logo
The US and Iran Have Had Bitter Relations for Decades. After the Bombs, a New Chapter Begins

The US and Iran Have Had Bitter Relations for Decades. After the Bombs, a New Chapter Begins

Asharq Al-Awsat7 hours ago

Now comes a new chapter in US-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, The Associated Press reported.
Now we have a US president saying, of all things, 'God bless Iran.'
This change of tone, however fleeting, came after the intense US bombing of Iranian nuclear-development sites this week, Iran's retaliatory yet restrained attack on a US military base in Qatar and the tentative ceasefire brokered by President Donald Trump in the Israel-Iran war.
The US attack on three targets inflicted serious damage but did not destroy them, a US 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 US 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 US-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 US 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 US attack the first against Iran? No. But the last big one was at sea.
On April 18, 1988, the US 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 US take sides in the Iran-Iraq war? Not officially, but essentially.
The US 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 US-Iraq relations fractured spectacularly in the years after.
What was the Iran-Contra affair? An example of US-Iran cooperation of sorts — an illegal, and secret, one until it wasn't.
Not long after the US 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 US 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 US 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 opposition factions once tied to al-Qaida but now cautiously welcomed by Trump.
In Yemen, Houthi militants who have attacked commercial ships in the Red Sea and pledged common cause with Palestinians have been bombed by the US 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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Latest: Key Medicaid provision in Trump's bill found to violate Senate rules
The Latest: Key Medicaid provision in Trump's bill found to violate Senate rules

Al Arabiya

timean hour ago

  • Al Arabiya

The Latest: Key Medicaid provision in Trump's bill found to violate Senate rules

The Senate parliamentarian has advised that a Medicaid provider tax overhaul central to President Donald Trump's tax cut and spending bill doesn't adhere to the chamber's procedural rules, delivering a crucial blow as Republicans rush to finish the package this week. Republicans were counting on big cuts to Medicaid and other programs to offset trillions of dollars in Trump tax breaks – their top priority. The attention falling on Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough's ruling reflects a broader change in Congress: Lawmakers are increasingly trying to wedge top policy priorities into bills that can't be filibustered. That process comes with special rules designed to deter provisions unrelated to spending or taxes, and that's where the parliamentarian comes in, offering analysis of what does and doesn't qualify. Trump wants the legislation, which includes tax reductions, Medicaid cuts, and border enforcement, passed by July 4. Here's the latest: Trump's schedule, according to the White House: 11 a.m. – Trump receives an intelligence briefing in the Oval Office. 3 p.m. – Trump will meet with foreign ministers from Congo and Rwanda in the Oval Office.

A pause or a prelude? The fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel
A pause or a prelude? The fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel

Al Arabiya

timean hour ago

  • Al Arabiya

A pause or a prelude? The fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel

