The US has toppled an Iranian government before. Here's what happened
Since Israel began its concerted attack on Iran, calls for regime change have grown louder, with US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu raising the possibility of targeting Tehran's all-powerful leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Many Iranians have firsthand experience with the United States enforcing a regime change in their country.
Oil fields: In 1953, the US helped stage a coup to overthrow Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh.
He had pledged to nationalize the country's oil fields – a move the US and Great Britain saw as a serious blow, given their dependence on oil from the Middle East.
Height of the Cold War: The move to nationalize was seen as popular in Iran and a victory for the then-USSR.
Strengthen Shah rule: The coup's goal was to support Iran's monarch, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to rule as Shah of Iran, and appoint a new prime minister, Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi.
The coup: Before the coup, the CIA, along with the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), helped foment anti-Mossadegh fervor using propaganda. In 1953, the CIA and SIS helped pull pro-Shah forces together and organized large protests against Mossadegh, which were soon joined by the army.
US cash: To provide Zahedi, the country's new prime minister, with some stability, the CIA covertly made $5,000,000 available within two days of him taking power, documents showed.
US acknowledgement: In 2013, declassified CIA documents were released, confirming the agency's involvement for the first time. But the US role was known: Former President Barack Obama acknowledged involvement in the coup in 2009.
It backfired: After toppling Mossadegh, the US strengthened its support for Pahlavi to rule as Shah. Iranians resented the foreign interference, fueling anti-American sentiment in the country for decades.
Islamic Revolution: The Shah became a close ally of the US. But in the late 1970s, millions of Iranians took to the streets against his regime, which they viewed as corrupt and illegitimate. Secular protesters opposed his authoritarianism, while Islamist protesters opposed his modernization agenda.
The Shah was toppled in the 1979 Islamic revolution, which ended the country's Western-backed monarchy and ushered in the start of the Islamic Republic and clerical rule.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
27 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Will Venezuela, Mexico benefit from Iran war oil price surge? Yes, but no
The conflict in Iran has triggered speculation that soaring global oil prices could deliver a windfall for Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia and other Latin American oil producers. But surprisingly, most oil experts say that's not likely to happen. Analysts from Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and other financial institutions say oil prices could surge beyond $100 a barrel if Iran were to interrupt oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, which handles about 25% of world oil shipments. But most are quick to add that the impact of such disruption would probably be limited and short-lived. First, there is an oversupply of oil in world markets, partly because the global economy is growing more slowly than expected due to President Trump's tariff wars. Five days after Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, world oil prices remained below their 2024 average of $80 per barrel, according to a Deutsche Bank analysis. Second, Iran is a relatively small oil exporter, producing about 3% of the world's output. And due to U.S. and European sanctions, Iran sells 90% of its oil to a single country — China. If Iran's oil production stopped, it would affect mainly China, although it currently has high oil inventories. Third, in the most catastrophic scenario — if Iran were to block the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for U.S. or European actions in support of Israel — Washington would most likely intervene militarily to reopen that vital trade passage. And China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states — rhetoric aside — would probably welcome a reopening of their oil supply lanes, analysts say. Francisco J. Monaldi, director of the Latin America Energy Program at Rice University's Baker Institute, told me that in the worst-case scenario — an extended disruption of the Strait of Hormuz that dramatically drives up world oil prices — there would be a 'net gain' for Latin American oil exporters. 'Guyana, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador and even Brazil and Argentina, to some extent, would see a positive impact on their balance sheets,' Monaldi told me. 'Mexico has become a net oil importer, but higher prices would also benefit Pemex's [state-owned oil company's] revenues.' He added, 'Of course, such gains could be somewhat offset by negative secondary effects, like a global recession. But the net outcome for these countries would be an important surge in their revenues and exports.' However, when I asked Monaldi about the chances of a prolonged disruption of oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, he said that it's unlikely to happen. The U.S. Navy would re-open that shipping lane immediately, and oil prices would soon return to normal, he added. 'We could see a temporary spike in oil prices, but there shouldn't be a long-term impact,' he concluded. By the same token, oil importers such as Chile, Cuba and other Caribbean countries would have to spend more money in the short run to make their purchases, but their pain may not last too long. Interestingly, the World Bank, which earlier this month issued a report forecasting a major slowdown in the U.S. and global economy — partly due to Trump's tariffs — is not anticipating changes in its economic projection as a result of the Iran war. Valerie Mercer-Backman, the lead author of the Latin American section of the World Bank's forecast, told me that despite the latest Iran conflict, the general trend was toward a 'slight decline' in world oil prices. The war may produce a temporary spike, 'but we don't see that the latest geopolitical events will have a major impact on our forecast,' she said. This brings me back to the conclusion that the Venezuelan dictatorship — perhaps Latin America's biggest potential winner of a global oil price hike — along with Colombia and Mexico may get, at best, a brief respite if the Iran war disrupts world oil shipping lanes. But it's not likely to be enough to help Venezuela emerge from its severe economic crisis or to solve the current troubles of Mexico and Colombia. Don't miss the 'Oppenheimer Presenta' TV show on Sundays at 9 pm E.T. on CNN en Español. Blog:
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Abandoning our Afghan allies is a moral and strategic mistake
