Conflict in Iran — a Debrief
By Daniel Graham
West Asia (colloquially known as the Middle East due to its geographical position to England, who named the region), has been a hot headline ever since the Trump administration authorized “preemptive strikes” on the country on Feb. 28 of this year. After over a month of intense airstrikes and a buildup of military personnel in West Asia, it is becoming harder to tell what exactly the administration’s goals are.
With conflicting narratives coming from the American-Iranian (sometimes referred to as Persian-American) diaspora and Iranians in the country, the true nature of the conflict is unclear.
First, it was because U.S. intelligence suggested that Iran would strike Israel (only if they were attacked first). Then, it was to initiate a regime change (following Mossad-backed protests in January that left anywhere between three thousand and thirty thousand dead). Then, it was to decapitate Iran's nuclear capabilities (which President Trump claimed the US did in the summer of 2025). Now, it has become a desperate effort to reopen the strait of Hormuz, that, since it's closure, has sent the cost of oil to well over $100 per barrel.
Two things are certain: the regime in Iran is guilty of crimes against humanity through its repeated suppression of political opposition, and the U.S. and Israel are breaching international law, while also committing human rights violations against their own populations.
Before we can pass judgment on whether or not the U.S. and Israel are justified in attacking a sovereign state, one must investigate the context.
How did we get here?
In 1951, Iran elected Mohammad Mossadegh to be the country’s prime minister under Mohammad Shah Pehlavi. An ardent nationalist, Mossadegh advocated for the redistribution of wealth from the Shah’s estate, fighting for social and labor reforms aimed at the peasantry of the country.
A flashpoint of his leadership occurred early when Mossadegh nationalized the nation’s oil reserves in 1951 — just 3 days after his appointment — effectively kicking the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) out of the country. A period of political instability caused by Mossadegh’s increasingly dictatorial tendencies caused fears of a coup, led by the Tudeh (Iran’s communist party), and worries over the oil supply in West Asia spurred the British and American governments into action. Once the British secured support of the Eisenhower administration in 1953, the CIA collaborated with the British intelligence agency, MI6, to begin Operation Ajax, which detailed a coordinated effort to convince the Shah to remove Mossadegh from power.
What followed was a period of intense political corruption at the hands of the Shah, backed by the suppression of political dissidents by his secret police force SAVAK — another CIA asset. Efforts to portray Iran as a beacon of modernity and a bulwark against communism in West Asia did not come without growing pains. Eleanore Raven-Hamilton, consular officer of the U.S. Embassy in Iran from 1975-1977, made the statement,
“Iran suggested to me… a façade of people at the top partying and people below struggling.”
Years of abuse at the hands of the Shah culminated in the Iranian revolution of 1979. The revolution gained support from all types of Iranians — from leftists to religious fundamentalists — and was led by Ayatollah Khomeini: a professor of philosophy before being exiled from the country in 1964 for speaking out against the Shah.
Demonstrations in 1978 highlighted the Shah’s failures to improve the lives of Iranians, as unemployment plagued the country. It was in 1979 that slanderous remarks about Khomeini prompted religious students to take to the streets. Fatalities in the demonstrations paved the way for the establishment of an Islamic republic under Khomeini as the Shi'i muslim majority praised the martyrs.
Following the establishment of the republic, Khomeini spearheaded efforts to minimize western influence in the country, leading to a mass exodus of western elites and the suppression of left-wing groups like the aforementioned Tudeh communist party.
Soon after in 1985, the Reagan administration attempted to negotiate for the release of hostages, held by Lebanese nationals loyal to Iran, by selling the new republic weapons for use against Iraq. This policy failed, and only emboldened Iran which soon led to the reveal of the Iran-Contras scandal — a coordinated effort by the Reagan administration to use funds from Iranian arms deals to fund the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua.
What does this all mean?
This all points to a history of foreign interference in Iran. A country that has been fighting since 1902 for their right to self-determination that has been constantly stifled in the name of “freedom” and “democracy.” If a country cannot determine their own future and maintain control over their own resources, how can western media outlets call them free? Does freedom depend on how friendly a country’s leader is to the U.S.? Does freedom persist when a democratically elected leader is overthrown for one that serves the business interests of the U.S.?
Now, the U.S. is trying to interfere once more and their goals are even more unclear. One day it is to secure freedom for the oppressed women of Iran, despite more than 50% of them participating in higher education. The next day it’s to destroy their nuclear capabilities (which are none) and remove the “world’s number one state sponsor of terrorism.”
Increasingly common is video game footage being passed off as footage of alleged military operations and using real war footage alongside video games to trivialize the gravity of the conflict. To combat misinformation, it is important to scrutinize footage and posts before taking everything as fact; AP News and Reuters are a couple of news sources that vet their information thoroughly before presenting it.
Additionally, ask yourself why you see such footage from unverified accounts; investigate where the account is posting from, and decide whether or not you can trust these sources. Most social media platforms feature an "about this account," feature that should give you information regarding account creation, verification status and country of origin, unless otherwise hidden by the account owner.
As of April 7, 2026, a ceasefire has been reached, but not before President Trump threatened to carry out aggressive attacks against civilian infrastructure by saying, “a whole civilization will die tonight.” Just hours before, Russia and China vetoed a Bahrain-led resolution at the UN to use “any means necessary” to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, where 20% of the world’s oil supply travels through. Leading up to the ceasefire, the U.S. air force conducted airstrikes against additional civilian infrastructure which constitutes a war crime under international law.
While it could be said that neither side is inherently “good,” it could also be said that this unchecked aggression against a sovereign nation cannot stand. These next few days will test the diplomatic strength of participating parties. As observers, it is our duty to combat the spread of misinformation by verifying all sources and utilizing the power of the first amendment to speak out and demand the truth.