History of US-Iran Relations: From the 1953 Coup to the 2026 Strikes

Overview

The February 2026 US military strikes on Iran did not emerge from a vacuum. They are the latest chapter in a relationship that has cycled between alliance, betrayal, revolution, hostage-taking, covert warfare, sanctions, tentative diplomacy, and now open military conflict over a span of 73 years. To understand where the US-Iran confrontation is headed, it is necessary to understand where it has been -- because the patterns of miscalculation, grievance, and missed opportunity that define this history are actively shaping the decisions being made today in Washington and Tehran.

This article traces the full arc of US-Iran relations from the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup through the present strikes. It is not a comprehensive diplomatic history -- that would fill volumes -- but rather a focused account of the turning points that built the adversarial relationship, the moments when a different path was possible, and the structural factors that made escalation more likely than resolution. Each era left a residue of distrust that compounded over time, creating a relationship in which both sides have long lists of legitimate grievances and neither has the institutional trust required for credible negotiation.

What We Know

1953: Operation TPAJAX and the Coup. In August 1953, the CIA and British MI6 orchestrated the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had nationalized Iran's oil industry, threatening the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's (later BP) monopoly. The coup restored Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to full power. The Shah would rule as an authoritarian monarch for the next 26 years, with extensive US military and intelligence support. The CIA's own declassified internal history, released in 2013, acknowledged that "the military coup that overthrew Mosaddegh and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy." For Iranians, the 1953 coup remains the original sin of US interference -- a democratic government overthrown to protect Western oil interests.

1953-1979: The Shah's Iran. Under the Shah, Iran became the United States' primary regional ally in the Persian Gulf, purchasing billions of dollars in American weapons and serving as a bulwark against Soviet influence. The Shah's secret police, SAVAK, trained with CIA assistance, maintained internal order through surveillance, imprisonment, and torture of political opponents. Economic modernization and westernization under the Shah's "White Revolution" generated rapid urbanization but also deep resentment among the religious establishment and traditional merchant class. By the mid-1970s, Iran was simultaneously one of America's closest allies and a society seething with repressed political opposition.

1979: The Islamic Revolution and Hostage Crisis. In January 1979, the Shah fled Iran amid massive popular protests. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile in Paris on February 1, and by April, a national referendum established the Islamic Republic. On November 4, 1979, revolutionary students stormed the US Embassy in Tehran and took 52 American diplomats hostage, demanding the Shah's extradition from the United States, where he was receiving cancer treatment. The hostages were held for 444 days -- a national trauma for Americans and a founding triumph for the revolutionary regime. The Carter administration severed diplomatic relations in April 1980; they have never been restored.

1980-1988: The Iran-Iraq War. In September 1980, Saddam Hussein's Iraq invaded Iran, beginning an eight-year war that killed an estimated 500,000-1,000,000 people on both sides. The United States, which had initially declared neutrality, tilted decisively toward Iraq by 1982, providing intelligence, agricultural credits, and diplomatic cover -- including when Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians. The US Navy also engaged Iranian forces directly during Operation Praying Mantis in 1988. On July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655, killing all 290 passengers and crew. The US characterized it as a tragic accident; Iran viewed it as a deliberate act of war. This event remains deeply embedded in Iranian collective memory.

1995-2005: Sanctions, Missed Signals, and the Nuclear Revelation. President Clinton imposed comprehensive US sanctions on Iran in 1995-1996, including the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. Despite the hostile posture, there were quiet diplomatic contacts. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Iran provided significant intelligence cooperation to the US in Afghanistan, helping to identify Taliban targets and broker the Bonn Agreement on Afghanistan's transitional government. In January 2002, President George W. Bush included Iran in the "Axis of Evil" alongside Iraq and North Korea, devastating Iranian reformists who had advocated for engagement. In 2003, Iran reportedly sent a comprehensive proposal for negotiations through Swiss intermediaries -- the so-called "grand bargain" fax -- offering concessions on its nuclear program, recognition of Israel, and an end to support for Hamas and Hezbollah. The Bush administration did not respond.

