Author’s Note – it’s important to note that I’m not considering the recent protests sparked by the wrongful death of Mahsa Amini in this article. These protests are relatively new, and haven’t yet had much impact on US foreign policy. These protests, while inspiring, revolutionary, and completely forthcoming, don’t yet have clear implications for the future. However, I may cover Iranian protests in a future article.
Then-US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright spoke at Washington DC in the year 2000, declaring that, “There is no question that Iran’s future direction will play a pivotal role in the economic and security affairs of what much of the world reasonably considers the center of the world.” In regards to US foreign policy, Iran has certainly influenced pivotal decisions in international affairs. As history has progressed, the United States has increasingly viewed Iran as a threat, and perhaps with good reason. However, the resulting responses have only ever led to escalation, which is why it is critical we examine exactly what has happened between the United States and Iran. In the common interests these two countries share, we also find dividing differences that shape the course of global events. To have any hope of changing the damage done by both countries, we must understand what has happened and why. The most optimal overview of the history of US-Iran relations can be divided into three key parts: the period preceding and following the Iranian Revolution, increased collaboration with Iran, and most recently, escalation between these nations. By examining these events, it becomes easier to see how past events influence present-day policy, and why relations between these two countries are as strained as they are.
Iranian Revolution
First, it’s critical to understand the background of modern-day Iran and how the US helped to shape the nation. To do that, we need to understand the time period of the Iranian Revolution.
Mohammad Mossadeq had spent nearly the entirety of his professional life in Iran’s government, but the first true move towards power for Mossadeq came in the 1940s as he built his political strength and support on Iranian oil. Having opposed the attempted oil concession to the Soviet Union, Mossadeq soon proposed a plan to nationalize the oil industry. By 1951, Mossadeq had gained enough power and support to be appointed premier by the shah, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, with the popular support of the people. However, the nationalization of the oil markets had unintended consequences, and created a political and economic crisis within the country. Any political dissent was suppressed as Mossadeq and his National Front Party continued to gain power. And when the British withdrew from Iranian markets, Mossadeq was unable to find alternative oil markets. Furthermore, there had been a continuous power struggle between the shah and Mossadeq. When Mossadeq was dismissed as premier by the shah in August of 1953, Mossadeq’s supporters responded by forcing Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi out of the country. While Mossadeq had the people’s support in Iran, it was not so in Western nations, who strongly opposed the nationalist sentiments that Mossadeq held. That month, British and American intelligence forces played a critical role in helping the Iranian military and Mossadeq’s opponents overthrow the new prime minister. This coup ensured that Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi returned to power as a Western-friendly monarch, but the shah remained deeply unpopular with the Iranian people. It was only because of US support that the shah retained his position of power as long as he did, until 1979. During this time, the shah signed the 1954 Consortium Agreement, giving US, British, and French oil companies 40% ownership in Iran’s nationalized oil market, and collaborated with the US in the Atoms for Peace initiative, laying the foundation for a nuclear program. The Eisenhower administration maintained that its actions in the coup had been necessary, but this intervention resulted in a clear setback for political and social development in Iran, shaping the nation into what we know it to be today. Ultimately, this coup did more harm than good, and explains why so many Iranian leaders and people resent American action and interference in their own affairs.
But although the shah had US backing, he lacked the support of his own people. And in 1979, this culminated into the Iranian Revolution, when religious leader Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Iran after being exiled fourteen years prior. Among severe civil unrest, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi fled to the United States, and Khomeini took power in December. This marked the transition of Iran from a pro-West monarchy to a severely anti-West Islamic theocracy. This drastic change of Iran’s foreign policy culminated at the end of 1979. Americans at the US Embassy in Tehran were taken hostage when protesters seized the building, and a group of radical Iranian students took fifty-two Americans hostage. Finally in early 1981, newly-inaugurated President Ronald Reagan signed the Algiers Accords, securing the release of the American hostages and promising Iran that the United States would stay out of Iranian politics. However, when Iraq invaded its neighbor and rival Iran in September of 1980, the United States backed Iraq and inflamed the conflict, going so far as to lend money, training, and technology for the entirety of the eight year conflict. This support continued even after the CIA determined Iraqi forces were responsible for the use of chemical weapons against Iranians. Because of this, approximately one million Iranians died as a result of US intervention.
