The provided text examines the long and complex history of conflict between the US and Iran, tracing its roots back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the ousting of a US-backed Shah. It highlights key points of contention, including Iran’s revolutionary ideology, its relationships with regional proxies, and its nuclear ambitions, while also noting instances where US actions inadvertently benefited Iran. The author suggests that despite mutual grievances, Iran should prioritize its people’s well-being and pursue internal and external policies focused on peace and progress rather than extremism and hostility. Ultimately, the source offers a historical overview and a call for a shift in Iranian policy towards pragmatism and cooperation.

US-Iran Relations: A Study Guide

Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each.

1. According to the text, what event in 1979 significantly altered US-Iran relations?
2. What was the US position towards the Shah of Iran during the Iranian Revolution, according to the provided text?
3. What action taken by Iranian revolutionaries after the revolution further strained relations with the US?
4. Besides the US, what other significant internal and external challenges did Ayatullah Khomeini’s revolution face?
5. Name two US allies in the Middle East that the Iranian leadership viewed as problematic.
6. What viewpoint did former Iranian President Ahmadinejad express regarding Israel?
7. Despite the long history of conflict, what is one instance where the text suggests the US actions inadvertently benefited Iran?
8. According to the text, how did the US involvement in Iraq after Saddam Hussein’s removal potentially benefit Iran?
9. What was the relationship between the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iran, according to the provided text?
10. What advice does the text offer to the current Iranian leadership regarding their internal and external policies?

Quiz Answer Key

1. The Iranian Revolution of 1979, which overthrew the Shah of Iran (a strong US ally), significantly altered US-Iran relations. This event marked a turning point and is identified as the root of the ongoing conflict and distrust between the two nations.
2. While the US had been a strong supporter of the Shah, the text indicates that during the revolution, the Carter administration was internally pressuring the Shah to respect the human rights of protestors, including their rights to speech and protest, despite maintaining overall support.
3. The holding of American diplomats hostage for a prolonged period after the revolution significantly deteriorated US-Iran relations. This act fueled animosity and became a major point of contention between the two countries.
4. Besides the US, Ayatullah Khomeini’s revolution faced the internal challenge of eliminating Shah loyalists and the external challenge of a decade-long war with neighboring Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
5. The text mentions Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia as strong American allies in the Middle East that were viewed as problematic by the Iranian leadership, leading them to support proxy organizations.
6. Former Iranian President Ahmadinejad stated that Israel’s existence in the Middle East was a nuisance and would eventually be erased from the page of existence.
7. The text suggests that the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, a long-time enemy of Ayatullah Khomeini, inadvertently benefited Iran by leading to a Shia-majority democratic government in Iraq.
8. Following the removal of Saddam Hussein by the US, a Shia-majority government was established in Iraq, which was seen as a benefit for the Shia-led revolution in Iran, effectively removing a significant adversary.
9. The Taliban government in Afghanistan was portrayed as a significant threat to Iran, similar to Saddam Hussein, with instances of attacks and theoretical hatred existing between them. The US intervention in Afghanistan ultimately removed the initial Taliban regime.
10. The text advises the Iranian leadership to move away from extremism, prioritize the well-being of its people, focus on internal democracy and freedoms, and pursue world peace and tolerance instead of hostility and nuclear enrichment.

Essay Format Questions

1. Analyze the key turning points and events that have contributed to the sustained conflict between the US and Iran since the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
2. Discuss the role of ideology, both religious and political, in shaping the antagonistic relationship between the United States and Iran, as presented in the provided text.
3. Evaluate the argument presented in the text that suggests US actions have paradoxically benefited Iran in certain instances despite the overall conflict.
4. Critically examine the advice offered in the text to the Iranian leadership regarding their future domestic and foreign policies in the context of the historical relationship with the US.
5. Compare and contrast the perspectives on the US role in the region from the Iranian revolutionary leadership and the analysis presented in the provided excerpts.

