Tired of waiting for political inclusion, radical Iranian dissenters become politicized in the last decade of the shah rule. Some intellectuals decried the “Westernitis” of Iran and embraced instead a mixture of ideologies. The United States tried to engage Iran’s dissenting thinkers, but it did not make much headway. Instead, Americans dealt with Iran on two fronts: an elite diplomatic level and rebellious non-elite ties. The two sides viewed Iranian politics differently but shared a misunderstanding of the country’s dissidents. The youth found itself caught in the middle. Some cherished their newfound social liberties but felt constrained by domestic politics. The shah hurt his international image by spending money on lavish vacations and state functions that eroded his popularity. The inability to address growing economic problems fueled the opposition.

Iran’s simultaneous relations with Israel and the Arab world left it in a precarious position. After World War II, Iran had to adapt to the shifting power plays in a politically charged Middle East. The thirty years between 1945 and 1975 witnessed the waning of Iran’s influence in the Persian Gulf and the rise of Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. During much of the Nasser era, until Egypt’s defeat in 1967, Iran’s relationship with Egypt remained tense. Fervent Arab nationalist ideologies identified the shah’s Iran as a state aligned firmly with America and the West. Iran’s support for Israel became a frequent negative target of the Arab press. In the Persian Gulf, however, Iran did not see eye to eye with America or Britain and tried to forge a separate path with Saudi Arabia and the newly configured countries of the region. Iran had to tread gingerly to maintain amicable relations with its neighbors. In the end Iran could only adequately safeguard its security as its regional isolation became a new reality.

War came to Iran despite its declared neutrality. Ottoman and Russian forces attacked or occupied the northern regions, while Britain expanded its control in the south. The young king, Ahmad Shah, was ill-equipped to rule as rival political leaders emerged. American missionaries documented the devastation of war as Iran suffered from famine and the influenza epidemic. The conclusion of World War I did not bring much support to Iran as its concerns were rebuffed at the Congress of Versailles. A coup brought political change and the end of Qajar rule. The military commander Reza Khan positioned himself as the new leader of Iran, even after the political defeat of the republican movement. Tribal disarmament and state control followed the end of war and the rise of a new monarchy. After the war America considered new opportunities for involvement in Iran.

In 1941, Iran watched its neutrality violated as Allied forces launched an amphibious attack on its borders. The invasion was described as a justified and necessary incursion on a country accused of harboring a German fifth column and of accommodating a small community of Italian and Japanese nationals. The offensive also proved the most efficient way of opening and controlling supply lines to the Soviet Union. America also deployed a large contingent of troops and several advisers. While Iran remained a hub of espionage during the war, the impact of the occupation had a serious impact on the daily lives of Iranians, who grappled with food shortages, imposing foreign soldiers in their communities, and a typhus epidemic. Iran emerged as a relatively small, but vital, player in the international conflict. However, it suffered tremendously, as the war generated domestic instability and unrest.

America and Iran weathered together two centuries of thorny international politics. Often allies in a troubled Middle East, their cooperation enabled some social progress despite glaring missteps. Whatever surprises the region’s capricious politics brings, history has shown that US–Iranian collaboration offers more benefits than harm. “Iran” and “America” want to live on as beacons of humanism – neither as heroes nor hostages. Haunted by history, they each fight for their legacies. America tackles anew the vestiges of its racist institutions, while Iran pushes back on authoritarianism and intolerance. Their peoples hope for a free and tolerant future.

America expanded trade and cultural relations as it faced foreign competition from the entrenched powers in Iran, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company maintained its strong economic control over Iran. Despite these limitations, the Pahlavi state centralized and engaged in nation-building. However, it imposed political restrictions and censorship that privately concerned American diplomats. Iran embarked on an immense project to build a national railway system, which it inaugurated just before another global war. The repression of political dissent, particularly religious or socialist viewpoints, raised concerns about Reza Shah’s style of leadership. Some Iranian intellectuals gravitated toward intolerant ideologies that clashed with the country’s legacy of religious and ethnic accommodation.

After World War II, the new king, Mohammad Reza Shah, faced a country in crisis. He took his first trip to the United States and was greeted warmly by the American public. Upon his return, however, he had to confront the rising tide of dissent, from Communists to Islamists. It was in this context that Iran pursued a bill to nationalize its oil industry. America tried to serve as mediator between Britain and Iran, but it ended up on the wrong side of the dispute. A coup removed Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq from power and tarnished the shah’s rule, and America’s image, thereafter.

A series of events fueled the protests against the shah’s regime. The burning of Cinema Rex and the Black Friday riots mobilized large swaths of the Iranian public against the king. Religious groups operated through their networks to protest the Pahlavi state. The shah’s government went through a rapid succession of prime ministers, as Ayatollah Khomeini became anointed as the leader of the opposition, which included many different political groups. The revolution came crashing in. Within months, Islamic policies reversed decades of Pahlavi secular reforms as women were forced to reveil. The regime promptly executed Pahlavi diehards and political activists who embraced different ideologies. An Islamic Republic took shape and punished America for its ties to the shah by taking US diplomats as hostages. Meanwhile, Iraq seized on this moment of domestic turmoil to launch a devastating war against Iran. That island of stability became a harbor of volatility.

As Iran and the shah adjusted to life after the coup, the monarch tried to solidify his ties to the United States. This entailed military support from America and Iran’s renewed commitment to the US side in the Cold War. Iran created an internal security force, SAVAK, trained in part by America. The shah clamped down on Communist activities and confronted rising Islamic dissent with violence. At the same, the Shah pursued social programs and launched the White Revolution, which America supported. However, its platform, especially women’s suffrage and land reform, triggered widespread opposition. Ayatollah Khomeini emerged as the leader of Islamist dissent in 1963 and was eventually exiled. America and Iran had to brace themselves for the fallout of these events.

The literary and diplomatic overtures between America and Iran expanded throughout the nineteenth century. As American missionaries explored Iran, American writers and diplomats wrote about Persian literature and traveled to the country to assess its commercial potential. Persian Studies emerged as American scholars became involved in recovering Persian antiquity. For its part, Iran and the king, Nasser al-Din Shah, expressed captivation with the West and undertook glamorous trips to Europe. Other Iranians also started to write more about Western society, and specifically about America as a successful nation and empire. Finally, Persia was featured in American Orientalist adventures such as the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893.

In addition to ensuring its military and security protection through the IRGC and the Basij, the Islamic Republic employs a number of other institutional means to protect itself from un-Islamic influences, potential opponents in society, and the possibility of systematic problems and internal obstacles. Of these latter group of institutions, three stand out for their compound effects in helping the system maintain itself. They are the Guardian Council, the Expediency Council, and the judiciary. Each institution in its own way contributes significantly to maintaining the system. The Guardian Council performs a pivotal gatekeeping function by ensuring that only the legislation it approves becomes the law of the land, and only the candidates it vets get a chance at holding elected office. When the Guardian Council and the Majles reach a deadlock over legislation, the Expediency Council is meant to determine what is in the ultimate interest of the system so that its overall performance is not undermined. And, the judicial branch protects the system from political opponents and sees to the Islamization of Iranian society. The Islamic Republic system, in short, has devised a number of institutional means to guarantee its long-term resilience.