Table of Contents
Scott Horton reveals the hidden 70-year history of American interference that transformed Iran from ally to enemy, exposing how intelligence operations and foreign lobbying created today's Middle East crisis.
Historian Scott Horton traces America's path to conflict with Iran through decades of coups, proxy wars, and neoconservative deception that prioritized Israeli interests over American security.
Key Takeaways
- The 1953 CIA coup against Iran's democratically elected leader created decades of "blowback" culminating in the 1979 revolution
- America initially supported the Ayatollah's rise to power, only turning hostile when David Rockefeller's intervention triggered the hostage crisis
- The Iran-Iraq War was deliberately encouraged by the US to contain Iranian influence, with America providing chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein
- Neoconservatives, largely ex-Trotskyites with Israeli connections, systematically lied America into multiple Middle East wars starting with Iraq 2003
- The "Clean Break" strategy written for Netanyahu in 1996 became America's Middle East policy, prioritizing Israeli regional dominance over US interests
- Obama's support for al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria represented America fighting alongside the same groups that attacked on 9/11
- Current Iran tensions stem from Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal at Netanyahu's behest, not genuine Iranian nuclear weapons development
The 1953 Coup and Its Consequences
The story begins with the CIA coup against Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953, orchestrated by Kermit Roosevelt Jr. The operation, later documented in declassified CIA histories, coined the term "blowback"—long-term consequences of secret foreign policies that leave Americans unaware of true causes when violence eventually erupts.
Mosaddeq's crime was demanding a larger share of Iran's oil revenue for his own people. The Dulles brothers—CIA Director Allen and Secretary of State John Foster—falsely labeled him a communist to justify the coup. America used this opportunity to edge Britain out of Iranian oil markets, installing the Shah as a compliant dictator.
The Shah ruled for 26 years through brutal secret police trained by Israeli forces. Nixon later pressured him to purchase expensive American weapons he couldn't afford, weakening his rule and contributing to the eventual revolution. When Iranians finally overthrew their American-installed dictator in 1979, most Americans only remembered the images of flag-burning and "Death to America" chants—the blowback from a quarter-century of oppression they knew nothing about.
America's Role in the Ayatollah's Rise
Contrary to popular belief, America initially supported Ayatollah Khomeini's return to power. The CIA and State Department advised Carter that Khomeini was manageable—they had worked with his Shiite group against Mosaddeq in 1953. State Department official William Sullivan compared Khomeini to Mahatma Gandhi.
The revolution succeeded in February 1979, but the hostage crisis didn't occur until November. During those intervening months, America actively cooperated with Khomeini's government, warning them about threats from Saddam Hussein and the Soviet Union. The crisis erupted only when David Rockefeller convinced Carter to admit the Shah for cancer treatment, signaling potential American plans for counter-revolution.
The hostage-takers targeted the embassy because it housed the CIA station that had orchestrated the 1953 coup. Their fear of American restoration of the Shah was grounded in bitter historical experience.
The Iran-Iraq War: America's Proxy Conflict
Following the Iranian revolution, America gave Saddam Hussein the green light to invade Iran in 1980. Prince Fahd of Saudi Arabia later confirmed to Secretary of State Alexander Haig that he had relayed Carter's approval to Saddam on America's behalf.
Saddam's motivation was clear: as a minority Sunni dictator ruling a majority Shiite population, he feared the Iranian revolution would inspire his own people to revolt. Rather than face domestic uprising, he conscripted Shiite Iraqis and sent them to war against their co-religionists next door.
America supported this brutal eight-year conflict that resembled World War I trench warfare. The US provided satellite intelligence enabling Saddam's use of chemical weapons—including sarin and tabun nerve gas—against Iranian forces. Ironically, these same chemical weapons later became part of the justification for invading Iraq in 2003, with officials conveniently forgetting that Reagan's administration had helped provide them.
The Neoconservative War Party
Horton explains that "neoconservative" isn't a generic term for hawks but a specific biographical designation for former leftists who moved right. Most were Trotskyites from City College of New York who became Cold War Democrats, then Reaganites. Key figures include Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith.
These ex-communists replaced authentic conservatives at institutions like National Review, pushing out genuine America First voices who opposed Cold War overextension. They formed alliances with the military-industrial complex and created networks of think tanks including the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (a spin-off of AIPAC), the Project for a New American Century, and others.
The neoconservatives are distinguished by their close ties to Israeli politics, particularly the Likud party. Many worked directly for Israeli officials or represented Israeli interests in American think tanks and government positions.
The Clean Break Strategy
In 1996, David Wurmser wrote "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This document, co-authored by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, became the blueprint for American Middle East policy.
The "clean break" referred to abandoning Oslo peace negotiations and the two-state solution. Instead, Israel would achieve "peace through strength" by becoming the dominant regional power. The strategy required eliminating threats to Israeli colonization of Palestine, particularly Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
The bizarre logic involved removing Saddam Hussein to somehow neutralize Iran's support for Hezbollah through Syria. Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi had convinced the neoconservatives that installing a Hashemite king in Baghdad would magically control Iraq's Shiite majority, who would then pressure Iran to abandon Hezbollah.
This fantastical plan ignored basic sectarian realities. When the British had installed a Hashemite king in the 1920s, Shiite clerics issued fatwas against cooperation. The scheme was always doomed, but it provided justification for the Iraq invasion.