Glossary of Key Terms

• Iranian Revolution of 1979: A series of events that led to the overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty under the Shah of Iran and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran led by Ayatullah Khomeini.
• Raza Shah Pahlavi: The Shah of Iran who was overthrown in the 1979 revolution. He was a key ally of the United States.
• Ayatullah Khomeini: The religious and revolutionary leader who founded the Islamic Republic of Iran after the 1979 revolution.
• Hezbollah: A Shia Islamist political party and militant group based in Lebanon, considered an Iranian proxy.
• Hamas: A Palestinian Sunni-Islamist fundamentalist organization currently governing the Gaza Strip, considered an ally of Iran.
• Shia Houthi Rebels: A Zaidi Shia Muslim group primarily based in Yemen, who have been involved in a civil war and are believed to be supported by Iran.
• Saddam Hussein: The former President of Iraq who engaged in a decade-long war with Iran in the 1980s.
• Taliban: An Islamic fundamentalist political movement and military organization currently ruling Afghanistan. They previously held power from 1996 to 2001.
• Proxy: A state or non-state actor that is used by a larger power to achieve its goals without direct engagement.
• Extremism: Holding extreme political or religious views; fanaticism.

Briefing Document: US-Iran Relations – A History of Conflict and Current Escalation

Executive Summary:

The provided text outlines a historical overview of the fraught relationship between the United States and Iran, emphasizing its deep roots in the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The author argues that current escalations are a continuation of long-standing grievances and mutual distrust, exacerbated by recent regional events. While acknowledging Iranian complaints against the US, the author also points out instances where US actions inadvertently benefited Iran. The document concludes with a plea for Iran to adopt more pragmatic and people-centric policies, prioritizing internal well-being over ideological extremism and confrontation.

Main Themes and Important Ideas:

1. Historical Roots of Conflict:

• The US-Iran conflict is described as “very old,” with the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which overthrew the US-backed Shah Raza Pahlavi, identified as the pivotal turning point. The text states, “The roots of this complete distraction are linked to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which was overthrown by the throne of the strongest ally of America, Emperor of Iran, Raza Shah Pahlavi.”
• The author notes the initial Iranian “grief and anger or complaint with the US” due to America’s “endless support for the king of Iran during the struggle of the revolution.”
• Despite supporting the Shah, the text mentions that President Jimmy Carter’s administration “was pressuring the Shah internally to refrain from torturing the demonstrators of his people. Respect the right to speech and write and the right to protest.” This nuance, however, is seemingly lost in the overarching narrative of US support for the monarchy.

1. Escalating Tensions and Regional Dynamics:

• The text suggests a recent increase in tensions, potentially linked to hypothetical events like “the overthrow of Bashrul-Assad in Syria and the death of Hassan Nasrullah, the chief of Iranian proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon and now on the order of US President Trump.” (It’s important to note these events as described in the text might not reflect actual current events accurately.)
• The conflict is further fueled by “the attacks on the Shia Houthi rebels in Yemen,” indicating the involvement of regional proxies and sectarian dynamics.
• The author emphasizes a cycle of animosity: “Not only is the circulating of words continuing uninterruptedly, but the spark of hatred is burning even more within and the two countries will fight against each other in the coming days.”

1. The Hostage Crisis and Export of Revolution:

• The holding of American diplomats hostage after the revolution is cited as a significant event that “continued to further deteriorate the issue.”
• Ayatullah Khomeini’s declaration of the intent to “export their revolution to many other countries” is presented as a further point of contention and widening of the conflict beyond bilateral issues.

1. Proxy Warfare and Sectarianism:

• Faced with US allies in the region like “Israel, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia,” the Iranian leadership resorted to “its like-minded allies or armed organizations in various countries, where Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas were leading.”
• This development led to a dangerous dynamic where “iron cuts iron, and every violence breeds another violence” and the conflict evolved from “religious, jihadi and revolutionary ways to extremism and to some extent, terrorism.”

