A History of US-Iran Relations: Coercion, Broken Deals and Diplomatic Blackmail

By Mohamad Hammoud

Lebanon – The history of the United States and Iran is one of tension, distrust, and open hostility that spans decades. While mainstream Western narratives often depict Iran as an irrational actor, a closer examination reveals a troubling pattern of US coercion, diplomatic betrayal, and economic blackmail that has fueled this antagonism.

From the 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh to the Trump administration’s reckless withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA], the US has repeatedly undermined negotiations, violated agreements, and employed economic strangulation to force Iran into submission. This essay discusses the history of US-Iran relations, highlighting America's tendency to renege on deals, resort to blackmail tactics and sabotage diplomatic progress. It also examines how the US has historically used its power to destabilize Iran and strong-arm other nations into compliance—a strategy that has bred resentment, escalated regional conflicts, and eroded global trust in American leadership.

1953: The Original Sin of Regime Change

The roots of US-Iranian hostility trace back to 1953, when the CIA and British intelligence executed Operation Ajax to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. The "crime" that Mossadegh allegedly committed was nationalizing Iran’s oil sector, which had long been exploited by the US and Britain. Instead of pursuing fair negotiations, the US and Britain chose regime change, reinstating the authoritarian Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. He ruled for 26 years, greatly aided by the US, using torture, censorship, and secret police of the SAVAK to keep his position.

This intervention set a troubling precedent for US foreign policy: when diplomacy fails, coercion often takes its place. As a result, the coup planted deep resentment among Iranians, who began to view the US as an imperialist power willing to destabilize governments for its own economic interests. Scholars like Stephen Kinzer argue that this was just the beginning of a series of imperial interventions that sowed animosity and laid the groundwork for the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Historian Ervand Abrahamian emphasizes that the coup instilled a lasting belief among Iranians that “the West would never allow them true sovereignty,” a lesson that significantly fueled the anti-American sentiment leading up to the revolution.

The 1979 Revolution and the Hostage Crisis

The overthrow of the Shah and the establishment of the Islamic Republic marked a fundamental break in US-Iranian relations. The subsequent 1979 US embassy hostage crisis, in which Iranian students held 52 Americans for 444 days, further poisoned the relationship. The action was in response to concerns that the US would replicate that 1953 coup—concerns that were well-founded, given America's history of actions. In response, the US imposed sanctions and severed diplomatic ties, initiating decades of economic warfare against Iran.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the US supported Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in its brutal war against Iran, even providing intelligence for chemical weapons. Meanwhile, sanctions tightened, crippling Iran’s economy and harming ordinary citizens. The message was clear: submit to US demands or face collective punishment.

Nuclear Negotiations and US Bad Faith

The strongest example of American coercive diplomacy is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA], or Iran nuclear deal. By the 2000s, Iran’s nuclear program became the focal point of tensions, despite multiple US intelligence assessments—including the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate—that assessed that Iran had stopped pursuing weapons in 2003. Nevertheless, Washington continued escalating sanctions, pushing Iran into negotiations from a position of weakness.

Under the Obama administration, the JCPOA was signed between Iran and other countries, spearheaded by the US in 2015. The agreement was a historic diplomatic victory. Iran agreed to constrain its nuclear program and open it to strict inspections in return for sanctions relief. The deal worked—Iran complied, and its uranium stockpile dwindled. However, the US never fully honored its commitments. Congress, influenced by hardliners and pro-"Israel" lobbies, refused to lift non-nuclear sanctions, discouraging European businesses from engaging with Iran.

Then, in 2018, President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, despite Iran’s verified compliance. He reimposed crushing sanctions under a “maximum pressure” campaign, openly admitting that the goal was to force regime change or total surrender. This move, widely condemned by allies and experts, exposed the US as an unreliable negotiator—willing to abandon even successful agreements for political posturing.

Coercion by Proxy and Global Manipulation

The coercive actions of America were not restricted to Iran. The US has had a history of pressuring international institutions and allies to implement its Iran agenda. For example, the Trump administration warned of sanctions on European businesses that did business in Iran after the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, coercing compliance through economic intimidation.

Similarly, the US leveraged its influence over the SWIFT banking network to cut off Iran from international financial transactions. This extraterritorial enforcement of American policy reveals a broader pattern: when the US cannot achieve its goals through diplomacy, it resorts to economic warfare, punishing not just governments but entire populations.

Moreover, the US has attempted to manipulate the United Nations Security Council to extend arms embargoes and impose snapback sanctions—despite having forfeited its standing in the JCPOA by withdrawing. This effort failed due to a lack of support from other major powers, highlighting international resistance to America’s unilateralism.

Conclusion: The Futility of Coercion

The US-Iran relationship illustrates the failure of coercion as a foreign policy tool. Decades of sanctions, sabotage, and regime-change plots have not subdued Iran but rather hardened its defiance, accelerated its nuclear capabilities, and empowered hardliners. The collapse of the JCPOA damaged US credibility, with allies like France and Germany openly criticizing American "bullying."

True diplomacy requires mutual respect, not blackmail. Until the US abandons its colonial mindset—viewing nations as vassals to be disciplined rather than equals to be engaged—conflict will persist. The world is learning to bypass US pressure, as evidenced by the China-Iran 25-year partnership and India’s rupee-based oil trades with Iran. If America wishes to lead, it must do so by example—not by force.