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-Awsat27-06-2025
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

Saudi Arabia slams Israel's move to annex Palestinian land and block ‘two-state' solution
Saudi Arabia slams Israel's move to annex Palestinian land and block ‘two-state' solution

Arab News

time4 minutes ago

  • Arab News

Saudi Arabia slams Israel's move to annex Palestinian land and block ‘two-state' solution

RIYADH: Saudi Arabia on Friday condemned moves by Israeli authorities to push ahead with construction of settlements around the occupied city of Jerusalem. In a statement, the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs also denounced pronouncements by Israeli officials to block internationally backed efforts to create a sovereign Palestinian state as part of a solution to the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "These decisions and statements confirm the continuation of the illegal expansionist policies of this Israeli government, its obstruction of the peace process, and the serious threat to the possibility of a two-state solution," the statement said. Earlier Thursday, Israel's far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced that work would start on a long-delayed settlement that would divide the West Bank and cut if off from East Jerusalem. Smotrich's office later doubled down by saying the move would 'bury' the idea of a Palestinian state. (Developing story)

Climate change fueling the region's water crisis
Climate change fueling the region's water crisis

Arab News

time2 hours ago

  • Arab News

Climate change fueling the region's water crisis

In recent months, parts of the Middle East have been thrust into the center of an unfolding environmental emergency, one that could rival the region's political and security crises in terms of its severity and long-term impact: the deepening water scarcity crisis. Nowhere is this danger more visible than in Iran, where the specter of a 'day zero' scenario is no longer a distant hypothetical but a looming reality for Tehran's more than 9 million residents. Day zero — a term that entered global awareness during Cape Town's 2018 crisis — refers to the moment when municipal water supplies are effectively exhausted and taps run dry. In Tehran, dam reserves are now at historically low levels, with water storage hovering between 9 percent and 14 percent of capacity. This is the lowest level in decades and in some cases the lowest in recorded history. Groundwater depletion has been equally alarming: the water levels in aquifers beneath the capital have sunk by about 12 meters in two decades, triggering dangerous land subsidence that is damaging roads, buildings and critical infrastructure. Water bodies have shriveled to a fraction of their original size, with Lake Urmia's volume collapsing from 2 billion cubic meters to only about 500 million — an ecological tragedy that has destroyed habitats and livelihoods. Authorities have begun closing public offices during heat waves and rationing electricity in an effort to slow the collapse, but these measures barely scratch the surface of a problem decades in the making. The crisis is not limited to Iran. Across the wider region, similar signs of ecological distress are multiplying. Afghanistan's capital, Kabul, is depleting its groundwater at a rate of 44 million cubic meters per year, with half of its wells already dry. Kabul's population has ballooned in recent decades, placing unsustainable demands on aquifers that were never designed to serve such a large urban area. As temperatures climb and populations grow, vulnerability to disruptions in desalination capacity becomes a critical national security concern. The most vulnerable areas share certain characteristics: rapid population growth, overreliance on a single water source, weak or outdated infrastructure and political or economic instability that limits the ability to invest in long-term solutions. In Tehran, for example, the northern, wealthier districts enjoy comparatively good water quality and pressure, while the poorer southern neighborhoods face contamination risks and frequent shortages — an environmental injustice that deepens social divisions. In rural Iran, farmers depend on outdated irrigation techniques that waste enormous quantities of water; in some regions, agricultural water use efficiency is below 40 percent. Kabul's vulnerability stems from its unchecked urban expansion, lack of coordinated groundwater regulation and limited foreign aid for infrastructure repair. The crisis is not limited to Iran. Across the wider region, similar signs of ecological distress are multiplying Dr. Majid Rafizadeh At the heart of this escalating crisis is the intensifying impact of climate change. The Middle East is already one of the hottest and driest regions on Earth, but climate models predict a 20 percent to 30 percent decline in rainfall by mid-century, combined with a sharp increase in average temperatures. For Iran, the effects are already visible: rainfall in recent years has been about 50 percent below long-term averages. Extended droughts are becoming the norm, not the exception, with multiyear dry periods devastating agriculture, drying out rivers and accelerating the depletion of groundwater reserves. Climate change is not acting alone; it is amplifying and exposing decades of poor water management, short-sighted infrastructure planning and the relentless expansion