𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐒 & 𝐇𝐘𝐏𝐎𝐂𝐑𝐈𝐒𝐈𝐄𝐒  𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐖𝐀𝐑 𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍

THE negotiations between the United States and Iran ended without reaching a deal. As the negotiators left Islamabad, Pakistan, the two-week ceasefire hangs precariously.

U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance attributed the failure to the Iranians’ unwillingness “to accept our terms.” The Americans were obviously expecting capitulation from the Iranians.

The Iranians, on the other hand, blamed the failure on the Americans’ “excessive demands.” Tehran’s negotiation team was made up of seasoned negotiators who believed they had a trump card—no pun intended—up their sleeve: they had proven they could survive bombardment from two nuclear powers and the most powerful military in the world; and demonstrated their ability to disrupt the global economy.

In response, a belligerent Donald Trump announced a U.S. naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a key issue in the negotiations. This could potentially derail the ceasefire and worsen the war-driven global economic crisis.

While the dynamics of the current U.S. and Israel war on Iran are interesting and important, I want to make a short excursion into history.

Since the 1979 revolution, when Iran expelled the United States, the U.S. and Israel have campaigned to portray Iran as a global boogeyman. They deployed policy measures, media influence, and linguistic framing to paint an image of Iran as a dangerous state.

For example, when referring to Iran, Western media and governments often employ language such as:

• Regime
• Authoritarian regime
• Radical Islamic regime
• Terrorist
• Axis of evil
• Rogue state
• State sponsor of terrorism
• Destabilizing regional power
• Nuclear state / nuclear aspirant

These are examples of hyperbole intentionally deployed to frame Iran as a security threat and as a state and society with a moral deficit. They therefore advocate that its government should be replaced with one that is a proxy of, and subservient to, the United States—like other Gulf countries (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the UAE).

They use the term “proxy” pejoratively to refer to organizations that support Iran (Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, etc.), without dwelling on the complexities of 𝑤ℎ𝑦 and ℎ𝑜𝑤 those organizations emerged. In many cases, they were products of U.S. and Israeli policies in the region.

The Israeli state was born out of violence and maintains itself through aggression, creating instability and weakening surrounding countries. It can be described as jingoistic—a form of belligerent nationalism characterized by a sense of superiority that fuels aggressive foreign policy and normalizes force and war rather than diplomacy.

Now, let’s compare Iran’s record with Israel’s:

• Prior to this conflict, Iran has never directly attacked its neighbors without provocation. Israel has repeatedly attacked its neighbors.
• Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has refused to sign it.
• Iran submits to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Israel refuses to do so.
• Iran has no nuclear weapons. Israel is estimated to have between 75 and 400 nuclear weapons.

Thus, Israel poses an existential threat to Iran. It is an instigator of destabilization in the Middle East, often in partnership with the U.S., which has supported and funded Israel’s military operations in Gaza. This has been widely described as a genocide driven by the desire to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians.

Let me now turn to the United States, a country with a long history of violence and intervention in other parts of the world. In the post-World War II period, the U.S. has been involved in numerous wars, the overthrow of governments, and the installation of puppet governments in every region of the world.

Since 2001, the U.S. and its allies have dropped over 326,000 bombs and missiles on other countries, averaging more than 46 strikes per day, or over 16,300 per year, over a twenty-year period. Since 9/11, the U.S. has engaged in three full-scale wars and has bombed at least ten countries under four presidents.

In U.S. geopolitical strategy, three regions are particularly important: Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East. Europe and East Asia are vital because they host two global powers—Russia and China—while the Middle East is strategically significant because of its oil resources.

Here are some of the wars the United States has been involved in since World War II:

• Korean War (1950–1953)
• Vietnam War (1960–1975)
• Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) (1990–1991)
• Afghanistan War (2001–2021)
• Iraq War (2003–2011)

Apart from these wars, the United States has instigated coups and covert interventions around the world. Some examples include:

• Iran (1953)
• Guatemala (1954) – CIA-backed coup (Operation PBSuccess) to oust President Jacobo Árbenz
• Cuba (1961) – Failed Bay of Pigs invasion
• Brazil (1964) – Support for the military coup that overthrew President João Goulart
• Indonesia (1965) – CIA support for the military purge against communists and the overthrow of President Sukarno
• Chile (1973) – CIA-supported coup removing President Salvador Allende, leading to Pinochet’s dictatorship

These lists are publicly available and by no means exhaustive. However, they illustrate the U.S. government’s propensity for war and its involvement in instigating political instability.

The U.S. often frames its global power projection around the idea of spreading liberal democracy. The truth, however, is that it often about securing U.S. strategic and economic interests and installing governments that are acquiescent to Washington DC, even if they are dictatorships.

Let me now turn to the U.S. obsession with Iran. The main reason was oil.

In 1953, the United States and Great Britain, through their respective intelligence agencies—the CIA (Project TPAJAX) and MI6 (Operation Boot)—engineered a coup that toppled Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. This was largely in response to the Iranian government’s nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which later became British Petroleum (BP).

Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was subsequently restored to power and tasked with protecting British and U.S. oil interests. In 1954, U.S. oil companies gained a 40% share in the Iranian Oil Participants (IOP), a Western consortium formed to manage Iranian oil.

The Shah was not only a puppet of the West but also an absolutely autocratic leader. The United States supported him because he controlled the largest and most strategically important country in the Middle East. He was a dictator, but Washington’s puppet dictator.

In 1979, the Iranian people, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, staged a revolution that deposed the Shah. This occurred despite U.S. support for the Shah and his later escape to the United States for “medical treatment,” which triggered the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in November 1979 and resulted in a 444-day hostage crisis.

Since 1979, the United States has remained bitter toward Iran. It is the only country in the region that refused to be submissive to Washington, unlike many members of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Consequently, for the past 47 years, the United States and Israel have conducted a systematic campaign portraying Iran as a threat. This raises questions about the persistence of misinformation, double standards, and political hypocrisy.

Why the lies? Why the double standards? Why the hypocrisy?

This article is not an endorsement of the Iranian government’s mistreatment of its citizens since 1979, nor of other crimes it may have committed. Rather, it is meant to provide historical context for the U.S. and Israel’s conflict with Iran.

Iran is a great civilization. As former U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told Fareed Zakaria on CNN’s GPS program recently, the Iranians are “master negotiators… This is a great civilization… with an extraordinary track record of being able to negotiate and to be incredibly challenging to deal with.”

I can never fully understand the weight of power on the shoulders of global leaders, especially in times of conflict. But I trust that even in the midst of immense power, there is always room for respect and humility.

Despite our differences, it is vital to search for the humanity that exists in all of us. It is there—somewhere deep within.

𝐵𝑦 𝑎𝑛 𝑂𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑟