NEED TO KNOW

• The CIA and MI6 overthrew Iran's elected prime minister in 1953 to protect oil interests
• The Shah's U.S.-backed secret police tortured thousands of political prisoners, fueling the 1979 revolution
• Trump's "47 years of hatred" framing starts in 1979, erasing 26 years of U.S. intervention

WASHINGTON (TDR) — When Donald Trump launched Operation Epic Fury on Feb. 28, 2026, his administration reached for a familiar number to explain why. "For 47 long years, the expansionist and Islamist regime in Tehran has waged a savage, one-sided war against America," Pete Hegseth declared. Trump himself repeated the figure repeatedly: 47 years, 47 years, 47 years. The number anchors the war to 1979, the year of the Islamic Revolution, the year American hostages were taken, the year the ayatollahs seized power. It is a tidy, emotionally resonant frame. It is also missing 26 years of U.S. conduct that most mainstream outlets covering Operation Epic Fury have declined to explain.

The story of why Iran hates America does not begin in 1979. It begins in 1953.

The Oil Company, the Prime Minister and the Coup

Before Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was a name anyone in Washington feared, Iran had a democratically elected government led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. In 1951, the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the country's oil industry, which had been controlled exclusively by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British-owned enterprise whose profit sharing arrangements Iranians broadly regarded as exploitative. The net profits flowing to the AIOC between 1945 and 1950 were nearly three times the royalties paid to Iran for oil extracted from its own ground.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

Mosaddegh's decision was legal, popular and, in the view of most of the world today, entirely justified. Iran is a sovereign nation. Its oil belongs to Iranians.

Britain disagreed. London imposed economic sanctions and a global boycott of Iranian oil, starving Mosaddegh's government of revenue and destabilizing the economy. When the financial pressure alone proved insufficient, Britain approached the United States with a plan. The pitch to the Eisenhower administration was framed carefully: not as protecting British oil profits, but as stopping communist influence. Mosaddegh, despite being a secular anti-communist, was portrayed as dangerously soft on the Soviet Union. President Dwight Eisenhower approved the operation. CIA Director Allen Dulles authorized the first million dollars.

Operation Ajax: A Playbook for Regime Change

What followed in August 1953 became a template for covert U.S. intervention that would be repeated across decades and continents. The CIA called it Operation Ajax. British intelligence, under MI6, called it Operation Boot. By any name, it was the systematic dismantling of a democracy.

CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt Jr., grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, arrived in Tehran quietly in July 1953. His operation involved bribing military officers, paying street mobs to create chaos, funding opposition newspapers to spread disinformation, and staging fake communist rallies to discredit Mosaddegh's government. When an early coup attempt failed and the Shah briefly fled to Rome, Roosevelt regrouped. A second attempt succeeded on Aug. 19, 1953. Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and sentenced first to death, then commuted to three years of solitary confinement, followed by house arrest until he died in 1967.

The Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, returned from Rome. The Shah reportedly told CIA officer Roosevelt: "I owe my throne to God, my people, and to you."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

The oil settlement that followed required the removal of the AIOC's monopoly. Five American petroleum companies were among those awarded access to Iran's petroleum reserves after the coup. The United States had protected British oil interests and secured American ones in the process.

The CIA formally acknowledged its role in the coup in declassified documents released in 2013, describing the operation as an "undemocratic" action. That is a notable admission from an agency not known for self-criticism. Six decades of Iranian grievance, it turns out, had documentary support.

The Shah's Secret Police and the CIA's Fingerprints

The coup did not end U.S. involvement. It deepened it. To protect his newly consolidated power, the Shah needed a security apparatus capable of crushing dissent. In 1957, with direct assistance from the CIA and Israel's Mossad, the Shah established SAVAK, the Organization of National Intelligence and Security.

What SAVAK became over the next two decades was not incidental to American policy. It was a product of it.

According to a declassified CIA memo citing a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report, the CIA played a significant role in establishing SAVAK, providing both funding and training. One senior CIA officer, according to Congressional testimony, was "involved in instructing officials in the Savak on torture techniques." Time magazine, in a 1976 cover story titled "Torture as Policy," characterized Iran as one of the worst human rights violators in the world.

Amnesty International's 1976 documentation of SAVAK's methods filled pages. The Federation of American Scientists later catalogued them: electric shock, whipping, beating, insertion of foreign objects, nail extraction, near-drownings and mock executions. The metal frame device interrogators placed over a prisoner's head to amplify screams was known, with grim irony, as the Apollo, named after the American spacecraft.

Between 1963 and 1979, thousands of political dissidents were tortured. From the mid-1970s, Amnesty International estimated that as many as 100,000 Iranians had been jailed. The Shah's government disputed those figures vigorously, and some historians argue the numbers were inflated for political effect. Even the more conservative estimate from a former senior SAVAK official placed political prisoners in the mid-1970s at roughly 3,200, with approximately 312 dying in detention. No accounting makes the record look acceptable.

