A Century of Shadows: Understanding U.S.-Iran Relations

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

The Long Shadow of Intervention

The recent U.S. bombing of three nuclear sites in Iran on June 22, 2025, has pushed relations between the two nations to one of their lowest points in modern history. However, this deep-seated animosity is far from new. The conflict has simmered for decades, tracing its roots back to a pivotal moment in 1953 when the United States played a significant role in overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh.

For many in the African diaspora, this history resonates deeply. The experience of powerful nations intervening in the affairs of sovereign states, often for economic gain or strategic advantage, is a familiar narrative. Just as many African nations have struggled against colonial powers seeking to control their resources, Iran’s journey reflects a similar fight for self-determination against external forces. The consequences of such interventions, whether in Tehran or Timbuktu, often include prolonged instability and a legacy of mistrust that spans generations.

The 1953 Coup: Oil, Sovereignty, and Cold War Fears

The story of U.S.-Iran conflict truly begins with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). This British oil company held a concession for nearly all of Iran’s vast oil resources (blogs.ubc.ca). The AIOC’s presence was a major source of tension because it represented significant foreign control over a vital national resource. Iran received a disproportionately small share of the profits, fueling strong nationalist sentiment and a desire for greater sovereign control over its own oil (medium.com).

In 1951, Iran’s Parliament elected Mohammad Mossadegh as prime minister. He quickly moved to nationalize the AIOC, aiming to reclaim Iran’s oil wealth for its people. This action directly challenged British economic interests and their global prestige. Mossadegh also sought to strengthen parliamentary democracy and limit the Shah’s power, pushing Iran toward a more constitutional government. These bold moves, especially oil nationalization, led to an international boycott of Iranian oil orchestrated by the United Kingdom. This pressure, combined with Cold War anxieties, ultimately prompted the United States and the United Kingdom to orchestrate a coup.

Oil Control and National Wealth

The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) was a British company that controlled nearly all of Iran’s oil. Iran received a very small share of the profits from its own resources.

The decision to orchestrate the coup in 1953, despite earlier hesitations, stemmed from a mix of economic and geopolitical concerns. For the United Kingdom, Mossadegh’s nationalization of the AIOC was a direct threat to their economic interests and a blow to their global standing (medium.com). They feared that other resource-rich nations might follow Iran’s example, leading to a cascade of nationalizations. For the United States, the primary concern was the Cold War. While initially hesitant to undermine democratic principles, the perceived threat of Iran falling under Soviet influence became paramount (medium.com). They worried that Mossadegh’s government, weakened by British sanctions and internal divisions, could be vulnerable to a communist takeover. The combination of protecting vital oil interests and preventing Soviet expansion ultimately led to the decision to intervene.

The CIA’s Covert Operations and the Shah’s Return

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), working with Britain’s MI6, launched Operation Ajax to overthrow Mossadegh. While the specific details of these covert operations are often classified, historical accounts and declassified documents reveal some of their methods. These included funding and organizing anti-Mossadegh protests and riots, bribing military officials and politicians, and spreading propaganda through media outlets to discredit Mossadegh (medium.com). The goal was to create an atmosphere of instability that would justify intervention and pave the way for the Shah’s return to power.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran, reigned from 1941 until the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Before the 1953 coup, his power was limited by the constitutional monarchy, and he often clashed with Prime Minister Mossadegh. After the coup, the Shah’s power grew significantly. He ruled as an autocratic monarch for over two decades, implementing modernization programs but also brutally suppressing dissent. The coup induced American policymakers to continue similar interventions in other countries, such as Chile, Indonesia, and Guatemala, demonstrating a pattern of foreign interference (blogs.ubc.ca).

The Shah’s Reign and Growing Dissent

For more than 25 years after the 1953 coup, the United States maintained relatively stable relations with Iran, largely due to its support for the Shah. However, beneath the surface, the Iranian public grew increasingly unhappy with the social and economic conditions under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s dictatorial rule. The Shah enriched himself and used American aid to fund his military, while many Iranians lived in poverty. Dissent was often violently crushed by SAVAK, the Shah’s notorious security service.

The coup led to a deep-seated anti-Western sentiment in Iran, which continues to influence relations today (blogs.ubc.ca). This resentment festered for decades, fueled by the memory of foreign intervention and the Shah’s repressive rule. The U.S. support for the Shah, despite his authoritarianism, created a powerful narrative of betrayal and foreign manipulation among the Iranian people, setting the stage for future upheaval.

