The US and Iran have had bitter relations for decades. After the bombs, a new chapter begins
WASHINGTON (AP) — Now comes a new chapter in U.S.-Iran relations, whether for the better or the even worse.
For nearly a half century, the world has witnessed an enmity for the ages — the threats, the plotting, the poisonous rhetoric between the 'Great Satan' of Iranian lore and the 'Axis of Evil' troublemaker of the Middle East, in America's eyes.
Now we have a U.S. president saying, of all things, 'God bless Iran.'
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 tentative ceasefire brokered by President Donald Trump in the Israel-Iran war.
The U.S. attack on three targets inflicted serious damage but did not destroy them, a U.S. intelligence report found, contradicting Trump's assertion that the attack 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear program.
Here are some questions and answers about the long history of bad blood between the two countries:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 al-Qaida but now cautiously welcomed by Trump.
In Yemen, Houthi rebels who have attacked commercial ships in the Red Sea and pledged 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.
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.
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 Qassem 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.
'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.
___
This story has been updated to correct that the Syrian rebels who came to power after Bashar Assad fled to Moscow had been tied to al-Qaida, not the Islamic State.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
36 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Three Palestinians killed in West Bank clash with Israeli settlers and troops
JERUSALEM — Dozens of armed Israeli settlers attacked two Palestinian villages in the occupied West Bank late Wednesday, setting homes ablaze and sparking a confrontation with Palestinian residents that drew in Israeli security forces, according to local Palestinian authorities and the Israel Defense Forces. Three Palestinians were killed, the Palestinian Health Ministry said, though it was not immediately clear whether it was the Israeli soldiers or settlers who were responsible for the fatal shots.


Boston Globe
36 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Two Mass. military vets in Congress break from Democratic consensus of outrage over Trump's Iran strike
'I think the world is safer after these strikes than before, but it's also more complicated,' Auchincloss Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up In an interview with the Globe, Auchincloss stood by that assessment, and acknowledged he is in a different place from Democrats who believe that a strike should not have happened. He lamented the lack of any congressional input which made the process worse, but said that if Trump had presented the military plan to Congress, backed up with a clear plan for a diplomatic resolution to Iran's nuclear threat, he would've voted for it. Advertisement Moulton, the Salem Democrat, reserved judgment in the wake of the attacks. 'One of the reasons I was reticent to just immediately condemn the strikes is because anything that gets us back to the negotiating table is helpful — that's where we need to be at the end of the day,' he told the Globe. (Trump said on Wednesday that the US and Iranian sides would talk directly next week.) Advertisement Congressman Seth Moulton speaks during a town hall event at Tewksbury High School on June 16, 2025, in Tewksbury. Danielle Parhizkaran/Globe Staff Asked if he would have voted for the strikes had Trump sought congressional approval, Moulton said, 'I would not; I can't say why.' (The ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services subcommittee with jurisdiction over nuclear arms control, Moulton said he met privately with General Michael Kurilla, the head of the US Central Command, before the strike on Iran.) But Moulton said that one of the lessons he learned from serving in Iraq was 'you should not rush to judgment before you have all the facts… sometimes, something that looks bad turns out to be helpful at the end of the day.' That Auchincloss and Moulton have offered distinct interpretations of the Iran strikes is not especially surprising. Both are generally more pro-Israel than their Democratic colleagues — particularly Auchincloss — and more vocal on the urgency of blocking Iran's path to a nuclear weapon. Both have also been willing to use the phrase 'regime change,' which is politically toxic in many corners following Iraq and Afghanistan. Auchincloss said he did it as a way to 'purposefully poke the bear a little bit and force a conversation' about the role America could play helping Iranians toward self-determination without using force. Moulton also spoke about the desire to see the regime in Tehran gone and advanced that idea in a Wednesday interview, but worried that the strikes might have galvanized support for the Islamist government after speaking with an Iranian-American contact in Boston. Advertisement Still, both Democrats are far from uniformly supportive of any of Trump's other moves on the world stage. Both have been critical of the administration's handling of a number of foreign policy issues on substance and on execution. Asked about the potential difficulty of balancing openness to more aggressive action on Iran with deep opposition to the way Trump handles military and foreign affairs, Auchincloss said, 'everything in Washington is harder with this 'very stable genius' that we're dealing with.' Most Democrats, meanwhile, responded with apprehension and alarm over virtually every aspect of the strikes. Senator Elizabeth Warren summed up the feelings of many in a This divergence in Democrats' reactions to the strikes reflects the party's broader challenges to find a united front not just on their stance on this particularly thorny geopolitical issue, but on Trump in general. Matters could get more complicated as the initial shock of the attack wears off. While fears of a wider war including