HISTORICAL ANTECEDENT OF US-IRAN RELATIONS- By Dr Tarh Ntantang
At the end of the Second World War, the US became more involved in the Middle East to prevent the Soviet Union from spreading its influence. Oil had become a crucial element of global power. America strengthened its relationship with Tehran because of Iran’s oil. In 1951, a new Iranian leader named Mohammad Mossadegh came to power. He took control of Iranian oil and nationalised the oil industry. This was during the Cold War era, when the US and the Soviet Union were vying for power and influence around the world.
In 1953, America sponsored a coup in Iran in response to the nationalisation of oil. This coup led to the rise of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, commonly known as the Shah. The Shah governed Iran from 1953 to 1979, 26 years at the helm of the country. He was a dictator but friendly to the US and also had good relations with Israel. The US ignored his human rights abuses because he supported US interests. However, many Iranians hated the Shah; one of his strongest critics was a religious leader named Ruhollah Khomeini, and Ayatollah Khomeini strongly criticised the Shah. He also was against Western influence and the US’s role in Iran. Because of this, he was forced into exile in the 1960s. Even while in exile, Khomeini sent recorded messages back to Iran, telling people to oppose the Shah. In 1979, the Shah was ousted from power in a revolution that brought Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power as the supreme leader. He transformed Iran into an Islamic Republic. The new Iranian government was strongly against America because many Iranians believed the US had interfered in their democracy in 1953 and had supported a dictator for many years.
Additionally, in 1979, Iranian students seized the US embassy in Tehran. American diplomats were held hostage for 444 days. From that point, Iran and the US became adversaries. As Israel grew closer to the US, Iran’s new leaders regarded Israel as a Western creation in the Middle East that opposes Muslims. This belief shaped Iran’s long-term policy towards Israel. It is worth noting that the Supreme Leader, who was recently assassinated in the US-Israeli attack on 28 February 2026, was known as Ayatollah Ali Khomeini. He had been in power since 1989, following the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The joint military escalation by the US and Israel against Iran has pushed one of the most persistent geopolitical flashpoints of the 21st century into a new phase of conflict and controversy. What Western policymakers often describe as a necessary response to an existential threat from Tehran has revealed a deeper pattern of strategic inconsistency and moral contradiction. Critics argue that the rhetoric of defending freedom and preventing nuclear proliferation conceals a long-standing policy driven by regime change ambitions and double standards in international relations. As both Washington and Tel Aviv adjust their public justifications, shifting between security claims and calls for internal political transformation, the gap between declared ideals and actual objectives becomes even more evident. This article analyses the hypocritical narratives shaping the US and Israeli approach to Iran, questioning whether the existential threat they repeatedly highlight is genuine or merely a pretext for pursuing geopolitical aims. Below is a structured analytical essay that advances the central claim that US-Israel discourse on regime change and existential threat toward Iran is marked by strategic hypocrisy, supported by historical, legal, and geopolitical justifications.
THE DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE “EXISTENTIAL THREAT“
Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, both the United States and Israel have consistently portrayed Iran as an existential threat to regional and global security. This portrayal has intensified around Iran’s nuclear programme, which US and Israeli officials describe as an imminent route to nuclear weapons despite repeated assessments by international monitoring bodies indicating the absence, at least until recent escalations, of a definitive weapons programme. The language of existential threat, rather than serving purely defensive purposes, functions as a powerful legitimising tool: it narrows diplomatic options, justifies pre-emptive military doctrines, and marginalises alternative security arrangements in the Middle East. Yet, this existential framing is applied selectively. Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal is widely recognised by strategic analysts remaining outside international inspection regimes such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), while Iran, a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has been subjected to extensive surveillance and sanctions. This asymmetry undermines the credibility of existential threat claims, revealing that the issue is less about non-proliferation in principle and more about maintaining a regional balance of power favourable to US-Israeli strategic dominance. It is worth noting that Iran, despite being a signatory to the NPT, has been subjected to extensive international inspections, whereas Israel’s undeclared nuclear capabilities remain outside formal oversight. This asymmetry exposes a fundamental contradiction: the NPT is enforced not as a universal norm but as a political instrument deployed against adversaries. Consequently, this discourse of existential threat functions to preserve a regional hierarchy rather than to uphold genuine international security principles.
REGIME CHANGE AS A PERSISTENT, THOUGH DENIED, OBJECTIVE
The contradiction is stark: while Washington publicly defends national sovereignty and international order, it simultaneously endorses actions aimed at destabilising a sovereign state whose primary offence lies in resisting US regional hegemony. Israel’s position aligns closely with this approach, portraying the Iranian political system not merely as adversarial but as inherently illegitimate. This posture exposes the hypocrisy of invoking international law and democratic values while systematically undermining the political autonomy of a rival state.
THE COLLAPSE OF DIPLOMATIC CREDIBILITY AND SELECTIVE MULTILATERALISM
The erosion of diplomatic mechanisms further highlights this hypocrisy. The United States’ abandonment of the joint comprehensive plan of action despite Iran’s documented compliance at the time sent a clear signal that negotiated restraint would not be rewarded. Instead, coercion replaced engagement, validating hard-line factions within Iran and weakening moderates who had advocated diplomatic compromises. Israel’s persistent opposition to the agreement, even as it contained Iran’s nuclear capabilities, underscores a deeper concern: that normalising relations between Iran and the West would diminish Israel’s strategic leverage and exceptional status. Thus, multilateral diplomacy is supported only insofar as it aligns with existing strategic preferences, revealing a selective commitment to international cooperation.mmitment to international cooperation.
HUMAN RIGHTS RHETORIC AND MORAL INCONSISTENCIES
Both the US and Israel frequently justify their hostility towards Iran by citing human rights issues, such as repression, electoral restrictions, and limitations on civil liberties. Although these criticisms are unsubstantiated, their selective application raises important questions. Human rights violations by US allies in the region that are comparable or even worse usually receive muted responses or continued military support. This inconsistency shows that human rights are treated as a tool rather than a genuine principle, used mainly to undermine opponents. Such moral selectivity damages the credibility of international advocacy and fosters perceptions of hypocrisy in US-Israel foreign policy.
MILITARIZATION, DETERRENCE FAILURE, AND THE RISK OF ESCALATION
The persistent focus on military solutions – air strikes, targeted assassinations, and deterrence through force – has failed to eliminate Iran’s regional influence. Instead, it has entrenched a cycle of escalation, strengthening Iran’s asymmetric alliances and reinforcing its security doctrine. The paradox is clear: actions justified as necessary to prevent existential threats may actually accelerate the very conflict they aim to prevent. By portraying Iran as an irrational actor bent on destruction, US and Israeli policymakers obscure the strategic logic that largely shapes Iranian behaviour. This mischaracterisation reduces policy flexibility and raises the risk of miscalculation, with potentially disastrous consequences for regional and global stability.
Dr Tarh Ntantang is the founder and CEO of Ntantang Research and Consulting Centre (NRCC), Yaoundé, Cameroon. He is a global policy expert and practitioner specialising in democracy support, peacebuilding, and governance, with over a decade of experience across Africa. He holds a doctorate in political economy and international affairs from the University of Yaoundé 1. He is also a certified climate migration scholar at York University, Toronto, Canada.