of urban areas without adequate environmental oversight. The legacy of poor water management is particularly damaging in Iran, where decades of aggressive dam construction — often pursued for political prestige rather than environmental need — have altered river systems, disrupted ecosystems and undermined the natural replenishment of aquifers. Across the Middle East, agriculture consumes the lion's share of water resources, yet outdated methods result in enormous waste. In Iran, billions of cubic meters of water are lost each year to inefficient irrigation. Compounding this is the widespread lack of maintenance for water delivery systems, leading to losses of nearly 30 percent through leaks and aging infrastructure in Tehran. Some people argue that governance failures, including political interference, a lack of transparency and corruption in water-related decision-making, have prevented meaningful reforms. Population growth and urbanization have placed additional strain on these fragile systems. Iran's population has surged from about 28 million in 1969 to more than 90 million in 2025. This dramatic growth, combined with rural-to-urban migration, has driven explosive demand for water in cities. In Kabul, uncontrolled urban expansion has paved over natural recharge zones for groundwater, further accelerating depletion. Without urgent intervention, the consequences will be severe. Water scarcity threatens to disrupt economies by reducing agricultural productivity, raising food prices and increasing reliance on costly imports. It could fuel social unrest, particularly in countries where inequality already shapes access to essential resources. In fragile states such as Afghanistan, the collapse of water systems could trigger mass displacement, as people migrate in search of drinkable water. And in geopolitically tense regions, competition over shared water resources could inflame existing conflicts. Yet the problems, while daunting, are not insurmountable. Several policy measures could mitigate the worst impacts and lay the foundation for long-term water resilience. Reforming water pricing is one such step: by removing subsidies that encourage overuse and introducing tiered pricing structures, governments can incentivize conservation among both households and industries. In agriculture, switching to high-efficiency irrigation systems such as drip or sprinkler technology, reducing the cultivation of water-intensive crops and restoring natural wetlands to support groundwater recharge can yield substantial savings. Addressing leakage through large-scale infrastructure rehabilitation is equally important, as modernized pipes and reservoirs can sharply reduce losses. The crisis is not limited to Iran. Across the wider region, similar signs of ecological distress are multiplying Dr. Majid Rafizadeh Technological innovation offers another path forward. Solar-powered desalination plants, such as Jordan's ambitious Aqaba-Amman project, demonstrate how renewable energy can reduce the environmental costs of producing fresh water from seawater. Wastewater recycling and treatment can expand nontraditional water sources, reducing dependence on dwindling freshwater reserves. Groundwater recharge projects — using stormwater or treated wastewater — can help restore aquifers, while carefully planned cloud seeding programs may modestly boost rainfall in some areas. These approaches must be integrated into broader, more sustainable water strategies rather than deployed as short-term fixes. Regional cooperation will be critical, especially where countries share transboundary rivers, lakes or aquifers. Agreements to manage shared resources equitably can reduce the risk of conflict and ensure that all parties have a stake in sustainable use. Institutional reform is essential, particularly in Iran, where independent oversight bodies, transparent data sharing and collaboration between scientists and policymakers could significantly improve water governance. Financing these measures will require a mix of domestic investment, public-private partnerships and international assistance. The Middle East and North Africa region will need an estimated $100 billion in water infrastructure investment by 2030. Education campaigns — targeting both the public and political leadership — can help shift attitudes toward water conservation and encourage long-term stewardship. Water security must be embedded in school curricula, media programming and civic initiatives to build a culture of responsibility around one of the planet's most precious resources. In conclusion, parts of the Middle East stand at a crossroads. If current trends continue unchecked, these areas could face a wave of humanitarian, economic and political crises driven by something as fundamental as an inability to provide clean water. But with decisive action — anchored in sound policy, innovative technology and regional cooperation — it is still possible to avert the worst outcomes. Tehran's looming day zero, Kabul's collapsing wells and the shrinking of Lake Urmia are all warnings. Whether they become a prelude to regional collapse or a catalyst for transformative change depends on the choices made today. Water scarcity is no longer a distant problem — it is the Middle East's defining environmental challenge of our time and time is already running out. • Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian American political scientist. X: @Dr_Rafizadeh

Why disarming Hezbollah cannot wait
Why disarming Hezbollah cannot wait

Arab News

time2 hours ago

  • Arab News

Why disarming Hezbollah cannot wait

Lebanon stands at a decisive crossroads. The choice is stark and unavoidable: reclaim the monopoly on legitimate force or watch the slow, irreversible erosion of the state. At the heart of this crisis lies Hezbollah's arsenal — a parallel military power that operates beyond government authority, answers to an external command structure and wields enough influence to veto national decisions at will. For decades, Hezbollah's weapons have been justified under the banner of 'resistance,' originally framed as a necessary shield against Israeli aggression. That narrative, however, has long since expired. What began as a defensive posture has morphed into a political and military apparatus that holds the Lebanese state hostage, subverts democratic institutions and serves as an arm of a foreign power's regional strategy. Today, Hezbollah's weapons no longer protect Lebanon — they protect Hezbollah's ability to dictate Lebanon's future. The foundation of any sovereign state is its monopoly over the use of force. In Lebanon, this principle is broken. Hezbollah maintains a standing arsenal, a command structure independent of the national army and the capacity to make war or peace without consulting the state. This dual security system corrodes the very idea of sovereignty. One side is accountable to the Lebanese people through democratic governance. The other side is accountable to foreigners, drawing its legitimacy from an ideology and an external agenda that do not always align with Lebanon's national interests. As long as Hezbollah retains its weapons, Lebanon's national sovereignty is conditional at best — a slogan for political speeches rather than a lived reality. Foreign policy decisions will remain hostage to the calculations of an armed faction whose priorities extend far beyond Lebanon's borders. Hezbollah's weapons no longer protect Lebanon — they protect Hezbollah's ability to dictate Lebanon's future Hani Hazaimeh The consequences of this military imbalance are not theoretical. Every regional escalation risks pulling Lebanon into confrontation, whether through military exchanges with Israel or covert operations on Lebanese soil. This constant risk makes the country a bargaining chip in geopolitical rivalries it cannot control and should not have to endure. The region itself is moving toward a different paradigm. Arab capitals are engaging in diplomacy and prioritizing economic recovery over ideological confrontation. Yet Lebanon remains locked in a militant posture that isolates it from these opportunities. Instead of benefiting from economic partnerships, foreign investment and integration into a stabilizing regional order, Lebanon remains vulnerable — economically isolated, diplomatically constrained and politically paralyzed. Hezbollah's weapons are not only an internal security problem; they are a structural barrier to Lebanon's reintegration into a changing Middle East. Supporters of Hezbollah's armed status often argue that these weapons serve as a deterrent against Israeli aggression. In practice, they have not prevented conflict; they have invited it. Each round of escalation devastates Lebanese infrastructure, displaces civilians and deepens the economic crisis. The destruction of southern Lebanon in past confrontations and the lingering risk of renewed war are proof that this deterrent is, at best, a temporary shield with a devastating price tag. Moreover, the military balance has shifted in ways that diminish Hezbollah's strategic value. Israel's technological and intelligence capabilities have evolved, making Hezbollah's arsenal less of a deterrent and more of a liability. What remains is a political reality: the weapons are less about protecting Lebanon from external threats and more about preserving Hezbollah's leverage in the internal balance of power. Beyond the battlefield, the presence of an armed faction outside state control distorts Lebanon's democratic process. No government can operate freely when one political actor can back its demands with the implicit — or explicit — threat of force. Cabinet decisions, parliamentary debates and policy initiatives all exist under the shadow of Hezbollah's military muscle. This imbalance makes genuine reform nearly impossible. Political leaders, even those opposed to Hezbollah's influence, must calculate their positions based not only on the public interest but also on the risk of provoking an armed response. The result is a system in which accountability is selective, governance is paralyzed and corruption thrives in the absence of real checks and balances. Lebanon's prolonged economic collapse — marked by currency devaluation, banking failures and mass emigration — has been compounded by political paralysis. International donors have made clear that aid and investment depend on political stability, transparency and a functioning state. None of these are possible while an armed group operates outside the chain of command of the Lebanese Armed Forces. Beyond the battlefield, the presence of an armed faction outside state control distorts Lebanon's democratic process Hani Hazaimeh The longer the disarmament issue is postponed, the deeper Lebanon sinks into dependency and division. As economic desperation grows, the state's capacity to assert itself will shrink, making eventual disarmament even harder. The country risks reaching a point where the armed status quo becomes so entrenched that it can only be dismantled through crisis, not consensus. Disarming Hezbollah will not be easy. It will require a coordinated national strategy that combines political consensus, regional diplomacy and international support. The Lebanese state must reassert itself as the sole legitimate authority over arms within its borders. This is not merely a security measure — it is a prerequisite for national revival. The process will demand courage from Lebanon's political class, unity among its fractured institutions and a clear message to both domestic and foreign actors: the era of divided sovereignty must end. Regional partners must also recognize that a stable, unified Lebanon serves the interest of the entire Middle East. Without their support — political, financial and diplomatic — the Lebanese state will struggle to break free from the cycle of dependency and coercion. In the end, the debate over Hezbollah's weapons is not just about disarmament; it is about whether Lebanon chooses to be a real state or a geopolitical pawn. A sovereign Lebanon can decide its own foreign policy, rebuild its economy and restore public trust in governance. A Lebanon where an armed faction holds veto power over national decisions will remain trapped in instability, vulnerable to external manipulation and cut off from the opportunities of a changing region. The choice is urgent. Delay will only make the cost higher and the consequences more severe. Disarmament is not a favor to foreign powers, nor is it an act of hostility toward a single community. It is an act of self-preservation — the only path toward reclaiming Lebanon's sovereignty, securing its future and honoring the right of its people to live in a state where power is wielded by elected leaders, not by the force of arms. • Hani Hazaimeh is a senior editor based in Amman. X: @hanihazaimeh

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