2006-2015: The Nuclear Standoff and JCPOA. Iran's covert nuclear program, first revealed publicly in 2002 by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (an exiled opposition group), became the central point of confrontation. The UN Security Council passed six resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran between 2006 and 2015. Covert operations -- including the Stuxnet cyberattack on Natanz centrifuges (attributed to the US and Israel) and assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists -- accompanied the diplomatic pressure. The election of Hassan Rouhani as president in 2013 opened the door to direct US-Iran negotiations, which culminated in the July 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to limit enrichment to 3.67%, reduce its centrifuge inventory, and accept the most intrusive nuclear inspections regime in history. In exchange, nuclear-related sanctions were lifted, and Iran gained access to approximately $100 billion in frozen assets.

2018-2025: Maximum Pressure and Collapse. In May 2018, President Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA and reimposed sanctions under a "maximum pressure" campaign, despite IAEA confirmation that Iran was in compliance with the deal. Iran initially continued complying for a year, hoping European partners could provide economic relief. When that failed, Tehran began systematically exceeding the deal's limits -- enriching to 20% and then 60% purity, installing advanced centrifuges, and restricting IAEA access. The January 2020 US assassination of IRGC Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad brought the two countries to the brink of war; Iran responded with ballistic missile strikes on Al Asad Air Base in Iraq. Diplomatic efforts to revive the JCPOA under the Biden administration progressed through indirect talks in Vienna but ultimately stalled over sequencing disputes, with neither side willing to make the first concession. By 2025, the JCPOA was effectively dead, and the diplomatic infrastructure that had taken years to build no longer existed.

February 2026: Military Strikes. The US and Israeli strikes on Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure in February 2026 represent the first direct large-scale military engagement between the United States and Iran. The immediate triggers and operational details are covered in our US Strikes Iran and Strike Timeline articles. What the historical record makes clear is that this moment was not inevitable but was made increasingly likely by the systematic destruction of every diplomatic channel, confidence-building measure, and institutional relationship that might have prevented it.

Analysis

Three structural patterns run through the 73-year history of US-Iran relations and continue to shape the current crisis.

The asymmetry of memory. Americans and Iranians experience the same historical events through radically different lenses. For most Americans, the relationship begins with the 1979 hostage crisis -- an act of lawless aggression against diplomatic personnel. For most Iranians, it begins with the 1953 coup -- an act of imperial interference that destroyed a democratic government. These competing origin stories produce fundamentally different assessments of who owes whom an accounting. American policymakers who ignore the 1953 coup as ancient history are making a strategic error: it is not ancient history in Tehran, where it is taught in schools, commemorated in political rhetoric, and cited as evidence that American promises cannot be trusted. Similarly, Iranian leaders who dismiss American hostage-crisis grievances as illegitimate fail to understand the emotional foundation of US public hostility toward their government.

The pattern of missed diplomatic windows. At several critical junctures, the two countries came close to a fundamentally different relationship. Iran's post-9/11 intelligence cooperation, the 2003 "grand bargain" proposal, the 2013-2015 JCPOA negotiations -- each represented a moment when the trajectory could have shifted. In each case, domestic political dynamics in one or both countries closed the window. Hardliners in both Washington and Tehran have consistently benefited from the adversarial relationship: Iranian conservatives use American hostility to justify authoritarian control, while American hawks use Iranian threats to justify military spending and forward deployment. This mutual reinforcement loop has proven more durable than any diplomatic initiative.

