The US and Iran have had bitter relations for decades. After the bombs, a new chapter begins.
David Smith/Associated Press
This change of tone, however fleeting, came after the intense U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear-development sites this week, Iran's retaliatory yet restrained attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar and the
The U.S. attack on three targets inflicted serious damage but did not destroy them,
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Here are some questions and answers about the long history of bad blood between the two countries:
Advertisement
Why did Trump offer blessings all around?
In the first blush of a ceasefire agreement, even before Israel and Iran appeared to be fully on board, Trump exulted in the achievement. 'God bless Israel,' he posted on social media. 'God bless Iran.' He wished blessings on the Middle East, America and the world, too.
When it became clear that all hostilities had not immediately ceased after all, he took to swearing instead.
'We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f— they're doing,' he said on camera.
Advertisement
In that moment, Trump was especially critical of Israel, the steadfast U.S. ally, for seeming less attached to the pause in fighting than the country that has been shouting 'Death to America' for generations and is accused of trying to assassinate him.
Why did U.S.-Iran relations sour in the first place?
In two words, Operation Ajax.
That was the 1953 coup orchestrated by the CIA, with British support, that overthrew Iran's democratically elected government and handed power to the shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The Western powers had feared the rise of Soviet influence and the nationalization of Iran's oil industry.
The shah was a strategic U.S. ally who repaired official relations with Washington. But grievances simmered among Iranians over his autocratic rule and his bowing to America's interests.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, with a heavy escort, as he entered a car to leave the airport in Tehran in 1979 after arriving back in the country.
FY/Associated Press
All of that boiled over in 1979 when the shah fled the country and the theocratic revolutionaries took control, imposing their own hard line.
How did the Iranian revolution deepen tensions?
Profoundly.
On Nov. 4, 1979, with anti-American sentiment at a fever pitch, Iranian students took 66 American diplomats and citizens hostage and held more than 50 of them in captivity for 444 days.
It was a humiliating spectacle for the United States and President Jimmy Carter, who ordered a secret rescue mission months into the Iran hostage crisis. In Operation Eagle Claw, eight Navy helicopters and six Air Force transport planes were sent to rendezvous in the Iranian desert. A sand storm aborted the mission and eight service members died when a helicopter crashed into a C-120 refueling plane.
FILE - Remains of a burned-out U.S. helicopter lis photographed in the eastern desert region of Iran, April 27,1980, one day after an abortive American commando raid to free the U.S. Embassy hostages. (AP Photo, File)
Uncredited/Associated Press
Diplomatic ties were severed in 1980 and remain broken.
Iran released the hostages minutes after Ronald Reagan's presidential inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981. That was just long enough to ensure that Carter, bogged in the crisis for over a year, would not see them freed in his term.
Advertisement
Was this week's U.S. attack the first against Iran?
No. But the last big one was at sea.
On April 18, 1988, the U.S. Navy sank two Iranian ships, damaged another and destroyed two surveillance platforms in its largest surface engagement since World War II. Operation Praying Mantis was in retaliation against the mining of the USS Samuel B. Roberts in the Persian Gulf four days earlier. Ten sailors were injured and the explosion left a gaping hole in the hull.
Did the U.S. take sides in the Iran-Iraq war?
Not officially, but essentially.
The U.S. provided economic aid, intelligence sharing and military-adjacent technology to Iraq, concerned that an Iranian victory would spread instability through the region and strain oil supplies. Iran and Iraq emerged from the 1980-1988 war with no clear victor and the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, while U.S.-Iraq relations fractured spectacularly in the years after.
What was the Iran-Contra affair?
An example of U.S.-Iran cooperation of sorts — an illegal, and secret, one until it wasn't.
Retired Air Force Major Gen. Richard Secord recieved some advice from his attorney Thomas Green while testifying on Capitol Hill before a congressional committee holding hearings on the Iran-Contra affair, in 1987,
LANA HARRIS/Associated Press
Not long after the U.S. designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984 — a status that remains — it emerged that America was illicitly selling arms to Iran. One purpose was to win the release of hostages in Lebanon under the control of Iran-backed Hezbollah. The other was to raise secret money for the Contra rebels in Nicaragua in defiance of a U.S. ban on supporting them.