From that point until the beginning of the twenty-first century, relations between the United States and Iran only saw an increase in tensions. On October 23, 1983, a group calling themselves Islamic Jihad (widely believed to be a front for Islamic militant group Hezbollah) drove trucks rigged to explode into American and French barracks, killing 241 US military personnel. This sped up the withdrawal of US marines from Lebanon and resulted in the US declaring Iran a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984.
In 1985, the Reagan Administration created a political crisis for itself when it began secretly selling weapons to Iran despite an arms embargo, for the purpose of freeing American hostages held by Hezbollah in Lebanon. The profits were then used to fund an insurgency in Nicaragua. Two of the hostages were still killed by Hezbollah. Then in 1988, Iran nearly sank an American ship in the Straits of Hormuz. In response, the US destroyed two oil platforms and sank a frigate. And in July of that year, the US Navy shot down what they thought was a fighter jet. In reality, they had shot down 289 Iranians making a pilgrimage to Mecca.
Collaboration
Second, we need to understand that not all of history was marked by horrible relations between the US and Iran. For a period of time, diplomatic relations between the two countries progressed and became relatively stable, if only for a while. In 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright met with Iran’s foreign minister, initiating the closest contact between the two countries since the Iranian Revolution. Then in 2000, Albright went on to call previous US policy towards Iran “regrettably short-sighted”, showing an acknowledgement of mistakes made in the past. To illustrate this, some sanctions meant to harm Iran were lifted. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush’s administration coordinated with Iran to defeat the Taliban. And when the US started their war in Afghanistan, Iran signed the Bonn Agreement to help the process of state-building and the repatriation of Afghan refugees.
The first decade of the twenty-first century saw the development of significant tensions between the US and Iran. However, this period also saw more communication than ever before, as well as resilience from both parties. This tension was caused primarily by the US’s nuclear concerns. In 2002, an Iran opposition group revealed to the world that Iran was developing nuclear facilities, including a uranium enrichment plant. Alarmed, the US accused the nation of having a clandestine nuclear weapons program, which Iran denied, and instead claimed that the program was for civilian energy production. This led to increased diplomatic activity and the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to play a prominent role in US-Iran relations. In mid-2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote a letter to US President George W Bush seeking to ease the nuclear tensions; in doing so, Ahmadinejad had written the first letter from an Iranian leader to one of the US since 1979. A year later at the UN General Assembly, Ahmadinejad describes the issue of Iran’s nuclear interests as “closed”.
And perhaps the most important development was that of a nuclear deal, initiated in November of 2013. US President Barack Obama and the recently elected, more moderate Iranian President Hassan Rouhani spoke on the phone, which was the most direct contact between the two nations since 1979. Two months after that conversation, Iran and the P5+1 signed an interim nuclear agreement, which provided some sanctions relief for Iran. Obama praised this deal by stressing the deterrence of nuclear bombing, while Rouhani hailed it as a “political victory” for his own nation. Then in 2015, after an intense process of diplomatic activity, Iran agreed to a long-term deal with the P5+1 (the UN Security Council’s five permanent members – the US, the UK, France, China, and Russia – plus Germany) and the European Union. This deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), provided Iran with relief from crippling economic sanctions given that Iran limited its nuclear activities and allowed international inspectors to return. This marks a period of diplomacy and collaboration between the US and Iran to promote their own individual interests in mutually beneficial ways.
Escalation
And third, we most recently see US-Iran relations shift back into older patterns of tension, the escalation of pre-existing conflicts, and the development of new conflicts. The trigger for this new era of destabilization was undoubtedly the end of the JCPOA. In May of 2018, then-President Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and started a sanctions campaign designed to place Iran under “maximum pressure”. The reinstitution of economic sanctions sent Iran’s economy into a deep recession, devastating its citizens. This move was received with both support and condemnation from different political powers, but collectively marks the start of escalation with Iran. In April of 2019, Trump designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of the Iranian army, as a foreign terrorist organization. Rouhani responded by saying the move only increased the prominence of the IRGC within Iran and their overall influence.