American presidents knew. Congressional hearings raised SAVAK's abuses. Jimmy Carter made human rights a centerpiece of his foreign policy and pressured the Shah to reform. The Shah made gestures and largely continued his methods. Washington kept the arms flowing. Between the 1953 coup and the 1979 revolution, Iran became one of the largest purchasers of U.S. military equipment in the world. The Shah's relationship with the United States was close and bipartisan, running from Eisenhower through Ford without interruption.

When the Dam Broke

Iranian historian Ervand Abrahamian has written that Mosaddegh embodied middle-class and nationalist aspirations, while foreign powers allied with Iran's landed elite and royalists to crush him. Former New York Times correspondent Stephen Kinzer, author of All the Shah's Men, has argued the line from 1953 to 1979 is direct and traceable:

"I think it's not an exaggeration to say that you can draw a line from the American sponsorship of the 1953 coup in Iran, through the Shah's repressive regime, to the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the spread of militant religious fundamentalism that produced waves of anti-Western terrorism." — Stephen Kinzer

That line is what the "47 years" framing erases. The Islamic Revolution was not random. It was a reaction. A population that had watched the CIA install a dictator, watched that dictator's secret police (trained by the CIA) torture their relatives and neighbors, watched the United States arm and support a regime that stripped them of political freedom for a generation: that population did not hate America for no reason. They hated America for specific, documented, CIA-acknowledged reasons.

The hostage crisis of 1979, which the Trump administration and much of American media treats as the original sin, was itself a reaction. Iranian students who stormed the U.S. Embassy believed, with documentary justification, that it had been the operational center of the 1953 coup. That belief was not unfounded. Shredded embassy documents painstakingly reassembled after the revolution confirmed CIA-SAVAK collaboration in detail.

What the 47-Years Frame Leaves Out

None of this is secret. The CIA's own declassified history of Operation Ajax describes it as decisive interference in Iranian sovereignty. The National Security Archive at George Washington University has published the primary documents. Britannica, NPR, the State Department's own historical records: all of them document what happened in 1953 and what followed.

What is missing is not the information. It is the framing.

No anchor at a major network has stood in front of a camera during Operation Epic Fury coverage and said: before we discuss 47 years of Iranian aggression, we should note that 26 years before 1979, the United States and Britain overthrew Iran's elected government and installed a dictatorship. Not because that context excuses Iranian state terrorism, Iranian proxy attacks, or Iranian hostage-taking. It does not. Iranian theocratic governance has produced its own documented record of brutality, one that in some respects exceeds the Shah's in severity. The Islamic Republic's human rights record is condemned by the United Nations and every credible international monitor.

But accountability and context are not in conflict. You can hold Iran responsible for genuine acts of aggression and still acknowledge that American actions created conditions for anti-American radicalism to flourish. That is not spin. That is history.

Consider what scholars and foreign policy analysts who are not apologists for Tehran have said. The Arab Center Washington DC has noted that Operation Epic Fury's objectives have shifted repeatedly and lack a coherent post-conflict strategy. Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group told Time that even U.S. interventions with planning behind them, Iraq and Afghanistan, "ended in grief," and warned that Operation Epic Fury "is really based on wishful thinking" about post-war outcomes in Iran.

Those warning voices deserve space in the national conversation. So does what happened in 1953.

The Questions Nobody Is Asking On Cable News

The "47 years" framing is politically useful. It presents a clean starting line, an uncomplicated villain and an America that has only ever been aggrieved. It is the version of history that requires the least from its audience and asks nothing of policymakers.

The version that begins in 1901, when a British speculator was handed a concession to Iran's oil, and runs through 1953, through SAVAK, through the revolution, through the hostage crisis, through U.S. support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, through the Iran nuclear deal and its collapse, through the assassination of Qasem Soleimani and into Operation Epic Fury is considerably more complicated. It is also considerably more honest.

Both parties carry history here. The Obama administration negotiated the 2015 nuclear deal in an attempt to change the trajectory. The Trump administration's withdrawal from that deal in 2018 accelerated Iran's nuclear program, by the assessment of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Neither approach produced a stable outcome. Neither party has fully grappled with what happens the morning after any military campaign in a country of 90 million people with a history of foreign intervention producing revolutionary backlash.

The Iranian people, millions of whom have been openly resisting their own theocratic government for years, are not a monolith. They are not their regime. They are also not a population without a long and specific memory of what powerful foreign nations have done to their country when strategic interests aligned.

Operation Epic Fury may achieve its stated military objectives. It may not. What it will not do is resolve the underlying question American media is declining to pose: if the goal is a stable, non-nuclear, non-hostile Iran, does a country that toppled Iran's democracy once before have the credibility and the plan to build something better this time?

If the United States wants a different Iran after this war ends, what responsibility does acknowledging 1953 carry — and can any post-conflict strategy succeed without it?

Sources

This report was compiled using information from NPR's Throughline investigation into the 1953 coup, declassified documents archived by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, reporting by Britannica and Lapham's Quarterly on Operation Ajax, Wikipedia's sourced entry on SAVAK, human rights documentation from Encyclopedia.com's review of Shahist Iran, analysis by the Arab Center Washington DC, reporting by Foreign Policy, Time, NBC News and NPR on Operation Epic Fury, and official statements from the White House and Middle East Institute.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10