30/03/2026
Some U.S. politicians seem to think that physically removing Iran's leadership can automatically flip a government into one they like. Just a bit of historical awareness would show how naive that is.
In the early 20th century, Iran’s oil was long exploited by Britain and other Western powers. In 1951, Iran elected Mohammad Mossadegh as prime minister. He formally pushed to nationalize Iran’s oil, directly challenging British and Western interests. In response, British and American intelligence orchestrated a coup to overthrow Mossadegh—a move that remains indelibly etched in Iranian memory.
You claim to champion democracy and freedom, yet when Iran elected a prime minister through democratic means who didn’t serve your interests, you toppled him.
The U.S. then supported the pro-Western Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Under his rule, Iran continued to channel enormous wealth and oil profits to the West. Domestically, however, his regime was marked by corruption, political repression, censorship, and growing social inequality—issues largely ignored by the U.S., which praised Iran as an “island of stability.” This persisted until the 1979 Iranian Revolution finally overthrew the Shah. Even after his removal, the U.S. provided him refuge.
These actions help explain why some Iranians harbor deep resentment toward the U.S., culminating in the hostage crisis, when Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held diplomats hostage.
The decades that followed were a cycle of tit-for-tat tensions. In 2015, a glimmer of hope appeared with the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), which limited Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief—a rare moment of diplomacy and cautious optimism. But that hope was short-lived: in 2018, the U.S. abruptly withdrew, undermining the agreement and reigniting distrust.
After all this, do you really expect the Iranian people to love the U.S. government?
