A Brief History of America’s Involvement in Iran

Why did President Donald Trump launch Operation Epic Fury? He’s provided a stream of reasons: forcing regime change; destroying Iran’s missile capabilities (to eliminate what he called “imminent threats”); “annihilating” the Iranian navy; ensuring that Iran cannot further develop nuclear weapons; and blocking Iran’s support of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

More from Naomi Bethune

Regardless of the reason—if one truly exists—such military action is at odds with Trump’s stated “America First” foreign-policy strategy, ostensibly prioritizing unilateralist and noninterventionist behavior. Trump has routinely made a point of withdrawing from prominent international treaties and organizations (the Paris climate accords and North American Free Trade Agreement) in an effort to isolate American interests.

Why, then, did Trump join Israel in going to war with Iran? What can history tell us about the possible outcomes of this decision? How can people who were born after key developments in U.S.-Iran relations in the 20th century begin to understand how we got to this moment? Young people seeking to understand the context of the Iran war will glean more from recent history than Trump’s stated reasons.

The Cold War Origins of the U.S.-Iran Relationship

In the early 1900s, the U.S. was mostly indifferent to Iran. It wasn’t until after World War II, a period in which the U.S. emerged as a global superpower, that the perspective changed. Snuffing out any hint of communism was the aim of the U.S. and its allies during the Cold War (1945–1991), a goal that led to 72 attempts to enforce regime change across the world. Most of these operations failed (in the eyes of the U.S., at least), but in Iran’s case it was successful.

Western fears of Iran embracing “communism,” and adding to the Soviet Union’s communist faction, began to rise. In 1951, Iran nationalized its oil industry, taking control of the in-country operations of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (now known as British Petroleum, or BP), a British enterprise that controlled a significant portion of Iran’s oil reserves. Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister in the spring of that year, and began to implement progressive social reforms.

Iran’s burgeoning evolution into a more democratic society—and its attempt to wrest away oil profits from overseas interests—led the U.S and Britain to orchestrate a coup to overthrow Mosaddegh in 1953. The CIA and the pro-Western Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, along with Iran’s military, overthrew Mosaddegh. Iran’s attempt to nationalize its oil industry died with the coup, and the U.S. ensured that Western companies resumed control of oil exports.

When all was said and done, U.S. companies walked away with 40 percent of Iran’s oil shares; Iran was left with an authoritarian monarch after being on the precipice of becoming a democratic state. It was the first time the U.S. had employed the CIA to depose a democratically elected government, and was used as a model for future regime change operations.

A Fraying Relationship

Between 1953 and 1977, the U.S. and Iran had a mostly cordial relationship. During the 1960s, the U.S. assisted Iran in creating its nuclear program, providing a nuclear reactor and significant amounts of enriched uranium. Iran, along with over 50 other countries, signed the original Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1968.

This was especially important in the context of the Cold War. As the nuclear arms race raged on between the U.S. and the Soviet Union—and by extension, each country’s proxies—the threat of nuclear warfare rose as well. In an effort to quell this possibility, the Non-Proliferation Treaty slotted states into two classifications: nuclear weapon states (countries that had built and tested a nuclear explosive prior to 1967) and non-nuclear weapon states. Iran is a non-nuclear signatory, joining dozens of other states that promised not to acquire nuclear weapons, while still having the right to develop “peaceful” nuclear capabilities.

The Iranian Revolution (1978–1979) changed things, and set the stage for Iran’s current political and cultural landscape. Protesters ousted the U.S.-endorsed Shah and replaced him with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. As the “Supreme Ruler” of Iran, Khomeini oversaw a dramatic reshaping of Iran’s governance by turning the country into an Islamic republic. The Shah fled, requesting entry to the U.S. to receive cancer treatment. President Jimmy Carter permitted this, triggering significant outcry and increased anti-American sentiment in Iran. It also led to the Iran hostage crisis (1979–1981).

After storming the U.S. embassy in Tehran, a group of Iranian students took more than 60 Americans hostage. Backed by Khomeini, the crisis lasted 444 days as the U.S. refused to extradite the Shah, and also passed a trade embargo to apply pressure on the hostage-takers. Lengthy negotiations and one failed rescue mission later (in which eight American soldiers were killed), the hostages were released on the first day of President Ronald Reagan’s first term. It also marked the end of formal diplomatic ties between the two countries.

