post-1979 Revolution—he visited the exiled Shah and attended his funeral.
It is important to understand that Iran’s turn to fundamentalism in the second half of the 20th century was a direct reaction to the westernization of the country. As the country westernized, many Iranians were left behind to struggle in poverty while the oil wealth was extracted and removed from the country. This led to deep social divisions between the poor and the upwardly mobile westernized middle class. Ayatollah Khomeini used those social divisions to claim power. He sought and gained allies by speaking in the Western press about progressive Islam, but when he came to power, he reverted to the conservative faith and began to enforce the conservative principles of dress and behavior. In the book, Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism, Karen Armstrong posits that in times of economic instability and fear for the future, religious fundamentalism is a modern reaction to change. Iran is a textbook example of that.
In April 1980, President Carter authorized a staggeringly complex exfiltration operation within Iran known as Operation Eagle Claw. Competing internal military interests and a lack of a single chain of command coupled with inadequate intelligence, mechanical failures, and unpredictable weather caused the operation to abort. Because of this failure, eight military members lost their lives, and to make things worse, the failure was public. It humiliated both the Pentagon and the CIA while effectively ending Carter’s presidency. Furthermore, this exercise influenced future leaders like General (later SECDEF) Mattis who had a personal connection to some of the hostages.
ETA: Allegations persisted for years that the 1980 Reagan campaign brokered a deal with Iran to delay the hostages' release until after the election to hurt Carter's re-election chances. It was disclosed after his death that Reagan ally John Connally did, in fact, travel to the Middle East with the message that Iran will get a better deal for the hostages with Reagan than with Carter, so it would be wise to wait until after the election to release them.
As a result of the trade sanctions placed on Iran after the 1979 revolution, Iran naturally found itself in an undesirable situation. Additionally, because of the ongoing war with Iraq from 1980-1988, they were forced to cannibalize their American weapon systems. Later this provided an opening for the Reagan Administration to trade arms and spare parts for hostages as part of the Iran-Contra Scandal.
Many of us remember Oliver North on TV during the hearings but then or now couldn’t explain just what it all meant. It ties into the American policies of interference in our hemisphere’s affairs that the Trump administration is attempting to resurrect. [Serious question: Is THAT when America used to be great?] Reagan, likely in the early stages of dementia, took “full responsibility” in 1987.
If you ask AI to sum it up in one (long) sentence: The Iran-Contra affair was a 1980s scandal in which the Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to Iran to secure the release of American hostages, then illegally diverted the profits to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua in violation of congressional bans.
If you ask it to sum up Iranian-American relations since 1980, it states that the United States and Iran have maintained a relationship defined by a lack of formal diplomatic ties, characterized instead by intense, enduring hostility, recurring military brinkmanship, and severe economic sanctions stemming from the 1979 revolution. To the point: Our interest continues in Iran to be mainly about oil, though recently it’s also about potential nuclear weapons. This is the excuse that the Trump administration is giving for what we are doing there now.
In 2015, a nuclear treaty with Iran and the P5+1 (US, UK, France, China, Russia, Germany) was signed. Designed to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions, it restricted uranium enrichment and stockpiles, repurposed facilities, and established regular International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections to prevent the development of nuclear weapons
Trump pulled out of the treaty in 2018 and since then Iran has accelerated uranium enrichment to near-weapons-grade (reportedly 60%) and limited international inspections, bringing it to the threshold of nuclear capability. The region has seen intense volatility, including direct military confrontations after the 2020 Soleimani strike, sabotage of nuclear sites, and increased proxy attacks. Despite diplomatic attempts, the deal has effectively collapsed, with Iran expanding its nuclear program and forging tighter ties with Russia.
In June 2025, a 12-day war occurred between Israel and Iran, featuring major Israeli airstrikes against nuclear and military targets, followed by U.S. strikes, and resulting in a ceasefire on June 24. By late 2025, Iran had erupted in massive nationwide protests and strikes—the largest since 1979—sparked by collapsing currency, hyperinflation, fuel price hikes, and shortages amid U.S. sanctions and post-June 2025 nuclear strikes. Unrest spread to over 100 cities, fueled by workers demanding economic relief and evolving into anti-regime chants like “Death to the Dictator.” The regime’s brutal crackdown, including live fire ordered by Khamenei, led to thousands dead in massacres in January 2026, and internet blackouts.
These uprisings weakened the government, which contributed to U.S.-Israeli justifications for February 2026 strikes on nuclear sites, which have been framed as responses to Iran’s nuclear push and the regime’s suppression of protests. Oil tanker traffic is down more than 90 percent relative to last week. Trump has said the Development Finance Corporation would insure ships and that the Navy would escort tankers, if needed, before oil prices are further affected. So what now?
Council on Foreign Relations President Michael Froman stated (3/6/2026): “As we consider how this might end, I am reminded that there is a difference between concluding a successful military operation and achieving a positive outcome for Iran’s people. The U.S. military objectives appear achievable. Israel’s political objectives may be more difficult. But what this all means for a future of freedom and prosperity of the Iranian people is the most difficult question of all.”
Our sources:
Armstrong, Karen. The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism. Ballantine Books, 2001.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/politics/cia-iran-1953-coup/?hpt=po_c2