1. Critique of Iranian Rhetoric and Policies:

• The author criticizes statements like former President Ahmadinejad’s call for Israel’s “existence will be erased from the page and will die,” stating that “the norms of our present world do not see such national attitudes or policies without admiration and do not like a country to talk about exporting its ideology of life or revolution to other countries.”
• The text also raises concerns about Iran’s potential pursuit of nuclear weapons, noting that “if we talk about removing any honorable member of the UN nation from the page entity, and with that we also want to enrich uranium. If they try to gain nuclear power, then the world powers will definitely create an atmosphere against it…”

1. Unintended Benefits of US Actions for Iran:

• Despite the overall conflict, the author points out instances where US actions inadvertently benefited Iran. For example, regarding Saddam Hussein, the text asks, “Today, if the revolutionary leadership is asked who saved you from this worst enemy of yours. Dalai? So the answer will come America, thanks to whose blessing the Shiite majority has established a democratic government in present Iraq.” The author even quotes Ayatullah Khomeini’s negative view of ending the war with Iraq, describing it as “akin to drinking poison,” to highlight the relief brought by Saddam’s eventual removal.
• Similarly, the US is credited with eliminating Al-Qaeda and weakening the Taliban in Afghanistan, regimes that were also hostile to Iran. “The Americans rescued Iranians from their worst opponents and whatever Taliban setup is there today. Yes, he is not firm on Iran’s hostility anyway.”

1. Call for Pragmatism and Internal Focus:

• The author concludes by urging the Iranian leadership to move away from “slogans and policies based on extremism” and to prioritize the well-being of the Iranian people.
• The text highlights Iran’s rich history and resources but laments the current economic situation: “despite the abundant blessings bestowed by nature, if the nation is starving, or the national economy is ruined, or the value of the Iranian currency is worst. If it has fallen to the ground, it is necessary to think about it with a cold heart and mind.”
• The final message is a plea for internal reform and a shift towards peaceful international relations: “Instead of enmity and hatred, make world peace, humanitarianism, tolerance and tolerance the center of your internal and external policy. Instead of enriching uranium, treat the plight of its people, heal their wounds.”

Key Quotes:

• “The roots of this complete distraction are linked to the Iranian Revolution of 1979…”
• “…the spark of hatred is burning even more within and the two countries will fight against each other in the coming days.”
• “…export their revolution to many other countries…”
• “…iron cuts iron, and every violence breeds another violence.”
• “…whose existence will be erased from the page and will die…”
• “…if the revolutionary leadership is asked who saved you from this worst enemy of yours… So the answer will come America…”
• “…akin to drinking poison.”
• “Instead of enmity and hatred, make world peace, humanitarianism, tolerance and tolerance the center of your internal and external policy.”

Conclusion:

The provided text offers a perspective on the enduring conflict between the US and Iran, tracing its origins to the Iranian Revolution and highlighting the cyclical nature of distrust and hostility. While acknowledging Iranian grievances, the author also points to unintended positive consequences of US actions for Iran. The document ultimately advocates for a shift in Iranian policy towards internal development, public democracy, and peaceful international engagement, moving away from ideological extremism and confrontation.

Understanding the US-Iran Conflict: Key Questions

Frequently Asked Questions: Understanding the US-Iran Conflict

1. What are the historical roots of the animosity between the US and Iran? The deep-seated conflict between the United States and Iran primarily stems from the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which overthrew the Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi. The Shah was a key ally of the US, and his removal by a religious and revolutionary leadership deeply impacted US strategic interests in the region. The new Islamic Republic harbored significant grievances against the US due to its long-standing support for the Shah, particularly during periods of internal dissent. This fundamental shift in Iran’s political landscape, replacing a staunch US ally with a regime ideologically opposed to American influence, laid the groundwork for enduring tension.

2. How did the hostage crisis further deteriorate US-Iran relations? The seizure of American diplomats in Tehran following the 1979 revolution significantly escalated the already strained relationship. This act, and the prolonged captivity of the diplomats, was perceived by the US as a grave violation of international norms and a direct affront. It solidified negative perceptions of the new Iranian government in the United States and led to a period of intense hostility. The hostage crisis became a defining event that poisoned bilateral relations for decades to come, fostering distrust and hindering any potential for rapprochement in the immediate aftermath of the revolution.

3. What role has Iran’s revolutionary ideology played in the conflict with the US? The revolutionary ideology of the Islamic Republic, particularly its early ambition to “export” its revolution to other Muslim-majority countries, has been a major point of contention with the US and its regional allies. This ambition was viewed as a direct challenge to the existing political order in the Middle East and a potential source of instability. Furthermore, the anti-American sentiment inherent in the revolutionary discourse, coupled with calls for the elimination of Israel (a strong US ally), fueled tensions and contributed to a perception of Iran as a destabilizing force seeking to undermine American interests and influence.