Things only got worse in 2019 when several American oil tankers were attacked in the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz. The US accused Iran of the attacks and responded by sending an additional thousand troops to the Middle East. In June, the IRGC shot down a US military drone over the strait. Iran claims the drone was in their territory, while the US maintains that the drone was over international waters. Since then, several minor maritime incidents have occurred, which only increased tensions between the two nations. Perhaps as a result, Iran began seriously backtracking on the terms of the nuclear deal in July.
Tensions continued to escalate throughout 2019, taking a turn for the worse towards the end of the year. In September, drones attacked oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, damaging the country’s second-largest oil field and a critical stabilization center. This halved the oil output and caused a severe spike in oil prices. Trump deployed US troops to bolster air and missile defenses in the kingdom. While Yemen’s Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility for the attack, the US and Saudi Arabia blame Iran. Then at the very end of December, Iran-backed militias tried to take the US Embassy in Baghdad in response to an air strike that killed militia members. Protesters chanted “death to America” and demanded the US remove its troops. In response, President Trump declared on Twitter that Iran would pay a “very big price”. This started a chain of tweets between Trump and Iranian leaders that was in no way productive and made no effort to solve problems caused and find common ground.
Perhaps most egregious of all was the death of Qasem Soleimani, who commanded the elite Quds Force, part of the IRGC. An American drone strike in Iraq killed the commander, Iraqi militia leaders, and several other Iranian and Iraqi citizens. Soleimani was considered to be Iran’s second most powerful person, and as such Iran swore revenge and completely pulled out of the nuclear deal. Alert for future US attacks, Iran unintentionally shot down a Ukranian passenger plane, and then attacked multiple US bases, wounding dozens of US soldiers. Iran quickly increased its military capabilities, launching its first military satellite in April of 2020, raising US concerns over Iran’s long-range missile capability.
Only souring the whole matter was the Trump administration’s failure to extend the UN Arms Embargo on Iran. The resolution failed at the UN Security Council, demonstrating the lack of international support for Washington’s Iran policy. The US also failed to reimpose international sanctions on Iran under the JCPOA’s snapback mechanism, demonstrating the diminishing influence of the US. In a last-ditch effort, President Trump slammed Iran with new sanctions targeting oil and financial executives, a charity, and top officials. Washington cited interference in the election, development of chemical weapons, and human rights abuses as reasons for these new sanctions.
The signatories of the original JCPOA have held talks in Vienna to revive the nuclear agreement. Each side, however, has proven to be unwilling to compromise, and there has been no immediate progress. In June, Iran’s presidential election was won by Ebrahim Raisi, a judiciary chief previously sanctioned by the US for his involvement in a 1988 panel that sentenced thousands of political dissidents to death, as well as his role in the repression of the Green Movement protests. Because of this shift of power, talks to revive the agreement stalled for months. Meanwhile, Iran continues to enrich uranium and bolster its nuclear program.
Conclusion
Considering the tumultuous relationship the US and Iran have had in the past, only time will tell what the future will hold for relations between these countries. Because of the relatively recent power change in Iran, and because of the powerful protests taking place right now, there is certainly potential for change. As Iran starts to rely less and less on the United States, they’re in a prime position to ignore American demands and attempts to negotiate. However, we can never dismiss the possibility of an open forum to discuss our differences and work towards our common interests.
Bibliography
Council on Foreign Relations, “Timeline: US Relations With Iran”, 2022, https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-relations-iran-1953-2022
US Department of State Archive, “Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Remarks before the American-Iranian Council, March 17, 2000, Washington, D.C., American-Iranian Relations”. https://1997-2001.state.gov/statements/2000/000317.html
Kristen de Groot, “A History of US-Iran Relations”, Penn Today, January 9, 2020, https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/history-us-iran-relations
BBC, “US-Iran relations: A brief history,” January 2, 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24316661