Most Americans think our conflict with Iran began in 1979.

It didn’t.

To understand why Iran refuses to surrender to U.S. pressure today, you must start with a CIA coup that took place more than seventy years ago.

If you were to ask the average American citizen when Iran became an enemy of the United States, they would most likely say in 1979, when Iran seized our embassy in Tehran.

It didn’t.

Hostility between the United States and Iran stretches back more than 70 years, through coups, revolutions, wars, and broken agreements. Those events shaped how Iran’s leadership—and many ordinary Iranians—view the United States today. In fact, if you were to ask the average Iranian when our two countries became enemies, they would most likely say 1906.

This decades-long history of enmity is also why Iran is unlikely to simply surrender in any confrontation with the United States, no matter how powerful our military capabilities are.

To understand this current conflict, we must understand the past.

A Timeline of U.S.–Iran Relations

In the timeline below, I explain the events that have shaped our current geopolitical reality, as it pertains to Iran.

1906 — Iran’s Constitutional Revolution

Between 1905 and 1911, Iran experienced a transformative political uprising known as the Constitutional Revolution. Sparked by public anger over economic hardship, government corruption, and growing foreign influence from Russia and Britain, a coalition of merchants, clerics, intellectuals, and urban activists pushed back against the absolute authority of the Qajar monarchy. Their protests forced Shah Mozaffar ad-Din Qajar to approve a constitution in 1906 and establish Iran’s first elected parliament. This was the country’s first serious attempt to introduce constitutional rule and a representative government and one of the first constitutional movements in the Middle East. In 1907, Britain and Russia

During this period, specifically by 1907, Britain and Russia formalized their influence over Iran through the Anglo-Russian Convention, an agreement that effectively divided the country into spheres of influence without consulting the Iranian government.

• Russia gained dominance in northern Iran, including major cities such as Tabriz, Tehran, and Mashhad.

• Britain controlled a southern zone, particularly areas near the Persian Gulf that were strategically important for protecting British India and trade routes.

• A central “neutral zone” was created where both powers could pursue economic and political influence.

Although Iran technically remained an independent state, the agreement significantly limited its sovereignty. Britain and Russia were able to influence Iranian politics, economic concessions, and even military actions within their respective zones. This foreign intervention angered Iranian nationalists and undermined the country’s constitutional movement, which was already struggling to establish parliamentary rule. This internal turmoil coupled with foreign influence eventually suppressed the revolutionary government by 1911.

Fast forward to 1941, during World War II, Britain and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Iran to secure a supply corridor for military aid to the Soviet Union. Under intense military and political pressure from the occupying powers, Reza Shah Pahlavi, the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty, was forced to abdicate his throne on September 16, 1941.

He stepped down in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who then became the new Shah of Iran.

Photo Credit: Associated Press/ Harvard Magazine

1953 — CIA-Backed Coup

In 1951, Muhammad Mossadegh became the Prime Minister of Iran through Parliamentary Appointment. He had strong national support from the Iranian people. Mossadegh was a secular nationalist concerned with Iran’s sovereignty and control of its own resources, namely oil. At that time, Britain’s Anglo-Iranian Oil Company extracted Iran’s oil under terms the Iranian people considered unfair and exploitative.

Saudi Arabia had negotiated a 50/50 deal with American oil companies, and the Iranians wanted the same deal. Britain refused to renegotiate their deal, saying they could not be flexible because of the war debts they faced. Prime Minister Mossadegh and the Iranian Parliament then nationalized Iran’s oil industry, which Britain viewed as theft. They imposed sanctions and sought international legal remedies. When these efforts failed, Britain successfully pressured the United States government into viewingIran as a communist threat. The CIA agreed to participate in a covert operation, Operation Ajax.