4. How have regional conflicts and proxy actors influenced US-Iran tensions? The US and Iran have found themselves on opposing sides of numerous regional conflicts, often supporting proxy actors. For instance, Iran’s support for groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, as well as its alleged involvement with the Houthi rebels in Yemen, has been viewed by the US and its allies as aggressive and destabilizing. Conversely, Iran perceives the US military presence and support for countries like Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia as a direct threat and an attempt to contain its influence. This dynamic of supporting rival factions in regional conflicts has perpetuated a cycle of mistrust and animosity.

5. Despite the deep animosity, have there been instances where US actions inadvertently benefited Iran? Interestingly, despite the enduring hostility, there have been instances where US military interventions inadvertently benefited Iran. The US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, removed two of Iran’s most significant adversaries: Saddam Hussein and the Taliban regime. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein, in particular, led to the establishment of a Shia-majority government in Iraq, a development generally favorable to Iran’s regional interests, even though this was not the intended outcome of US policy. Similarly, the US intervention in Afghanistan, while complex, initially removed a regime that had been openly hostile to Iran.

6. How does the international community view Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its rhetoric towards other nations? Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology and its occasional aggressive rhetoric towards nations like Israel have been met with significant concern and condemnation from much of the international community. Statements suggesting the elimination of a UN member state are widely regarded as unacceptable and destabilizing, violating the principles of the UN charter which emphasizes the sovereignty and right to existence of all member nations. Coupled with its uranium enrichment program, such rhetoric has fueled fears about Iran’s potential development of nuclear weapons, leading to international sanctions and diplomatic efforts to curb its nuclear activities.

7. What internal challenges does Iran face that might influence its foreign policy? Iran faces significant internal challenges, including economic difficulties, a devalued currency, and potential dissatisfaction among its populace. Despite its rich natural resources and long history, the country grapples with economic instability that affects the daily lives of its citizens. The author suggests that the leadership should prioritize the well-being of the Iranian people and focus on internal development rather than pursuing policies based on extremism and external conflicts. Addressing these internal issues could potentially lead to a shift in Iran’s foreign policy priorities, emphasizing stability and economic prosperity over ideological confrontation.

8. What alternative approaches could Iran adopt to foster better relations and improve its standing in the world? The author suggests that Iran could benefit from adopting internal and external policies centered on principles like peace, humanitarianism, tolerance, and freedom. Prioritizing the needs of its people, fostering public democracy, and respecting human rights could improve its domestic situation and international image. Instead of focusing on uranium enrichment and confrontational rhetoric, Iran could channel its resources and efforts towards economic development and regional stability through dialogue and cooperation. Embracing a more moderate and pragmatic approach could lead to improved relations with the international community and a better future for the Iranian people.

US-Iran Conflict: Origins, Dynamics, and Future Outlook

The history of the US-Iran conflict is very old, and the tension in their bad relations has recently increased. The roots of this conflict can be traced back to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which overthrew the Shah of Iran, Raza Shah Pahlavi, who was a strong ally of America. Since then, leaders of both countries have engaged in heated rhetoric.

The religious and revolutionary leadership of Islamic Iran had genuine grievances against the US due to the US’s strong support for the Shah during the revolution. However, despite fully supporting the Shah, the American administration at the time, particularly President Jimmy Carter, was internally pressing the Shah to respect human rights, such as the right to speech, writing, and protest. Some argue that Carter’s sensitivity to human rights as head of the US administration might not be fully understood by those who have read his autobiography.

Following the revolution, the conflict with the US escalated when American diplomats were held hostage for a long time. The situation further deteriorated when the founder of the revolution openly announced the intention to export their revolution to other countries.

Hazrat Ayatullah Khomeini’s revolution faced multiple challenges, not only opposition from the US but also the elimination of sympathizers or remnants of the Shah and the challenge posed by Iraq under Saddam Hussein, against whom Iran fought an exhausting war for a decade. The consequences of these internal and external disturbances were borne by the Iranian nation. In the Middle East, the presence of strong American allies like Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia led the Iranian leadership to support its own allies or armed organizations in various countries, with Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas being prominent examples. This dynamic, according to the source, follows the principle of “iron cuts iron,” where violence begets more violence, and the conflict evolved from sectarianism to extremism and, to some extent, terrorism.