During the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), the U.S. supplied Iraq with intelligence and weapons, and built a relationship with then-leader of Iraq Saddam Hussein. At the same time, however, the Reagan administration trafficked arms and other missiles to Iran in an effort to improve relations, while also using the proceeds to fund the Contras, who were an anti-communist right-wing rebel group in Nicaragua.

This came to be known as the Iran-Contra affair. Although it was a highly illegal operation (Congress had prohibited funding/collaborating with the Contras—the Boland Amendments, and a trade embargo on Iran was still in place), Reagan justified his complicity by claiming that by selling arms to Iran, he was increasing the chances that several American hostages who were being held by Hezbollah, a Lebanese paramilitary group that was supported by Iran, would be released.

In the end, only a few hostages were released, but were then replaced by more.

The “Axis of Evil”

Under President George H.W. Bush, the Iran-Iraq War ended. A few years later, the Clinton administration imposed an oil and trade embargo on business with Iran by American companies. After the September 11 attacks, newly inaugurated President George W. Bush called Iran part of the “Axis of Evil,” or Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. He accused Iran of building weapons of mass destruction that could be used against the U.S., and repressing its people. From then onward, particularly in the midst of the fruitless Iraq War, the U.S. applied pressure on Iran via covert operations.

It wasn’t until the Obama administration that the U.S. began slowly reassuming careful relations with Iran, which led to the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program, and the U.S. would lift sanctions. This was short-lived and controversial, and after the agreement took effect in 2016, Trump withdrew from it during his first term in 2018.

Enter Donald Trump

Trump’s first and second terms have been marked by an aggressive approach to the United States’ geopolitical relationship with Iran. From 2017 to 2021, he implemented multiple policy changes, including the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, the “Muslim travel ban”—which, before being blocked by the Supreme Court, impacted Iranian citizens—and the passage of over a thousand sanctions. These sanctions are called the “maximum pressure campaign,” and were reinstated during Trump’s second term.

Multiple military actions also occurred during Trump’s first term, such as a drone strike that killed an Iranian general named Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. Iran responded by striking U.S. assets, and declared that it would no longer adhere to the JCPOA’s regulations. The relationship between the U.S. and Iran became increasingly volatile, and when Trump reassumed office last year, tensions only became worse. At the same time, economic sanctions contributed to Iran’s economic deterioration last year, resulting in high inflation and massive protests around the country, brutally quashed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the country’s security forces.

In April of 2025, the U.S. and Iran attempted to negotiate a nuclear peace agreement, which went awry, ending with Israel bombing suspected Iranian military and nuclear facilities in June. During what was dubbed the “Twelve-Day War,” Israel assassinated multiple nuclear scientists, military leaders, and politicians through airstrikes that also killed several hundred civilians. The U.S. joined the conflict, striking three nuclear sites. Iran retaliated by striking Israeli territory, and later targeted U.S. military bases in the region.

A cease-fire was agreed on, but the dust didn’t clear. Iran threatened to pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. A little under a year after the Twelve-Day War, the U.S. and Israel jointly attacked Iran, killing Khamenei and beginning a new war.

What’s Next?

Polls show that the majority of Americans are not in favor of the U.S. and Israel’s strikes, and war with Iran. To some, it recalls the Iraq War, a drawn-out fiasco that led to thousands of deaths and no definite political progress in the region. It also recalls the Vietnam War, another unpopular, bloody conflict that instead of quashing the spread of communism in Asia did the exact opposite. Last winter, when the U.S. kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Trump indicated that the U.S. would “run” the country, regime change did not occur. Instead, the Trump administration allowed Maduro’s vice president to assume office, and now the two countries have reportedly resumed diplomatic relations.

If the history of U.S. foreign policy has taught Americans anything, it’s that forcing regime change in order to exert control over other countries’ natural resources and people is difficult. Most of the time, it isn’t successful. It often rebounds, affecting the U.S. in ways that shift public opinion on those who hold political power, sparking protest and dissent. Understanding the possible outcomes of this new attempt to exert U.S. imperialist influence should be viewed as part of a historical pattern, not a one-off action.