The U.S. helped oust an Iranian regime before. Here's what happened in 1953.
'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on June 22.
Live updates: What is Iran's next move? World awaits response to U.S. bombing
Trump's post came after officials in his administration, including U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, took much different tones, saying they were not working to overthrow Iran's government and do not want a regime change. As next steps remain unclear, the specter of American involvement in a plan to depose the Iranian regime raises immediate comparisons to Iran's 1953 coup, when American and British intelligence agencies aided in the forced removal of a democratically elected leader.
While the current crisis is a far cry from the domestic and international events surrounding the 1953 coup, talk of regime change evokes memories of the U.S.-backed operation that had far-reaching effects in Iran and across the region more than 70 years ago. Here's what to know about what happened then.
More: The risks for Trump of 'regime change' in Iran: Just ask George W. Bush
Iran and the U.S.—were they always adversarial?
As the Cold War took hold in the 1950s, Washington relied on Iran's reigning Shah to help stem Soviet influence spreading further in the oil-producing Middle East. The British had relied on nearly unfettered access to the Iranian oil industry via the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, later to become BP.
US Iran strikes: What does regime change mean? Trump comments on Iran leadership
But Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and his monarchist rule were growing unpopular at home among Iranians, and in 1951, Mohammad Mossadegh was elected as prime minister. Shortly after, he nationalized Iranian oil production in a bid to reclaim the country's oil industry and profits from significant foreign control.
What led to the 1953 coup in Iran?
Britain, shut out from Iranian oil, leaned on the U.S. for assistance. The American government at the time worried that Mossadegh's government signaled an end to Western footholds in the region in the face of Cold War-era anxieties and the USSR's push to expand its influence.
In 1953, the CIA and MI6 orchestrated the overthrow of Mossadegh in 'Operation Ajax,' led by senior officer Kermit Roosevelt Jr., grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. It led to the overthrow of Mossadegh, who went on trial and was sentenced to house arrest, and restored and centralized power to Pahlavi. He would become the last Shah of Iran.
The National Security Archive in 2013 officially acknowledged the U.S.'s role in the coup when it released declassified CIA documents on the operation.
Learn more about Iran: 11 facts about the country following US strikes on three of its nuclear sites
'The 1953 coup remains a topic of global interest because so much about it is still under intense debate,' Malcolm Byrne of the National Security Archive wrote alongside the 2013 release. 'Even fundamental questions — who hatched the plot, who ultimately carried it out, who supported it inside Iran, and how did it succeed — are in dispute.'
Journalist Stephen Kinzer said in his 2003 book 'All the Shah's Men' that the 1953 coup was a 'great trauma for Iran, the Middle East, and the colonial world,' marking the first time the U.S. overthrew a foreign government and altering how millions, especially in the region, saw the United States.
How did the US-Iranian relationship play out after the coup?
Iranians overthrew the Shah in 1979, and the Islamic revolutionaries who took over accused the CIA of having trained the Shah's secret police and vowed to battle Western imperialism in the region. They branded America 'the Great Satan,' a nickname that endures to this day.
In November 1979, revolutionary students seized the American embassy and took dozens of diplomats and other staff hostage for more than a year. Known as the Iran hostage crisis, it marked the end of a strategic alliance between the U.S. and the Shah's regime, ushering in a new age of hostility between the two nations. The 1953 coup loomed large in the revolution's rhetoric.
The lasting impact of the 1953 coup
While the U.S. and Iran have butt heads over a range of issues since the 1979 revolution and hostage crisis, including years of strife over Iran's nuclear program, the 1953 coup remains a critical event still invoked in modern Iran.
Iranian historian Ervand Abrahamian writes in his 2013 book about the crisis that the coup had lasting impacts on American foreign policy and U.S.-Iranian relations and cast its 'darkest shadow' over Iran itself.
'The coup left a deep imprint on the country—not only on its polity and economy but also on its popular culture and what some would call mentality,' Abrahamian said in 'The Coup.'
Contributing: Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, USA TODAY; Reuters.
Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@usatoday.com and on X @KathrynPlmr.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
9 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump isn't trying to ‘erase history' at Smithsonian — he's reversing a destructive woke takeover
Liberals were up in arms this week after President Trump said he wanted a review of the Smithsonian Institute — saying their displays were too negative, and too focused on slavery. But Trump isn't trying to 'erase history,' he's looking to reverse a woke movement that has indeed rewritten the American story to highlight suffering rather than providing a balanced picture of our past. Trump's criticism that the Smithsonian is overly focused on slavery is not unreasonable: In nearly every exhibit, critical race theory in general, or slavery specifically, makes an appearance. For instance, its new Benjamin Franklin exhibit on his innovations includes a whole section on slavery — with assumptions, but no proof, that slaves assisted Franklin in his electrical innovations. Even if they hadn't, the curators argue that without their work around the house, Franklin couldn't have spent the time on his experiments! 'Franklin held people enslaved during the time he pursued his electrical experiments. Their labor in his household helped make time that he could use to study electricity. Family, friends, and visitors directly participated in electrical experiments. The records are few and unclear, but enslaved people may also have directly assisted his research.' Another example of the obsession with slavery comes from the National Portrait Gallery; nearly every early Founding Father's description includes a statement on slavery. For example, the description for Thomas Jefferson includes the statement: 'Although Jefferson once called slavery 'an abominable crime,' he consistently enslaved African Americans, including his late wife Martha's half-sister, Sally Hemings, with whom he had several children.' The overemphasis on the history of slavery is a fairly recent development, an offshoot of the Black Lives Matter movement. In 2019, Lonnie G. Bunch III took over as the Secretary of the Smithsonian. Prior to that, Bunch was the founding director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture, which is nearly exclusively focused on the legacy of slavery, with exhibits such as In Slavery's Wake, Slavery and Freedom, and Make Good the Promise, which deal with the history of slavery. Also in 2019, the Smithsonian collaborated with the New York Times on its 1619 Project, which falsely claims that the United States started, not with the Declaration of Independence or Revolutionary War, but when the first slave ship arrived. As curator Mary Elliot remarked at the time: 'This is a shared history, everyone inherited the legacies of slavery.' But America's history is more than just about slavery, and not everyone inherited this legacy — after all, America is also a nation of immigrants who came after the Civil War. In the Smithsonian 2020 annual report, more obsession with slavery comes into view. The Smithsonian is on a mission to have a completely searchable digital museum called 'The Searchable Museum Initiative.' One may think it would begin with digitization of some our greatest moments in history, such as the landing on the moon, the passing of the US Constitution, or even its great Natural History collections. You would be wrong; the digitization began 'with the museum's Slavery and Freedom exhibition.' The annual report claims that 'The Searchable Museum will provide rich, interactive, digital experiences that match the immersive experience of a visit to the physical museum' — unfortunately, likely as biased as a visit to the museum themselves. The problem with modern museums is not just about the obsession with slavery; it's also about dishonestly painting all of American history as evil and full of horrors — with little or no redeeming qualities. For instance, in the Smithsonian's American Indian Museum in NYC, George Washington hardly gets a mention, but his silhouette is used in a description of him as a 'town destroyer' — supposedly a nickname that Native Americans still use to describe our first President. And yet there's no mention in either of the American Indian Museums — in NYC or DC — about slavery practiced by Native Americans, both before Europeans' arrival and afterward. For example, the Cherokee owned slaves. In 1835, 15,000 Cherokee owned 1,592 African slaves; by the Civil War onset, 17,000 Cherokee owned 4,000 African slaves. While museums should provide an honest account of history, they should not be afraid to showcase and celebrate American achievement, which includes ending slavery. At present, however, museums seem more interested in pushing a woke, revisionist history of the United States. With two new Smithsonian museums in development, the National Museum of the American Latino and the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum, we can expect more of the same — unless we take action against woke propaganda now. Elizabeth Weiss is a professor emeritus of anthropology at San José State University and author of 'On the Warpath: My Battles with Indians, Pretendians, and Woke Warriors.'