Iran has had complaints against the Americans for over four decades, viewing Israel’s presence in the Middle East as a nuisance. Former Iranian President Ahmadinejad even expressed the desire for Israel’s elimination. However, the source notes that the current world norms do not admire such national attitudes or policies and do not favor countries that talk about exporting their ideology or revolution. The UN Human Rights Charter emphasizes the freedom of all countries, constitutions, democracy, human rights protection, and support for the vulnerable. The source argues that talking about removing a UN member nation while simultaneously pursuing nuclear power would likely provoke a negative reaction from world powers. Despite Iran’s complaints, the source suggests that Iran and its religious leadership have also directly benefited from certain American actions.

While acknowledging the Shia majority in Iraq, the source points out that the US, by removing Saddam Hussein, who was considered a severe tyrant and a major enemy by Ayatullah Khomeini, inadvertently benefited Iran by paving the way for a Shia-majority democratic government in Iraq. The source suggests that if asked who saved them from Saddam Hussein, the revolutionary leadership might have to acknowledge America’s role. Similarly, the source mentions that US President Trump spoke of working together to eliminate ISIS, a terrorist organization also opposed by the Iranian leadership, and questions who eliminated Al-Qaeda, another enemy of Iran.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban government was also a major concern for Iran, similar to Saddam Hussein. The Taliban’s hostility towards Iran was evident. The source states that the Americans rescued Iranians from their worst opponents, and the current Taliban setup is not as hostile to Iran.

The source advises the Iranian leadership to recognize that policies based on extremism are not effective in the current world. It emphasizes that internal and external policies should prioritize the benefit of the Iranian people. Despite Iran’s rich history and natural resources, the source notes issues like a struggling national economy and currency devaluation, urging a shift towards public democracy, freedoms, stability, and world peace instead of enmity and uranium enrichment, focusing instead on the well-being of its people.

The tension in US-Iran relations has recently escalated, particularly after the supposed overthrow of Bashrul-Assad in Syria and the death of Hassan Nasrullah, the chief of Iranian proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon, reportedly on the order of US President Trump. The tension has also increased following attacks on the Shia Houthi rebels in Yemen. The exchange of words continues, and there is a growing animosity, suggesting a potential for future conflict as both countries work on their political, economic, and military strategies against each other.

US-Iran Relations: Roots and Evolution of Conflict

The roots of the US-Iran conflict are linked to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which overthrew the Shah of Iran, Raza Shah Pahlavi, who was a strong ally of America. This event marked a significant turning point, leading to the current tension in the bad relations between the two countries.

The religious and revolutionary leadership of Islamic Iran harbored genuine grievances against the US due to the US’s extensive support for the Shah during the revolutionary struggle. Despite the Shah’s full support from the US, the American administration at the time, particularly under President Jimmy Carter, was internally urging the Shah to stop torturing demonstrators and to respect rights such as freedom of speech, the press, and the right to protest.

Following the revolution, a crucial event that further deteriorated relations was the holding of American diplomats hostage for a prolonged period. Moreover, the founder of the revolution openly declared the intention to export their revolution to numerous other countries, which further escalated the issue beyond a bilateral concern.

Hazrat Ayatullah Khomeini’s revolution faced multiple challenges beyond just opposition from the US. These included the elimination of those who sympathized with or were remnants of the Shah’s regime, as well as the significant challenge posed by Iraq under Saddam Hussein, against whom Iran engaged in a decade-long war. Consequently, the Iranian nation bore the brunt of these internal and external disturbances. In the Middle East, the presence of strong American allies such as Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia compelled the Iranian leadership to support its own like-minded allies or armed organizations in various nations, with Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas being prominent examples. This dynamic, as described in the source, follows a principle where violence begets more violence, and the conflict evolved from sectarianism to extremism and even terrorism to some extent.