The 1979 Revolution and Embassy Seizure

In January 1979, the Shah left Iran, ostensibly to seek cancer treatment. Two weeks later, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile and led a movement to abolish the monarchy and establish an Islamic government. This marked the beginning of the Iranian Revolution, a seismic shift that fundamentally altered Iran’s political landscape and its relationship with the world.

The U.S. Embassy seizure in 1979 occurred immediately after the revolution. Anti-American sentiment was widespread due to decades of perceived U.S. interference, especially the 1953 coup that restored the Shah to power and subsequent U.S. support for his authoritarian regime. In October 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah to enter the U.S. for advanced medical treatment. This decision was seen by Iranian revolutionaries as a potential attempt by the U.S. to reinstate him, similar to what happened in 1953 (pbs.org). On November 4, 1979, militant students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, demanding the Shah’s return for trial. This act symbolized the revolutionaries’ desire for justice against a ruler they viewed as a tyrant and a puppet of foreign powers. It also served as a powerful assertion of Iran’s newfound revolutionary sovereignty and a rejection of past foreign interventions. The crisis led to the severing of U.S. diplomatic relations with Iran and a failed rescue mission that tragically killed eight U.S. servicemembers.

Key Events in U.S.-Iran Relations

A timeline of significant moments shaping the complex relationship between the United States and Iran.

Decades of Distrust: From Covert Deals to Open Hostility

The period following the 1979 revolution saw a dramatic shift in U.S.-Iran relations, moving from a strategic alliance to open hostility. In September 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, sparking a brutal eight-year war. The United States, concerned about the flow of Middle Eastern oil and eager to counter the anti-American Iranian regime, tacitly sided with Iraq. This support included turning a blind eye to Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iran, a decision driven by the desire not to “play into Iran’s hands” by fueling its propaganda (newsone.com).

Despite the arms embargo imposed after Iran was designated a “state sponsor of terrorism” in 1984, the Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to Iran from 1981 to 1986. This covert operation, known as the Iran-Contra affair, aimed to prevent Iran from seeking support from the Soviet Union, the U.S.’s Cold War rival. The revelation of this deal in 1986 sparked a major scandal in the U.S., as officials were found to have illegally diverted funds from the arms sales to anti-socialist rebels in Nicaragua (newsone.com).

Another tragic event that deepened the distrust was the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on July 8, 1988. The USS Vincennes, a U.S. guided missile cruiser, shot down the civilian passenger jet, killing all 290 people aboard. The U.S. called it a “tragic and regrettable accident,” but Iran believed the act was intentional (newsone.com). Although the U.S. later agreed to pay compensation, the incident remains a painful memory for Iranians and a symbol of perceived American aggression.

Nuclear Ambitions and Shifting Diplomacy

In 2002, an exiled rebel group revealed that Iran had been secretly working on nuclear weapons at two previously undisclosed installations, including Natanz, which housed centrifuges for enriching uranium (newsone.com). This discovery raised international alarm, as it violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which Iran had signed. Starting around 2005, U.S. and Israeli cyberattackers reportedly targeted the Natanz centrifuges with malicious software known as Stuxnet, an effort to slow Iran’s nuclear program.

Despite periods of intense hostility, there have been moments when reconciliation seemed possible. In 1997, moderate reformer Mohammad Khatami won Iran’s presidential election, leading to overtures from U.S. President Bill Clinton. Khatami expressed “respect for the great American people” and recommended exchanges between the two countries (newsone.com). However, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei did not agree, and little came of these efforts. Similarly, in May 2003, senior Iranian officials quietly contacted the U.S. State Department seeking dialogue on critical issues like nuclear weapons and terrorism. Hardliners in the Bush administration, however, were not interested in major reconciliation, and the opportunity faded when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an Iranian hardliner, was elected president in 2005 (newsone.com).

After a decade of unsuccessful attempts to control Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Obama administration pursued a direct diplomatic approach beginning in 2013. Two years of secret negotiations culminated in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, signed in 2015. This agreement severely limited Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium and mandated international inspections in exchange for relief from economic sanctions (newsone.com). Despite regular certifications that Iran was complying with the agreement, President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal in May 20

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.