On June 25, 2025, a ceasefire between Israel and Iran came into effect, bringing a sudden and dramatic halt to twelve days of direct and unprecedented military confrontation. The truce surprised many observers around the world. For weeks, tensions had escalated rapidly after Israel launched airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, followed by a wave of Iranian missile and drone retaliation. The ferocity of the exchange, coupled with long-standing hostilities between the two states, led many analysts and politicians to assume that Israel would pursue the campaign until Iran's nuclear infrastructure was completely dismantled or until the Islamic Republic's central authority was irreparably shaken. Many expected Israel to press its military advantage and continue striking; There were even speculations that the broader goal might be to destabilize or collapse the Iranian government altogether. Yet the ceasefire, as unexpected as it may have seemed to some, was ultimately the product of deeper historical patterns, strategic calculations, and logistical realities. First, a look at the history of Israel's military conflicts reveals that temporary ceasefires are a consistent feature of its wartime strategy. During past wars with Hezbollah in Lebanon or in operations against Hamas in Gaza, ceasefires were accepted at key junctures. These pauses have rarely signaled the end of conflict. Instead, they have served multiple purposes – providing breathing room for the population, allowing the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to assess battlefield performance, and giving political leaders time to navigate shifting diplomatic and military conditions. In that context, the current ceasefire with Iran should not come as a shock. Though the stakes and geography are dramatically broader in this case, the strategic logic remains consistent. Ceasefires could be tactical pauses. For Israel, this ceasefire most likely offers significant, albeit temporary, advantages. First and foremost, it allows the government and military command to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of their twelve-day aerial campaign. With advanced surveillance, satellite imaging, and digital tracking systems, Israel can now measure the success of its strikes, identify which Iranian assets remain intact, and prepare for any future engagements. These kinds of reassessments are critical in an era of high-tech, multi-front warfare. Second, the truce enables Israeli civilians to return to a semblance of normalcy. Throughout the conflict, cities like Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Beersheba were subjected to repeated Iranian missile and drone attacks. For many residents, life had ground to a halt. The ceasefire now allows citizens to reemerge, regroup, and recover from the psychological strain of continuous alerts and air raid sirens. The return to normal life – no matter how temporary – is a crucial relief for the country. Third, the ceasefire grants Israel a valuable diplomatic opportunity. By agreeing to halt its military operations – even after successfully striking key targets – Israel projects to the international community that it is not pursuing escalation for its own sake. This move can help mend some of the frayed ties with Europe and parts of the Global South, where criticism of Israeli military policy has grown. At the same time, it reinforces Israel's image as a responsible actor, capable of restraint even in the face of provocation. Fourth, the IDF now has time to replenish its resources, repair any damage to bases or weapons systems, and evaluate operational weaknesses. Despite Israel's superiority in the air, the Iranian counterattacks – especially the use of longer-range drones – provided Israel with a sobering glimpse into Iran's evolving tactics. This ceasefire gives the Israeli military the space to adapt, train, and integrate new technologies into their defense apparatus. Fifth, and no less important, the ceasefire allows Israel to redirect its focus to other strategic concerns. With the Iranian front on pause, Israel can recalibrate its posture and attend to other critical theaters. From Iran's perspective, the need for a ceasefire was even more urgent. For nearly two weeks, Israeli air dominance over Iran was overwhelming. Precision strikes targeted military installations, air defense systems, radar units, and multiple nuclear-related sites in Natanz, Fordow, and Arak. In addition, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) suffered major losses, including several high-ranking commanders. The Iranian public – already under severe economic pressure from international sanctions – faced further hardship as oil refineries and power grids were damaged. More than 100,000 residents fled Tehran in a matter of days, fearful that the next wave of Israeli strikes would devastate the capital. Internally, the government faced growing frustration: How could a country with one of the region's largest militaries be so vulnerable? Why had the government not anticipated the scale of Israeli retaliation? The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reportedly faced intense pressure from within the elite circles of the IRGC and clerical establishment. In such a climate, agreeing to a ceasefire was less about diplomacy and more about necessity. Iran needed to stop the bleeding – militarily, politically, and psychologically. The pause offers Tehran a chance to evaluate the damage, regroup its forces, and attempt to fortify what remains of its nuclear infrastructure. It also gives the leadership time to address domestic unrest, recalibrate messaging, and possibly shift blame onto external enemies to consolidate control. Yet the key question remains: will the ceasefire hold? If past history is any indicator, the prospects are not encouraging. Ceasefires in this region are rarely long-lasting. They are fragile by design – stopgaps between rounds of fighting, not solutions to the underlying tensions. In this case, the balance of power has shifted dramatically, and that creates an incentive for renewed confrontation. For Israel, walking away from a conflict while the Iranian government is at its weakest point in decades might be seen as a strategic blunder. This is a rare window – one where Iran's command structure has been shaken, its nuclear plans disrupted, and its population demoralized. Some in the Israeli cabinet may argue that allowing Iran to recover from this moment would be tantamount to leaving a wounded enemy alive on the battlefield. Moreover, from a strategic standpoint, Israel now faces the risk that Iran – having experienced such a devastating attack – will accelerate its push for nuclear weapons. Even if Iran had not made the political decision to pursue a bomb before, this war may have changed that calculus. The logic of deterrence could now dominate Iran's thinking: Only by acquiring a nuclear weapon, Iranian strategists may argue, can the country prevent another catastrophic strike. Iran has already announced the suspension of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a worrying signal that transparency is no longer a priority. In this environment, trust is virtually nonexistent. Finally, the ceasefire's fragility is also reinforced by the broader geopolitical context. Proxy forces aligned with Iran – particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various militias in Iraq – remain active. They can resume attacks on Israel or US allies at any time, either with or without Tehran's direct orders. Any incident along these fronts could easily unravel the ceasefire. Similarly, internal politics in both countries can lead to escalation. An assassination, a rogue militia strike, or even a political crisis could reignite hostilities overnight. In conclusion, while both Israel and Iran found compelling reasons to agree to this ceasefire – strategic breathing room, humanitarian concerns, and domestic stability – the truce rests on shaky foundations. It is, in many ways, a pause born of exhaustion rather than reconciliation. As history has repeatedly shown, these kinds of ceasefires in the Middle East are inherently unstable. Unless profound diplomatic engagement follows – and there is little sign of that at present – the risk of renewed war remains not only possible, but probable.

Lebanon says 1 dead, 20 wounded in Israeli strikes in south
Lebanon says 1 dead, 20 wounded in Israeli strikes in south

Arab News

timean hour ago

  • Arab News

Lebanon says 1 dead, 20 wounded in Israeli strikes in south

BEIRUT: Lebanon's health ministry said a woman was killed and 20 other people were wounded in Israeli strikes Friday in the country's south, as Israel's military said some raids targeted Hezbollah sites. Israel has kept up regular strikes on Lebanon, particularly in the south, since a November 27 ceasefire meant to end over a year of hostilities, including two months of all-out war that left Hezbollah severely weakened. 'The Israel enemy strike on an apartment in Nabatiyeh led to a preliminary toll of one woman killed' and 13 other people wounded, the ministry said in an updated statement carried by the official National News Agency. The NNA said an Israeli drone targeted the apartment. The agency earlier reported 'a wave of successive heavy strikes' in several other areas in the Nabatiyeh region that the health ministry said wounded seven people. An Israeli army statement said fighter jets struck a site that Hezbollah used 'to manage its fire and defense array in the area of the Beaufort Ridge,' near Nabatiyeh and the Israel border. It said the site was 'part of a significant underground project that was completely taken out of use' by the raids. The military said it 'identified rehabilitation attempts made by Hezbollah beforehand and struck terror infrastructure sites in the area,' calling the actions 'a blatant violation of the understandings between Israel and Lebanon.' Lebanese President Joseph Aoun in a statement condemned the strikes and said Israel continued 'to disregard regional and international resolutions and calls to stop the violence and escalation in the region,' urging 'effective action from the international community.' Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam in a statement called the strikes 'a blatant violation of national sovereignty and the cessation of hostilities arrangements' and a threat to stability. Under the ceasefire deal, Hezbollah was to pull its fighters back north of the Litani river, some 30 kilometers (20 miles) from the Israeli border, leaving the Lebanese army and United Nations peacekeepers as the only armed parties in the area. Israel was required to fully withdraw its troops from the country but has kept them in five locations in south Lebanon that it deems strategic. In a letter to the United Nations requesting a one-year renewal of the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon which expires in August, the foreign ministry demanded 'Israel's withdrawal from all Lebanese territory it occupies and a stop to its ongoing violations.' On Thursday, Israeli strikes on south Lebanon killed two people, with the Israeli military saying it targeted Hezbollah operatives.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store