They sent an operative to Tehran. His name was Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of Teddy Roosevelt and cousin of FDR). Working along with British Intelligence, Roosevelt carried CIA funds to distribute and fund protests and propaganda. The efforts were sufficient to mobilize unrest and eventually succeeded in the removal of Muhammad Mossadegh as prime minister. The U.S. government saw this as a victory against the spread of communism. But the Iranian people saw this as a foreign power toppling a democratic government; a national trauma.

1953–1979 — Rule of the Shah

The Shah of Iran returned to full power and over the next 25 years, he ruled Iran as one of America’s most important allies. Iran purchased large quantities of weapons from the United States, and the United States treated The Shah as a pillar of stability. TheIranian people were subjected to a repressive Iranian government under The Shah.

SAVAK, which stands for Sāzmān-e Ettelā’āt va Amniyat-e Keshvar (Organization of Intelligence and National Security), was established in 1957. It was created with assistance from the United States’ CIA and Israel’s Mossad to help the Shah consolidatepower and monitor political opposition.

1979 — Iranian Revolution

SAVAK functioned as Iran’s secret police and domestic intelligence service. Its responsibilities included:

• Surveillance of political opponents

• Censorship of media and publications

• Interrogation and detention of suspected dissidents

• Suppression of opposition groups, including leftists, nationalists, and religious activists

The organization became widely feared for its extensive surveillance network and allegations of torture and repression. Opposition to SAVAK’s practices contributed to growing resentment toward the Shah’s government, which ultimately played a role in the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the monarchy. The Islamic Republic was then established under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Photo Credit: Reuters

1979–1981 — U.S. Hostage Crisis

For many Americans, the 1979 Iranian Revolution was initially viewed as the collapse of a long-standing U.S. ally. Washington had supported Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi for decades following the 1953 CIA-backed coup that removed Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. In November 1979 Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

The students seized the embassy primarily because they believed the United States was interfering in Iran’s affairs and might try to restore the recently deposed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power.

The immediate trigger occurred in October 1979, when the U.S. allowed the Shah to enter the country for cancer treatment. Iranian students feared this could lead to another American-backed attempt to return him to power.

Also, the United States backed Iraq during the war between the two nations, further deepening Iranian mistrust of the U.S.

After the 1981 hostage crisis, U.S.–Iran relations were defined by decades of sanctions, proxy conflict, and rising tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, with periodic military confrontations and diplomatic breakdowns.

Photo Credit: U.S. State Department

2015 — Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)

Hostilities eased temporarily in 2015 with the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), the first major agreement between the two countries since the revolution.

The Obama administration got the Iranians to agree to restrictions on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

2018 — U.S. Withdrawal from the Nuclear Deal

The Trump administration exits the agreement and reinstates sweeping sanctions.

The embassy seizure that same year permanently altered relations between the two countries.

In American politics, Iran became a symbol of anti-Western extremism.

In Iranian political rhetoric, the United States became known as the “Great Satan.”

III. Iran’s Strategic Network

Iran has spent decades building regional influence through allied movements and militias across the Middle East.

Often referred to by analysts as the “Axis of Resistance,” this network includes:

• Hezbollah in Lebanon
• Shiite militias in Iraq
• the Syrian government
• Houthi forces in Yemen

These groups allow Iran to project influence across the region without relying solely on its conventional military forces.

Russia and China: Strategic Backers

Iran has also cultivated relationships with major global powers.

Russia and Iran have expanded military cooperation in recent years, while China has become one of Iran’s largest economic partners.

In 2021, China and Iran signed a 25-year strategic cooperation agreement that includes infrastructure investment, energy cooperation, and expanded trade.

While neither country is likely to directly enter a war on Iran’s behalf, these partnerships provide Tehran with economic resilience and diplomatic support.

Current War Developments

Recent reporting suggests the confrontation between the United States and Iran has entered a dangerous new phase, with sustained military exchanges and widening regional fallout.

According to multiple reports, U.S. and Israeli forces have carried out large-scale strikes on Iranian military infrastructure, including a major March 13 bombing campaign targeting more than 90 sites on Kharg Island, a critical hub tied to Iran’s military and energy network.

