Kim Them Do
A satellite image provided by Maxar Technologies shows a close-up of a nuclear facility near the Iranian city of Isfahan devastated after a U.S. plane attack (picture alliance / ASSOCIATED PRESS / Uncredited)
The history of U.S.-Iranian relations dates back to the 1950s and has experienced many ups and downs. However, the U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, marked the peak of the ongoing conflict. A solution to the conflict is currently not in sight.
Anti-American sentiment in Iran has deep roots and dates back to the first half of the 1950s. The relationship between the two countries was shaped by the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. The latter had nationalized the Iranian oil industry after the profits had flowed almost exclusively to Great Britain. The President Dwight D. Eisenhower feared that Iran would slide into the „socialist camp“ and supported a coup against Mossadegh. The CIA was also significantly involved, among other things by bribing Iranian parliamentarians.
After the coup on August 19, 1953, Mossadegh was placed under house arrest and a military regime was established, which the Shah subsequently used to expand his rule
Until the end of the 1960s, the United States provided substantial economic and military aid to Iran. Most notably, under the 1957 “Atoms for Peace” program, the U.S. gifted Iran two research reactors to help lay the foundation for its nuclear development. At the time, the program was intended for peaceful purposes, though it later raised concerns regarding potential weapons development.
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the King of Iran, maintained close ties with the United States and Britain and also expressed interest in economic and security relations with Israel. In 1960, Iran co-founded OPEC and was considered a strategic ally of the United States.
In 1970, under the Shah’s leadership, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The treaty prohibits nuclear-armed countries – France, China, Britain, the United States, and Russia – from transferring nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states. It also bars non-nuclear signatory states from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. One of the treaty’s key goals is to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Iran expanded its nuclear infrastructure during this period; the Bushehr nuclear power plant, operational since the 1970s, is a notable example.
Iran’s overall political orientation until 1979 was pro-Western; but the West held back from criticising human rights violations in Iran.
The occupation of the US embassy in Teheran
As public protests against the Shah intensified, he, terminally ill, fled Iran. The revolutionary movement eventually brought Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini back from exile in Paris to establish the Islamic Republic of Iran – a theocratic regime. Iran’s political orientation shifted dramatically, with the new regime promoting religious governance and a revolutionary model that Israel viewed as a threat and vehemently opposed.
With the fall of the Shah in 1979, Iran’s positive relations with the United States and its allies came to an end. On November 4, 1979, in response to the Shah’s admission into the U.S. for medical treatment, Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, taking American diplomats hostage. Their demands further escalated tensions . From Iran’s point of view, the embassy was not a diplomatic institution, but a haven of espionage and involved in unrest in the country.
Since negotiations were unsuccessful, U.S. President Jimmy Carter ordered a military liberation operation on April 24, 1980, which was a complete failure: eight soldiers died in a collision between two U.S. Army helicopters. The crisis lasted 444 days. In response, Washington severed diplomatic ties and imposed sanctions. The hostages were eventually released in 1981 under the Algiers Accords during President Reagan’s term. In the aftermath, Iran’s nuclear development efforts were largely stalled.
Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, Iran cooperated with the U.S. in the fight against the Taliban and participated in Afghanistan’s reconstruction. However, relations soured in 2002 when President George W. Bush labeled Iran part of the “Axis of Evil,” prompting Iran to halt its cooperation.
Iran´s nuclear program from 2002 onwards
In August 2002, Western intelligence and an Iranian opposition group revealed that Iran had been secretly operating a nuclear enrichment facility in Natanz. This discovery raised serious international concerns that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons – an alleged violation of the NPT. Iran, however, has consistently denied these accusations.
Israel then demanded that the international community take a tougher stance against Tehran. Ironically, while Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, it has never officially confirmed this and remains outside the NPT. Similarly, India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed states that have not signed the treaty but openly acknowledge their arsenals.
In June 2003, the discovery of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program prompted diplomatic action. The United Kingdom, France, and Germany – collectively known as the EU3 – launched a diplomatic initiative and began nuclear negotiations with Iran. As a result, four months later, Tehran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment activities.
However, this policy shifted dramatically following the election of hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in August 2005. In February 2006, Iran announced it would resume uranium enrichment and declared the Israeli government “illegitimate.” As a result, nuclear talks with the EU3 collapsed, leading European powers to suspend negotiations.
In the years that followed, tensions between Iran and Israel escalated. In 2010, Israel reportedly launched a covert cyberattack against Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility. Rather than using bombs or missiles, this operation deployed the „Stuxnet“ computer virus, which disabled many centrifuges and disrupted uranium enrichment. It was the first known cyberattack on an industrial facility. Public speculation pointed to joint U.S.-Israeli involvement in developing the malware.
The conflict deepened when Iranian nuclear scientists began to be targeted. In 2012, Iranian scientist Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan was assassinated in Tehran when a motorcyclist attached an explosive device to his car. Iran blamed Israel for the attack, which it saw as part of a broader campaign to sabotage its nuclear program.
On the nuclear agreement with Obama
Diplomatic momentum resumed during the Obama administration. After prolonged negotiations, Iran agreed to limit its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. On July 14, 2015, in Vienna, Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with the P5+1 group – comprising the United States, United Kingdom, Franc, Germany, Russia, China, and the European Union. Under the deal, Iran’s nuclear activities came under strict international oversight. Tehran pledged to reduce its 19,000 uranium centrifuges by more than two-thirds, not to enrich uranium above 3.67 percent for at least 15 years, and to dismantle the heavy-water reactor in Arak. And in return, the UN, EU, and the U.S. lifted various economic sanctions.