The escalation ratchet. Each cycle of confrontation has left the baseline level of hostility higher than the one before. The 1953 coup led to the revolution. The revolution led to the hostage crisis and the severing of ties. The Iran-Iraq War entrenched mutual military hostility. The nuclear crisis produced sanctions that devastated Iran's economy and covert operations that killed its scientists. The JCPOA collapse eliminated the last functioning diplomatic framework. The Soleimani assassination established a precedent for targeted killing of senior officials. Each escalation was a response to the previous one, and each made the next one more likely. The February 2026 strikes are the latest turn of this ratchet, and the historical pattern suggests that whatever follows will be more extreme, not less -- unless a deliberate, sustained effort at de-escalation intervenes.

What's Next

The historical record suggests several dynamics that are likely to shape the post-strike period.

• Iran has historically responded to military humiliation with asymmetric retaliation on a delayed timeline. After the Soleimani assassination, the ballistic missile response came within days, but proxy escalations through Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, and Houthi forces continued for months. A similar pattern -- combining an immediate symbolic response with sustained indirect pressure -- is the most probable Iranian strategy.
• The destruction of diplomatic channels means that any de-escalation will require intermediaries. Oman, which facilitated the secret US-Iran talks that preceded the JCPOA, is the most likely candidate. Qatar and Switzerland (which represents US interests in Tehran as the protecting power) could also play roles. But intermediary diplomacy is slow, fragile, and vulnerable to spoilers on both sides.
• Domestic politics in both countries will push against compromise. In the United States, the political cost of appearing "soft on Iran" after committing to military action is prohibitive for any administration. In Iran, the Supreme Leader's legitimacy rests partly on defiance of American pressure; accepting a settlement perceived as capitulation would threaten the regime's foundational narrative.
• The nuclear dimension adds urgency that did not exist in previous escalation cycles. If the strikes damaged Iran's enrichment infrastructure, Tehran faces a choice between rebuilding covertly, accelerating toward a weapon as a deterrent, or negotiating limits in exchange for sanctions relief. Each option carries different risks and timelines, and the intelligence community's ability to assess Iran's choices will be critical to policy decisions in the coming months.
• Regional actors -- Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Israel, Turkey, and Iraq -- each have interests that may either facilitate or obstruct a diplomatic resolution. Their roles are analyzed in separate coverage linked below.

Why It Matters

History does not determine the future, but it constrains it. Every policy option being discussed in Washington and Tehran in February 2026 -- from expanded military operations to diplomatic off-ramps to economic pressure campaigns -- has been tried before in some form during the 73-year US-Iran confrontation. The results of those previous attempts are documented, studied, and available to policymakers. The question is whether decision-makers on both sides will learn from the historical record or repeat its patterns.

For American citizens, understanding this history is essential for evaluating the claims their government makes about the conflict. When officials describe the strikes as a response to an "unprovoked" Iranian threat, the historical record shows a chain of provocations stretching back decades in both directions. When Iranian leaders describe the strikes as evidence of American imperialism unchanged since 1953, the historical record shows that US policy toward Iran has in fact varied significantly across administrations -- including genuine, if ultimately unsuccessful, efforts at engagement. Neither side's narrative is complete, and citizens who want to hold their governments accountable need access to the full picture.

For the international community, the US-Iran conflict is a case study in how the failure to resolve a bilateral dispute can metastasize into a regional security crisis affecting global energy markets, nuclear proliferation norms, and the credibility of international institutions. The collapse of the JCPOA -- a deal endorsed by six world powers and enshrined in a UN Security Council resolution -- demonstrated the fragility of multilateral agreements when a single party withdraws. The precedent this sets for other nuclear negotiations, including with North Korea, is deeply consequential.

Related Coverage

• Why Did Israel Attack Iran? Context and Motivations
• Iran Strike Timeline: June 2025 to February 2026
• Does Iran Have Nuclear Weapons? Enrichment, Breakout Time & 2026 Status
• UN Resolution 2231 and Snapback Sanctions Explained
• NPT Rules and Iran's Obligations Explained

Sources

Last updated: February 28, 2026. This article is revised when new evidence materially changes what can be stated with confidence.