Despite the complaints Iran has held against the Americans for over four decades, the source points out that the US, by removing Saddam Hussein in Iraq, inadvertently benefited Iran by paving the way for a Shia-majority democratic government. Similarly, the US’s efforts against groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, which were also enemies of Iran, are mentioned as actions that benefited the Iranian leadership. Even in Afghanistan, the Taliban government, which was a major concern for Iran, is not as hostile following American intervention.

The source suggests that the Iranian leadership should recognize that policies based on extremism are ineffective in the current global landscape and should prioritize the well-being of the Iranian people through internal and external policies focused on public democracy, freedoms, stability, and world peace, rather than enmity and uranium enrichment.

US-Iran Relations: The Hostage Crisis and Revolution

The holding of American diplomats hostage for a long time significantly deteriorated the already strained relations between the US and Iran following the 1979 Iranian Revolution. This event occurred after the overthrow of the Shah, Raza Shah Pahlavi, who was a strong ally of America.

According to the sources, the situation escalated after the revolution when the founder of the revolution openly announced the intention to export their revolution to many other countries. This broadened the issue beyond a bilateral dispute.

The hostage crisis emerged in the aftermath of a period where the US had extensively supported the Shah, a point of contention for the religious and revolutionary leadership of Islamic Iran. While the US administration under President Jimmy Carter was internally urging the Shah to respect human rights, this nuance might not be fully appreciated by everyone.

The hostage situation marked a shift towards greater hostility between the two nations. The initial enthusiasm following the revolution, instead of leading to a new era of responsible relations, gave way to extremism and a prevailing sentiment that began with the hostage-taking and further aggravated the situation.

Exporting Revolution: Iran and US Tensions

The sources indicate that a significant aspect of the Iranian Revolution that exacerbated tensions with the US was the founder of the revolution’s open announcement of the intention to export their revolution to many other countries. This declaration broadened the issue beyond a bilateral conflict between the US and Iran.

Source highlights that the norms of the present world do not look favorably upon countries that advocate for exporting their ideology of life or revolution to other nations. It further mentions that the UN Human Rights Charter emphasizes the freedom of all countries, their constitutions, democracy, and the protection of human rights. In this context, talking about exporting a revolution is seen as contrary to the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination promoted by international bodies like the UN.

The decision to openly declare the export of the revolution is presented as a point where “enthusiasm over consciousness and extremism over tolerance” prevailed. This action, following the holding of American diplomats hostage, further contributed to the deterioration of relations between the US and Iran.

Iran’s Regional Allies and Middle East Strategy

Drawing on the sources, it is evident that the Iranian leadership has cultivated regional allies and supports certain organizations in the Middle East in the context of its conflict with the US and the presence of strong American allies.

According to source, in response to the spread of strong American allies in the Middle East, including Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, the Iranian leadership had to resort to its like-minded allies or armed organizations in various countries. The source specifically names Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas as leading examples of these allies. This dynamic is described as following the principle that “iron cuts iron,” indicating a strategy of countering American influence and its allies through supporting its own network of partners.

Source further highlights Iran’s stance on regional players by noting that the “revolutionary Iranian brothers have complaints from the Americans for more than four decades” and that “They have been calling Israel’s stay in the Middle East a nuisance“. This suggests that Israel is viewed as an adversary and likely a key reason for Iran’s need to cultivate its own allies in the region.

Interestingly, source points out that the establishment of a Shia-majority democratic government in present Iraq is seen as a benefit to Iran, arguably due to the removal of Saddam Hussein by the US. While not explicitly stated as an alliance in the traditional sense, this outcome suggests a potential alignment of interests or a more favorable regional dynamic for Iran following the US intervention in Iraq.

Similarly, source mentions that the Taliban government in Afghanistan was once a significant concern for Iran, implying a lack of alliance and even hostility. However, the source notes that the current Taliban setup is “not firm on Iran’s hostility anyway,” suggesting a possible shift in relations, though not necessarily a strong alliance.

In summary, the sources indicate that Iran, facing a perceived environment of strong US allies in the Middle East, has actively supported and relied on regional allies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. While the situation in Iraq presents a case of indirect benefit, and the relationship with the Taliban in Afghanistan has seen shifts, the core strategy appears to involve supporting like-minded organizations to counter US influence and the presence of its allies.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!