However, in 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cast doubt on Iran’s compliance. He revealed tens of thousands of documents allegedly proving that Iran had concealed aspects of its nuclear program prior to signing the 2015 agreement.
The U. S Withdrawal
That same year, U.S. President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA and reinstated a policy of “maximum pressure” through harsh economic sanctions. Netanyahu praised the move and called it „historic.“ This decision was motivated mainly by the domestic politics, as Trump wanted to align himself with hardline Republicans who never wanted a deal with Iran and also wanted to reverse Obama’s policies.
Iran initially reacted with verbal protest, hoping that the European contracting parties would save the agreement. When this did not happen, Tehran gradually began to violate the terms of the treaty by increasing the level of its uranium enrichment and increasing the stock of enriched uranium again. In January 2020, the Islamic Republic finally withdrew completely from the nuclear deal.
Following the collapse of diplomatic efforts, attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intensified. In 2020, an explosion destroyed a centrifuge assembly facility in Natanz. In April 2021, a cyberattack knocked out power at another part of the same complex. Iran blamed Israel for both incidents, though Israel did not officially claim responsibility. Iran also continued to suspect Israeli involvement in the targeted killings of its nuclear scientists.
In April 2021, Iran announced it had begun enriching uranium to 60% purity—the highest level it had ever achieved. For nuclear weapons, uranium must be enriched to around 85 –90%, bringing Iran closer to potential weapons capability than ever before.
In March 2022, as part of a regional diplomatic effort to counter Iran, the United States, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates established a Joint Forum aimed at containing Tehran’s growing influence and ambitions. However, the outbreak of war in Ukraine diverted global attention and stalled progress on nuclear negotiations. Despite this, the U.S. continued to issue warnings about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and pledged to mobilize “all resources” to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Escalation and bombing
By 2024, diplomatic tensions between Iran and Israel had reached new heights, culminating in unprecedented military confrontations. After two Iranian generals were killed in an Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, Iran retaliated with a massive barrage of over 300 missiles and drones directed at Israel on April 14, 2024.
Just five days later, a suspected Israeli strike targeted an air defense system near Isfahan airport in central Iran. On July 31, 2024, another alleged Israeli operation took place in Tehran, resulting in the death of Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas, who was visiting the Iranian capital.
The escalation continued. On October 1, 2024, Iran launched a second direct missile attack on Israel, though the majority of the projectiles were intercepted by Israel’s defense systems. On October 26, Israel responded with its first public strikes targeting Tehran’s missile infrastructure and air defense systems.
Initially, these attacks were seen as retaliatory strikes by Israel in response to Iran’s aggression. However, it was later revealed that Israel had been preparing for a much broader campaign targeting Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure, culminating in a major coordinated assault launched on June 13, 2025.
Since then, the conflict has intensified, with both countries launching increasingly aggressive operations. Israel formally declared war, citing the objective of preventing the Islamic Republic from acquiring nuclear weapons.
In April 2025, shortly before Israel’s large-scale attack, the United States and Iran held direct talks regarding the future of Iran’s nuclear program. A new round of negotiations had been tentatively planned, in which the U.S. would consider lifting some sanctions in exchange for Iran reaffirming that its nuclear program remained civilian and peaceful in nature. However, the Israeli attacks brought the diplomatic process to a halt.
On the night of June 22, 2025, the United States intervened militarily in the conflict between Israel and Iran. U.S. fighter jets bombed three key Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. President Donald Trump described the operation as a “hasty victory,” comparing its significance to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. According to his statement, the targeted facilities were “completely destroyed.”
Iran, however, strongly disputed these claims. In response, it launched retaliatory strikes on U.S. military bases in the region and officially suspended its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The U.S. State Department condemned Iran’s actions as “unacceptable,” noting that this made it impossible for independent experts to verify the status of Iran’s enriched uranium reserves.
Amid growing confusion, President Trump accused U.S. media outlets of spreading false information and urged journalists to reveal their sources. Meanwhile, early assessments by U.S. intelligence agencies contradicted Trump’s public statements. Analysts suggested that the airstrikes may have delayed Iran’s nuclear program by only a few months and were not as destructive as claimed.
The IAEA also expressed concern that Iran could resume uranium enrichment within a matter of months. Independent reports further indicated that Iran’s underground nuclear facilities sustained only partial damage. However, media coverage remained cautious, emphasizing that more thorough inspections would be required to determine the full extent of the destruction and the potential timeline for Iran’s nuclear recovery.
Outlook
Public opinion continues to grow increasingly confused amid conflicting reports from the battlefield and diplomatic fronts. The prospect of peace remains elusive, as military operations and negotiations proceed on separate, often contradictory, tracks. The future of the U.S. – Iran conflict is marked by uncertainty and volatility.
The most pessimistic scenario predicts a severe escalation that would have far-reaching consequences for regional and global security. One of the gravest concerns is the possibility that Iran may attempt to blockade the Strait of Hormuz – a critical maritime chokepoint through which approximately one-third of the world’s oil supply passes. Such a move could trigger a dramatic spike in global oil prices, potentially plunging the world economy into a deep recession.
In this scenario, only the U.S. Navy would possess the capacity to reopen the strait, leading to the outbreak of a large-scale naval conflict. A prolonged and intense maritime confrontation could follow, with U.S. warships and aircraft engaging Iranian vessels and coastal defense systems. The human, economic, and geopolitical costs of such a conflict would be immense, pushing the region and the world closer to the brink of a broader war.