President Ronald Reagan fumbled his way through the scandal but emerged unscathed — legally if not reputationally.
How many nations does the U.S. designate as state sponsors of terrorism?
Only four: Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Syria.
The designation makes those countries the target of broad sanctions. Syria's designation is being reviewed in light of the fall of Bashar Assad's government.
Advertisement
Where did the term 'Axis of Evil' come from?
From President George W. Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address. He spoke five months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the year before he launched the invasion of Iraq on the wrong premise that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
He singled out Iran, North Korea and Saddam's Iraq and said: 'States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.'
In this January 2002 photo, former President George W. Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil" during his State of the Union address on Capitol Hill.
DOUG MILLS/Associated Press
In response, Iran and some of its anti-American proxies and allies in the region took to calling their informal coalition an Axis of Resistance at times.
What about those proxies and allies?
Some, like Hezbollah and Hamas, are degraded due to Israel's fierce and sustained assault on them. In Syria, Assad fled to safety in Moscow after losing power to rebels once tied to Islamic State terrorism but now cautiously welcomed by Trump.
In Yemen, Houthi rebels who have attacked commercial ships in the Red Sea and pledge common cause with Palestinians have been bombed by the U.S. and Britain. In Iraq, armed Shia factions controlled or supported by Iran still operate and attract periodic attacks from the United States.
What about Iran's nuclear program?
In 2015, President Barack Obama and other powers struck a deal with Iran to limit its nuclear development in return for the easing of sanctions. Iran agreed to get rid of an enriched uranium stockpile, dismantle most centrifuges and give international inspectors more access to see what it was doing.
This image released by the official website of the office of the Iranian Presidency shows President Hassan Rouhani has he listened to explanations on new nuclear achievements at a ceremony to mark "National Nuclear Day," in Tehran in April 2018.
Uncredited/Associated Press
Trump assailed the deal in his 2016 campaign and scrapped it two years later as president, imposing a 'maximum pressure' campaign of sanctions. He argued the deal only delayed the development of nuclear weapons and did nothing to restrain Iran's aggression in the region. Iran's nuclear program resumed over time and, according to inspectors, accelerated in recent months.
Advertisement
Trump's exit from the nuclear deal brought a warning from Hassan Rouhani, then Iran's president, in 2018: 'America must understand well that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace. And war with Iran is the mother of all wars.'
How did Trump respond to Iran's provocations?
In January 2020, Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, Iran's top commander, when he was in Iraq.
Then Iran came after him, according to President Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland. Days after Trump won last year's election, the Justice Department filed charges against an Iranian man believed to still be in his country and two alleged associates in New York.
Coffins of Gen. Qassem Soleimani and others who were killed in Iraq by a US drone strike were carried on a truck surrounded by mourners, in the city of Kerman, Iran, in January 2020.
Uncredited/Associated Press
'The Justice Department has charged an asset of the Iranian regime who was tasked by the regime to direct a network of criminal associates to further Iran's assassination plots against its targets, including President-elect Donald Trump,' Garland said.
Now, Trump is seeking peace at the table after ordering bombs dropped on Iran, and offering blessings.