The conflict has intensified in recent days. Israeli strikes have reportedly killed senior Iranian leadership figures, including top security officials, signaling a direct effort to weaken the Iranian state’s command structure.

Iran has responded with missile and drone attacks across the Persian Gulf, targeting U.S. positions (including our Embassies), allied states, and commercial shipping. These retaliatory strikes have expanded the conflict geographically, with reported attacks or incidents affecting vessels and infrastructure near the Strait of Hormuz and even reaching Gulf cities such as Abu Dhabi and Doha.

The Strait of Hormuz has become a central flashpoint. Iranian actions—including attacks on tankers and efforts to disrupt shipping—have halted traffic through the waterway, a critical artery for roughly 20 percent of global oil supply.

The economic consequences have been immediate and severe. Oil prices have surged around or above $100 per barrel, while global energy markets remain volatile amid fears of prolonged disruption. Domestic gas prices have increased dramatically in just days.

At the same time, human and strategic costs are mounting. U.S. officials report hundreds of American service members injured including thirteen fatalities, while regional casualties continue to rise across Iran and neighboring states. Analysts also warn that sustained operations could strain U.S. precision munitions stockpiles and impose long-term financial costs.

Diplomatically, the conflict is exposing fractures among U.S. allies. European governments have so far declined to commit forces to secure the Strait of Hormuz, instead urging a diplomatic resolution even as Washington presses for broader support.

Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department has expanded emergency evacuation efforts for American citizens across the region as security conditions continue to deteriorate.

IV. The Implications of a Prolonged Conflict

A long war with Iran would carry far-reaching consequences for the United States, both abroad and at home.

Energy Markets
Disruptions in the Persian Gulf—particularly in the Strait of Hormuz—could drive global energy prices sharply higher, increasing the cost of oil, gasoline, and transportation worldwide.

Domestic Economic Impact
Rising energy prices would likely feed directly into the U.S. economy, contributing to higher inflation, increased costs for goods and services, and added pressure on household budgets. Prolonged conflict spending could also expand the federal deficit, while supply chain disruptions and market volatility could severely impact business investment and consumer confidence. In a sustained crisis, sectors such as shipping, aviation, and manufacturing would be especially vulnerable to cost spikes and uncertainty.

Regional Instability
Iran’s network of allied militias and partner groups across the Middle East raises the risk that fighting could spread beyond a single battlefield, drawing in multiple countries and threatening key trade routes.

Strategic Competition
A prolonged conflict could strain U.S. military resources and attention at a time when Washington is already balancing strategic competition with China and managing tensions with Russia, potentially stretching U.S. global commitments.

Why Iran Is Unlikely to Back Down

Iran’s leadership views confrontation with the United States as a struggle tied directly to the survival of the Islamic Republic.

Backing down under American pressure could undermine the ideological legitimacy of the regime.

Instead, Iranian strategy has historically focused on endurance—absorbing pressure while raising the cost of conflict for its opponents.

In other words, the goal is not necessarily to defeat the United States outright.

It is to outlast it.

Conclusion

Iran’s resistance to U.S. pressure cannot be understood through military comparisons alone.

It is the product of a century of historical grievances, geopolitical competition, and national identity shaped by resistance to foreign influence.

Understanding that history does not require agreement with Iran’s government.

But it does explain why the conflict between Washington and Tehran has proven so persistent—and why it is unlikely to end quickly.

If you value clear, fact-driven analysis grounded in real historical context—not just headlines—then this is the place for you.

At Pragmotiv News, we connect the dots, helping you understand not just what’s happening, but why it matters.

Support independent journalism that prioritizes depth over speed and clarity over outrage.

Subscribe now

Subscribe to Pragmotiv News for sharp insight on geopolitics, culture, and society—and stay informed in a world that moves fast but rarely slows down to explain itself.