It is a bad time for thousands of Afghans who risked their lives helping the U.S. over the past two decades. On June 2, it was announced that the office that helps with relocation of Afghans who helped America will close on July 1. Last month, the Department of Homeland Security formally ended Temporary Protected Status for roughly 10,000 Afghans who fled their country after the Taliban's return to power in 2021. Under the new directive, Afghan nationals currently residing in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status have just under six weeks to leave, setting a deadline of July 14. Most of these Afghans are waiting for the backlog to clear to get the Special Immigrant Visa that was promised to them because of the help they provided the U.S. since its 2001 invasion. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated that 'Afghanistan has had an improved security situation, and its stabilizing economy no longer prevent them from returning to their home country.' Yet, only days later, the State Department included Afghan citizens on a new 'travel ban' list due to deteriorating security situation and threat of terrorism from that country, contradicting what Noem and her department had claimed. Anyone paying attention to Afghanistan since the Taliban's return knows that it is not safe. The country has collapsed into an economic and humanitarian crisis. Al Qaeda has reestablished its position, operating training camps and safe houses across the country. According to a recent U.N. report, Afghanistan is now a 'permissive environment' for al Qaeda consolidation. Meanwhile, the Afghan branch of the so-called Islamic State has never been stronger. Girls cannot attend school beyond grade six. Women cannot work or even leave their homes without permission from a male relative. Ethnic and religious minorities continue to face persecution. The Taliban are hunting down Afghans who worked with the U.S. and its allies — often with deadly consequences. The claim that Afghanistan is now 'safe' is false. This issue is tricky for the Trump administration. In February 2020, President Trump reached a deal with the Taliban that planted the seed for the withdrawal of U.S. forces by May 2021. That agreement set in motion the Taliban's return to power. When President Joe Biden took office in 2021, he had the chance to cancel the deal, but he did not. By July, most U.S. and allied troops had left. On August 15, the Taliban seized Kabul. By Sept. 11, 2021 — the 20th anniversary of 9/11 — they controlled more of Afghanistan than they had on that tragic day in 2001. Both presidents share the blame. In the chaotic withdrawal, the U.S. left behind an estimated $7 billion in military equipment — most of which is now in Taliban hands or circulating on the regional black market. But the greater cost has been moral: the abandonment of tens of thousands of Afghans who served alongside American forces. Many of these men and women risked their lives for U.S. forces as interpreters, engineers, medics and contractors. For them, the Taliban's return is not just a change of government — it's a death sentence. Given the chaos the Biden administration allowed at America's southern border, it might be tempting to fold the Afghan resettlement issue into the broader immigration debate. But that approach would be both lazy and strategically short-sighted. Afghanistan and the broader regions of Central and South Asia will remain central to U.S. counterterrorism and foreign policy for the foreseeable future, and pretending otherwise is naive. There are four clear strategic reasons why helping Afghans who aided the U.S. is not only just but smart. First, honoring our commitment to Afghan partners sends a powerful message to future allies. In every modern conflict, American forces have relied on local partners for on-the-ground support. That pattern will almost certainly continue. If local partners believe the U.S. won't protect them when the fight is over, they will be far less willing to take that risk, which would weaken America's global reach and credibility. Second, Afghans already in the U.S. represent a critical talent pool. Many are trained linguists and cultural experts. During the two-decade U.S. mission in Afghanistan, they filled roles that no one else could. Yet in November 2023, Defense Language Institute ceased instruction in Pashto, one of Afghanistan's national languages. Should the U.S. again need Pashto speakers or regional experts, the Afghan American community will be indispensable. Third, these Afghans could help shape a post-Taliban Afghanistan. After 2001, the Afghan American diaspora was key to rebuilding the country. The current Taliban regime is fractured and unlikely to maintain control indefinitely. Offering refuge to educated, professionally trained Afghans bolsters U.S. capacity now and supports future stabilization efforts. Fourth, Afghan immigrants provide indirect humanitarian aid via remittances. In 2019, remittances made up 4.4 percent of Afghanistan's GDP. Since late 2021, the U.S. Treasury has allowed Afghans here to send money home despite sanctions. These remittances reduce the burden on American taxpayers and support Afghan families in crisis. Beyond these strategic benefits, there is the moral argument. Doing right by those who stood with America is a matter of national honor. The way a nation treats its allies — especially when they are vulnerable — says everything about its values. These Afghans risked everything for us. Abandoning them now is a betrayal. Trump began the withdrawal process. Biden finished it. Now, Trump has a rare second chance to do the right thing. His administration can correct a serious moral and strategic failure by reversing the decision to revoke Temporary Protected Status for Afghan nationals and instead prioritizing their protection. Rather than forcing them to leave, the U.S. should expedite visa processing and safe relocation for Afghan allies. This isn't just about compassion — it's about keeping our word, protecting our interests and preparing for the future. Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute.
Wall Street Journal
30 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Iran's Nuclear Pursuit and the Pakistani Example
If Israel succeeds in destroying Iran's nuclear program, it would do the world a favor. Those who argue that Israel should live with a nuclear Iran should look no further than India's bitter experience with its nuclear-armed neighbor, Pakistan. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran's revolutionary Islamist regime would be even more dangerous. Twice before—Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007—Israel has prevented belligerent Middle Eastern dictatorships from developing nuclear weapons that would threaten the Jewish state's existence and destabilize the region.