It is potentially the mother of all turnarounds.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
10 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Education Department quietly removes rules for teaching English learners
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Since March, the Education Department has also laid off nearly all workers in its Office of English Language Acquisition and has asked Congress to terminate funding for the federal program that helps pay for educating English-language learners. Last week, education advocates noticed that the guidance document related to English learning had a new label indicating it was rescinded and remains online 'for historical purposes only.' Advertisement On Tuesday, Education Department spokesperson Madi Biedermann said that the guidance for teaching English learners, which was originally set forth in 2015, was rescinded because it 'is not in line with administration policy.' Advertisement A Justice Department spokesperson responded to questions by sending a link to the July memorandum and said he had no comment when asked whether the guidance would be replaced. For decades, the federal government has held that failing to provide resources for people not proficient in English constitutes discrimination based on national origin under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In rescinding the guidance, the Trump administration is signaling that it may stop enforcing the law under that long-standing interpretation. The Education and Justice departments have been responsible for enforcing the law. In the July memorandum, Attorney General Pam Bondi cited case law that says treating people, including students, who aren't proficient in English differently does not, on its face, amount to discrimination based on national origin. Other guidance related to language access for people using services across the federal government is also being suspended, according to the memo, and the Justice Department will create new guidance by mid-January to 'help agencies prioritize English while explaining precisely when and how multilingual assistance remains necessary.' The aim of the effort, Bondi said in a statement published alongside the memo, is to 'promote assimilation over division.' The consequences for school districts were not immediately clear, but advocates worry that rescinding the 2015 guidance could open the door for weaker instruction for English learners and upend decades of direction from the federal government to provide English-language services to students who need them. 'The Department of Education and the Department of Justice are walking away from 55 years of legal understanding and enforcement. I don't think we can understate how important that is,' said Michael Pillera, an attorney who worked at the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights for 10 years and now directs the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights. Advertisement Without pressure from the federal government to comply with the law, it is possible that some school districts will drop services, Pillera said, particularly as many districts struggle with financial pressures. 'It's going to ripple quickly,' he predicted. 'Schools were doing this because the Office for Civil Rights told them they had to.' Many districts will probably not change their services, but rescinding the guidance opens the door, said Leslie Villegas, an education policy analyst at New America, a think tank. Advocates may watch for changes in districts that previously had compliance problems or those that had open cases with the Office for Civil Rights related to English-language instruction, she noted. 'The rescission of this guidance may create the mentality that no one's watching,' Villegas said. In recent months, the Justice Department notified at least three school districts — in Boston; Newark; and Worcester, Massachusetts — that the government was releasing them from government monitoring that had been in place to ensure they offered services to English-language learners. 'Unfortunately, we're not at all surprised,' Anna Krieger, executive director of Massachusetts Advocates for Children, said of the Trump administration's latest move. 'It's a really devastating decision.'' In anticipation of such a shift, Krieger said in a phone interview Wednesday evening, state lawmakers recently took action to ensure ongoing protections for Massachusetts students who are learning English and those with disabilities. 'They will still have the same rights next year that they had in the last school year,' she said. Advertisement Supporters of immigration restrictions argued that relieving pressure on schools to provide these services might be helpful, especially given the costs to districts. 'If you devote all these resources to these kids coming in [to school] completely unprepared, inevitably it will diminish the quality of education others are getting,' said Ira Mehlman, spokesperson for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Todd DuBois, communications director for U.S. English, a group that advocates for English as the official and common language, said some education is needed to help 'bridge the gap' for students who do not speak English, but the group is concerned that multilingualism 'gets in the way of teaching English literacy earlier in life.' Tonya Alanez of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
UPI
12 minutes ago
- UPI
Vance, Hegseth, Miller laud Guard troops, denounce capital protesters
A Humvee is parked in front of Union Station in Washington as members of the National Guard patrol on Monday after President Donald Trump last week deployed the National Guard to assist in crime prevention. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo Aug. 20 (UPI) -- As protesters chanted nearby, U.S. Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller visited National Guardsmen in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday amid what the Trump administration says is a crime crackdown. The three Trump administration officials greeted National Guard troops at the capital's Union Station while positioned near a table containing hamburgers for the troops, PBS News reported. "In just the past nine days, we've seen a 35% reduction in violent crime," Vance told those in attendance. "We've seen over a 50% reduction in robberies," he added. "We're seeing really substantial effects because these guys are busting their a*****." Vance said he wanted to thank the National Guard troops in person and hand out some hamburgers to show his appreciation for their efforts. Hegseth said the National Guard deployments in Washington are needed to ensure residents, visitors and those who work in the capital are safe. "The American people, the residents of D.C., deserve a safe and beautiful city," Hegseth said. "That's our mission." He called the National Guard troops "patriots who serve the country" and want to make Washington a "beautiful, safe capital." The National Guard troops are "proud of this mission" and making sure "law and order is established here in the capital," Hegseth added. He said the Defense Department is providing the resources that the troops need and working with law enforcement partners to ensure safety in Washington. Pro-Palestinian protesters gathered and chanted near Union Station, which drew a rebuke from Vance. He said the protesters "hate the idea that Americans can enjoy their communities," according to PBS News. Vance said he went to Union Station with Hegseth and Miller because criminal activity was very high there, which local officials deny. Miller added to Vance's criticism of the protesters by calling them "stupid white hippies" and said they do not represent Washington, D.C.'s residents, The Hill reported. "We are not going to let the communists destroy a great American city, let alone the nation's capital," Miller said. "All these demonstrators you've seen out here in recent days, all these elderly white hippies, they're not part of the city and never have been," Miller said. "We're going to ignore these stupid white hippies that all need to go home and take a nap because they're all over 90 years old," he added. Trump last week put the federal government in control of Washington's Metropolitan Police Department, which has been accused of falsifying crime data. Though Trump administration officials have characterized crime in the city as out of control, in actuality, crime in the district has fallen in recent years or remained flat. An agreement on Friday put the police department under local control, but Trump sought and received National Guard deployments from West Virginia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee and Louisiana. About 1,200 National Guard troops are slated for deployment in the capital, in addition to 800 Washington National Guard troops who already are there, according to The Washington Post.