The Iraq War Deception
The neoconservatives created what Colin Powell called "a separate government" within the Bush administration. Key positions were filled by Clean Break authors and allies:
- Vice President's Office: Scooter Libby, Eric Edelman, Victoria Nuland
- National Security Council: Stephen Hadley, Robert Joseph, Zalmay Khalilzad
- State Department: David Wurmser, John Bolton
- Defense: Richard Perle (policy board), Paul Wolfowitz (deputy secretary), Douglas Feith (policy), Abram Shulsky (Office of Special Plans)
The Office of Special Plans, run by Shulsky, laundered lies from Iraqi exiles to create the WMD narrative. Across the hall, Wurmser and Michael Maloof's Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group fabricated Saddam-al Qaeda connections. Harold Rhode fired actual Middle East experts and replaced them with think tank ideologues.
This systematic deception campaign sold a war designed primarily to benefit Israel, not America. One promised benefit was rebuilding the oil pipeline from northern Iraq to the Israeli port of Haifa—essentially making American soldiers fight and die to provide Israel cheaper oil.
The Redirection: Embracing Al-Qaeda
When Iraq's Shiite majority allied with Iran as predicted, neoconservatives launched "the redirection" in 2005-2006. Having empowered Iran's allies in Baghdad, they now had to "tilt back toward the Sunni kings"—meaning support for al-Qaeda affiliated groups.
This policy, detailed in Seymour Hersh's reporting, involved backing Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, and other Sunni extremist groups. Elizabeth Cheney at the State Department created the first Syrian National Council filled with Muslim Brotherhood members.
The redirection represented America's return to supporting the very forces that had attacked on 9/11, justified by claims that containing Iran mattered more than the war on terrorism.
Obama's Al-Qaeda Alliance
Barack Obama continued Bush's redirection policy. While conducting drone strikes against some al-Qaeda figures, Obama simultaneously supported al-Qaeda affiliates in Libya and Syria. During the 2011 Libya intervention, American planes provided air cover for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and Ansar al-Sharia—al-Qaeda veterans who had fought Americans in Iraq.
The Benghazi attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens occurred because the administration was shipping Libyan weapons to al-Qaeda groups in Syria. Stevens was facilitating this arms transfer when Zawahiri ordered retaliation for CIA drone strikes that had killed Libyan al-Qaeda leaders.
Hillary Clinton's "bank shot" strategy moved mujahideen and weapons from Libya to Syria for what she called a "dirty war" against Assad. This wasn't a popular uprising but a foreign invasion by American, Turkish, Israeli, Saudi, and Qatari-backed al-Qaeda mercenaries.
The Syrian Deception
The Syrian war represented the clearest example of America fighting on al-Qaeda's side. Assad, a secular ophthalmologist who hadn't even planned to rule until his brother died in a car accident, was targeted solely because he maintained ties with Iran and allowed Iranian support for Hezbollah.
Obama's support for Syrian "rebels" led directly to ISIS's rise. The Islamic State of Iraq, which had been a joke with no actual territory, suddenly controlled eastern Syria by 2013. When ISIS expanded into Iraq and took Mosul, Obama dismissively called them the "junior varsity."
The ultimate irony came when America had to fight ISIS alongside the same Iranian-backed Shiite militias it had spent years trying to contain. American planes provided air cover for Iranian Quds Force operations, the very forces neoconservatives claimed were America's greatest threat.
Iran's Nuclear Program Reality
Horton dismantles myths about Iran's nuclear program. Iran never had a nuclear weapons program—they developed a "latent nuclear deterrent" as a threshold state, similar to Brazil, Germany, or Japan. They mastered uranium enrichment but never decided to build weapons.
The 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) severely restricted this program, requiring Iran to ship enriched uranium to France and accept intrusive inspections. Trump's withdrawal from the deal in 2018, at Netanyahu's urging, caused Iran to gradually resume enrichment as allowed under the agreement's terms when America violated its commitments.
Iran's enrichment to 60% uranium-235 following Israeli sabotage attacks was designed to pressure America back to negotiations, not to build weapons. Weapons require above 90% enrichment, and Iran could have gone directly to that level if they truly wanted bombs.
Current War and Future Prospects
Trump's recent bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities represents calling Iran's bluff about their deterrent capabilities. Iran's symbolic 14-missile retaliation, with advance warning to minimize casualties, showed they want to avoid broader conflict despite their tough rhetoric.
The question now is whether Iran will weaponize their program in response to the attacks or accept that their deterrent has been neutralized. Trump appears to believe he has degraded their capabilities enough to prevent restart, but this remains an enormous gamble.
Common Questions
Q: Why did America support the Iranian revolution initially?
A: The CIA believed Khomeini was manageable based on previous cooperation with his Shiite group against Mosaddeq in 1953, comparing him to Gandhi.
Q: How did neoconservatives gain control of US Middle East policy?
A: Ex-Trotskyites with Israeli connections systematically replaced genuine conservatives in think tanks and government, forming alliances with the military-industrial complex to justify wars.
Q: What was the real purpose of the Iraq War?
A: Primarily to eliminate threats to Israeli expansion by removing secular Arab leaders, based on the fantastical belief that America could control Iraq's Shiites.
Q: Why did Obama support al-Qaeda in Syria after fighting them elsewhere?
A: The "redirection" strategy prioritized containing Iran over fighting terrorism, leading to alliances with the same forces that attacked America on 9/11.
Q: Does Iran actually have a nuclear weapons program?
A: No credible evidence exists for an active weapons program; Iran developed threshold nuclear capabilities as deterrence but never decided to build bombs.
The story Scott Horton tells is one of systematic deception spanning seven decades. What began as an oil grab in 1953 metastasized into endless wars serving foreign interests rather than American security. The current Iran crisis represents the latest chapter in this tragic narrative of imperial overreach and elite capture. Only when Americans understand this history can they demand policies that actually serve their interests rather than those of foreign lobbies and war profiteers.
