When Americans think of the conflict with Iran, the clock usually starts ticking in 1979 with the embassy hostage crisis. But to understand the headlines of today, we have to rewind to a much older, darker chapter. Here is why the “Long War” between Washington and Tehran didn’t begin with a revolution—it began with a 1953 coup.
• The true starting line: The modern US-Iran conflict is rooted in the 1953 CIA-backed coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, not the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
• The “benevolent” myth: Revisionist history often frames US intervention as a necessary Cold War move that Iranians supported, ignoring the severe suppression of Iranian sovereignty.
• A cycle of retaliation: Iranian aggression—from 1979 to recent attacks on US bases—is largely viewed by Iranians as pushback against decades of US interference, including arming Iraq in the 1980s and encircling Iran with military bases today.
• The relatable reality: If a foreign superpower overthrew the US government and put military bases on our borders, Americans would undoubtedly fight back.
Introduction
Turn on the news today, and the story of the United States and Iran usually starts in exactly the same place: 1979. We see the black-and-white footage of the US Embassy takeover in Tehran, the blindfolded hostages, and the sudden, shocking transformation of a Middle Eastern ally into America’s loudest adversary.
But if you are only looking at 1979, you are coming into the movie halfway through.
To actually understand the missile strikes, the proxy wars, and the “Death to America” chants we see today, we have to look at the history that isn’t talked about nearly as much. For the Iranian people, the conflict didn’t start with a hostage crisis. It started 26 years earlier, with a blatant, manufactured coup.
Body
The 1953 Overthrow: Operation Ajax
In the early 1950s, Iran had a democratically elected, wildly popular Prime Minister named Mohammad Mosaddegh. His primary goal was simple: he wanted to nationalize Iran’s oil industry so the profits would benefit Iranians, rather than the British government.
Washington and London didn’t like that. So, in 1953, the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated “Operation Ajax.” They didn’t just lobby for a policy change; they actively overthrew Mosaddegh’s government. They funded street gangs, bribed Iranian politicians, and installed the Shah—a monarch who would rule with an iron fist and keep the oil flowing westward.
Let’s bring this home for a second. Imagine if the United States elected a president who passed an economic policy that a foreign superpower—let’s say Russia or China—didn’t like. Imagine if that foreign power sent their intelligence agencies to Washington, bribed our military, incited riots, and forced our president out, replacing them with a dictator loyal to Beijing or Moscow.
Would Americans stand idly by? Would we say, “Well, that’s just global politics”? Of course not. We would be outraged. We would view it as an unforgivable act of war, and we would fight back. That is exactly how the Iranian people viewed 1953.
Debunking the Revisionist History
Over the years, some revisionist historians and political commentators have tried to soften the edges of the 1953 coup. They argue that it was a “necessary evil” to keep Iran from falling to the Soviets during the Cold War. Some even claim that the Shah’s subsequent rule modernized the country and that the US intervention was quietly welcomed by Iranians who wanted stability.
This narrative is flat-out incorrect, and it ignores the brutal reality on the ground. Stripping a nation of its sovereignty is never a favor. By 1957, with the help of US and allied intelligence, the Shah established SAVAK—his infamous, ruthless secret police. For decades, SAVAK crushed political dissent through torture, censorship, and disappearances. You cannot claim an intervention was “good” for a country when its citizens have to be terrorized into accepting it.
The Blowback: 1979 to Today
When you keep the lid tightly sealed on a boiling pot, eventually it explodes. That explosion was 1979.
The Iranian Revolution and the tragic 52-day hostage crisis were horrific violations of international law. The 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, which killed 241 US service members, was a devastating act of terrorism sponsored by Tehran. Today, we see Iran backing proxy militias that routinely attack US military bases in Iraq, Syria, and across the region.
None of this aggression is justifiable, but if we want to stop it, it is explainable.
From the Iranian perspective, these are not unprovoked attacks; they are a defense against a superpower that has been actively interfering in their country for 70 years. After the 1979 revolution, the US didn’t just walk away. During the devastating Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the US provided vital intelligence and support to Saddam Hussein, aiding an enemy that used chemical weapons against Iranians.
Today, the US has dozens of military bases and thousands of troops stationed in countries directly surrounding Iran. Let’s flip the script again. If a hostile foreign power had orchestrated a coup in America, spent a decade arming our deadliest neighbor, and then built a ring of military bases across Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean, Washington would consider it an existential threat. We would undoubtedly authorize strikes to push them back.
Conclusion
Acknowledging history is not the same as excusing violence. The actions of the Iranian regime over the last four decades have been brutal, both to Americans and to their own people.
But if we are ever going to find a way out of this endless cycle of escalation, we have to look at the whole board. The United States cannot keep treating every Iranian retaliation as an isolated, unprovoked incident. History didn’t begin in 1979, and until we recognize the deep, enduring scars left by 1953, the Long War is going to keep right on going.