12 minutes ago
NATO defense chiefs wrap talks on Ukraine security, but the path forward is unclear
Top U.S. and European defense officials spent much of this week privately discussing possible military options in Ukraine that would bolster the Eastern European country's protections against Russia. But the alliance's top military officials appeared to emerge without a concrete plan -- at least not one they were willing to discuss publicly. Gen. Dan Caine, President Donald Trump's top military adviser and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, invited several of his European counterparts to dinner at his home at Fort Myer in Virginia on Tuesday evening. The discussion continued Wednesday online with a briefing by Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, the top U.S. commander in Europe, who also serves as head of NATO forces, officials said. The talks were aimed at providing military options that Trump and other political leaders in the NATO alliance could use to guarantee Ukraine's security as part of a peace deal between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Zelenskyy has aggressively sought security guarantees from the alliance to ensure Russia would not attack again. United Kingdom officials have said previously that Great Britain and France are prepared to lead a multinational force in Ukraine, but it was not clear how many troops would be involved, from which countries, or what exactly the troops would do. On Tuesday, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer hailed the possibility of NATO-backed security guarantees as a 'breakthrough,' noting that the U.S. was now working 'at pace' with 30 or so other countries, which he called a 'coalition of the willing,' to help Ukraine. 'These guarantees will ensure that if there is a peace, if there is a deal, then we hold to it and there isn't further conflict,' Starmer said in a video post on X. Likewise, Gen. Keith Kellogg, Trump's special envoy to Russia and Ukraine, said the security guarantees will ultimately help achieve any ceasefire in the three-year war. "If you bring in good security guarantees, this allows Zelenskyy some options as well to work with Putin so he can settle this conflict, and I think w'ere on a path to do that," Kellogg told Fox Business on Tuesday. But along with any commitment of troops, details on these possible security guarantees remained elusive Wednesday, as several officials said the discussions were still in the early stages and would need to become part of a broader political discussion going forward. Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, told ABC News Live on Wednesday it was unlikely that NATO would cobble together a security agreement that would be acceptable to both Ukraine and the Europeans and to Russia. 'What you may get is a ceasefire, perhaps even an armistice, a more formal ceasefire that would require NATO security or European security guarantees to Ukraine to ensure that Russia does not restart the war,' Daalder continued. NATO officials struck an optimistic tone Wednesday following meetings with their counterparts, while avoiding discussing specifics. 'NATO has faced important times before,' said Col. Martin L. O'Donnell, a spokesperson for Grynkewich and the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, in a statement following the meetings. 'And these have only made our Alliance Stronger,' he added. Adm. Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chair of the NATO military committee, said members confirmed their support for Ukraine during the meeting Wednesday. The 'priority continues to be a just, credible and durable peace,' he wrote. For his part, Trump has said only that he won't send ground troops and suggested the U.S. could help with air assets. 'President Trump has been clear that the U.S. will not be sending boots on the ground, but may be willing to help in other ways,' a White House official told reporters on Wednesday.