New York Post
9 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's DC takeover is just Step 1 — dysfunctional capital needs a bigger fix
Last week President Donald Trump declared war on crime in Washington, DC, when he sent in the National Guard and federalized the district's police force for the 30-day period allowable under the DC Home Rule Act. Trump's motives were good: He's right that it's shameful our national capital has become one of our most dangerous cities. He's also right that DC's crime epidemic hurts America's competitiveness and prestige. But the president's month-long law enforcement takeover won't fix that problem — because the problem is not, at its core, bad law enforcement. It's the fact that DC's government has for decades now shown itself incapable of even the most basic level of public administration. Blame it, too, on Congress, which transferred control over the district to the city's own elected government in the Home Rule Act of 1973 — but has refused to admit its mistake and reverse course. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives remain aloof from the problems they created, even as federal staffers, visitors and on occasion their own members are routinely harassed and attacked by criminals on the streets and in their homes. But the US Constitution stipulates that DC is a national public resource, not a self-governing city like any other. Under the Constitution, it is Congress's responsibility to competently administrate it — and Congress has abdicated that responsibility. When the 30-day takeover period is up (assuming Congress does not renew his privileges), Trump will turn the keys back over to a capital city government that can't staff a police force, can't keep young violent offenders off the streets and can't run a functioning crime lab. District officials can't claim to have reduced crime without cooking the books, and can't protect visiting diplomats from being shot And they're not just failing at law enforcement: DC can't keep its public schools out of the basement of national performance rankings, and can't prevent huge homeless encampments from forming while thousands of district-owned public housing units go unoccupied. The only possible solution to such a crisis of mismanagement is to overturn the law that gave home rule to DC and start over from scratch. And if President Trump is serious about tackling the district's dysfunction, he should do just that. First, the president should build up some goodwill by ending his police federalization and troop occupation, preferably earlier than planned. No need to make excuses; he can simply explain that he's come to realize DC's dysfunction runs far deeper than anything a few extra officers on the streets can solve. Then he and Republican leadership should begin meeting with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to generate support for Home Rule repeal. While Trump seems to think the entire district is dead set against him, this is incorrect: Many residents, while no fans of the president, are fed up with not being able to safely walk their dogs at night. Longtime Democratic members of Congress have personally experienced the city's dangers for many years, and they all know the ordeal of their colleague Angie Craig (D-Minn.), who was assaulted in her apartment building's elevator just two years ago. If Trump were to approach this issue firmly but collaboratively, he would find the water warmer than he thinks. Legally, the argument is not a hard sell. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall have 'exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the federal district. Congress has given a 50-year trial to the notion of delegating its power to the people of DC, and that trial has unequivocally failed to produce a district that serves the interests of the federal government, the American people, or the residents themselves. Therefore, we should return to rule by Congress, as the Constitution mandates. Doing so would require a simple act of Congress, passed by both parties, that overturns the 1973 law and dismisses DC's elected representatives. A third section of the new law should establish a congressional committee to appoint exemplary city managers from cities around United States to reconstitute a competent DC government. In many American cities, like Madison, Wis., Phoenix, Ariz., and Wichita, Kan., elected officials appoint professional administrators to oversee day-to-day municipal operations. Washington, DC, should do the same — with Congress taking ultimate responsibility. Some on the left will bemoan the reversal of Home Rule as yet another federal assault on our democracy. But the District of Columbia was never intended by the Founders to be a self-governing state. It was intended to serve the interests of the country as a whole, by providing a safe and orderly place for public administration. Returning DC's governing prerogative to the people of America, not the district itself, will take us one step closer to being the republic the Founders envisioned. John Masko is a journalist specializing in business and international politics.
Fox News
10 minutes ago
- Fox News
Evening Edition: DOJ Investigating If The D.C. Police Manipulated Crime Data
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is investigating claims that the Washington, D.C., police department manipulated crime data to publish more favorable stats claiming the city is far more safe than what is being said about it. This, just over a week after President Trump federalized the Metropolitan Police Department to respond to a series of high-profile killings, violent attacks and car-jackings. Federalizing the MPD also included sending hundreds of National Guard members and various federal law enforcement agents from various states to the nation's capital. Fox's John Saucier speaks to David Spunt, Washington D.C. based correspondent for FOX News Channel, who shares the latest on the investigation and the current law enforcement surge in Washington D.C. Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