the US have not materialized—with Trump taking credit for brokering a ceasefire between Iran and Israel that has held—it's still unclear how effective the strikes were. A leaked US intelligence assessment found that the strikes did not obliterate Iran's nuclear program, as the Trump administration has repeatedly suggested. Advertisement Some top party leaders, however, have long navigated a similar balancing act of concerns between Israel, Iran, and Trump, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, a longtime Iran hawk and supporter of Israel. (Schumer has refrained from commenting on the strikes themselves, instead focusing on criticizing Trump's rejection of congressional approval.) But in some ways, Democratic opinion on the issue is narrower and more muted compared to the internal division on display when President Obama pushed to enact the Iran nuclear deal in 2015. A number of Democratic lawmakers opposed the deal—a signature initiative of their own president—when it came to a vote in Congress, fearing it would make Israel less safe. There is far more unity on these questions now than a decade ago, said Ned Price, a former State Department spokesman under President Biden and a National Security Council aide under Obama. 'To the extent there is a lack of consensus' right now, said Price, 'it is on tactics rather than strategy.' 'Yes, there are a couple of outliers—we are a big tent, especially on matters of war and peace,' he continued. 'Not everyone is going to be singing from the same sheet music.' Looking ahead, Auchincloss argued it's too early to say whether the strikes are a success 'because as it stands right now, there is an opportunity, but not a victory.' The opportunity, he said, is for the US to push 'coercive diplomacy,' pushing for a new agreement like the 2015 nuclear deal while also getting tougher on Iran's funding of terrorism through proxy organizations. That's where he and Moulton are in lockstep with the entire Democratic caucus. 'The only way to ensure long-term that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon is through a diplomatic deal that allows intrusive inspections,' Moulton said. Advertisement The fact that both Auchincloss and Moulton served in wars in the Middle East doesn't entirely explain their views, but it did impart them with lessons. 'I wanted a clear mission as a Lieutenant. I did not want a garbled chain of command, but that wasn't the problem,' Auchincloss said of his time in Afghanistan in 2012. 'The problem was the mission, and Congress needed to help, and we should help now.' Moulton offered a different point. 'I can't tell you how many times I've been surprised in the Middle East,' he said, 'when something we expect to be good turns out to be bad, and something we expect to be bad turns out to be good.' Sam Brodey can be reached at


Newsweek
37 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Chinese Satellite Image Shows Destruction of Iran Drone Factory
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. New imagery released by a Chinese commercial satellite company has revealed the destruction of an alleged Iranian drone factory during Israel's two-week air campaign against Iran. Newsweek has contacted the Iranian Foreign Ministry and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) for comment. Why It Matters Iran's civilian-military infrastructure was targeted by a wave of Israeli airstrikes that began in the early hours of June 13 local time, with the attacks also targeting nuclear facilities in Tehran and in other cities. Iran's expanding drone program is central to its shift toward asymmetric warfare and regional deterrence. Tehran said it has accelerated the development and deployment of diverse drone facilities and systems. This growing capability has alarmed U.S. lawmakers. Undated satellite imagery released by Chinese firm MizarVision on June 25, 2025, shows the destruction of an alleged Iranian drone factory near Mehrabad airport in western Tehran. The precise date of the strike was not... Undated satellite imagery released by Chinese firm MizarVision on June 25, 2025, shows the destruction of an alleged Iranian drone factory near Mehrabad airport in western Tehran. The precise date of the strike was not clear. More MizarVision What To Know The undated satellite photograph published by China's MizarVision on Wednesday showed a warehouse near Mehrabad Airport in western Tehran that had been completely leveled, although the exact date of the hit was unclear. Open-source analyst Mehdi H., commenting on similar satellite imagery captured by Maxar on Tuesday, said the warehouse struck by the IDF had been used by the Iranian state-owned company Quds Aviation Industries to design and build unmanned aerial vehicles including its Mohajer drones. Newsweek could not independently verify the claim. According to the BBC, images authenticated in the aftermath of Israeli airstrikes showed that Mehrabad Airport had been struck several times, with satellite imagery revealing several damaged buildings around the area, including warehouses linked to Iran's defense industry. During its military offensive, the IDF said it had destroyed F-14 jets in central Iran and targeted military sites. What People Are Saying Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in his first statement since the ceasefire: "Anyone expecting Iran to surrender to another country is making a foolish and absurd claim that will certainly be ridiculed by wise and knowledgeable people. The Iranian nation is dear and will remain dear; it is victorious and will remain victorious, by God's grace." U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said: "The reality is…this was a historically successful attack we should celebrate as Americans, and it gives us a chance to have peace, chance to have a deal, and opportunity to prevent a nuclear Iran, which is something President Trump talked about for 20 years." What Happens Next The current ceasefire between Israel and Iran is holding, for now. Whether Iran is willing to reenter nuclear negotiations with the United States is another question.