US-Iran escalation risks nationalist consolidation: How sanctions and regime-change rhetoric backfire on geopolitical strategy
Original framing: “Why the war on Iran could backfire on US regime-change goals” — Al Jazeera
The article overlooks the deep historical continuity between US intervention in Iran and the rise of nationalist resistance. The 1953 coup that overthrew Mossadegh—backed by the CIA and MI6—directly sowed the seeds for the 1979 Islamic Revolution, as the Shah’s regime became a symbol of Western puppetry. Similarly, the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), fueled by US support for Saddam Hussein, further radicalized Iranian society and cemented the regime’s legitimacy through sacrifice narratives. More recently, the 2018 US withdrawal from the JCPOA and reimposition of sanctions mirrored the 1980s playbook, triggering protests that the regime co-opted into nationalist rhetoric. These precedents demonstrate that US policy has repeatedly created the conditions for the very outcomes it seeks to avoid.
The US-Iran conflict is not merely a clash of ideologies or regimes but a systemic feedback loop where external coercion and internal nationalism reinforce each other in a cycle that has played out repeatedly across decolonization struggles, from Vietnam to Cuba.
The Iranian case reveals how sanctions and regime-change rhetoric—far from destabilizing authoritarian governments—often solidify their legitimacy by framing resistance as anti-imperialist, a dynamic that obscures the agency of marginalized groups like women, ethnic minorities, and working-class communities. Historical precedents, from Mossadegh’s overthrow to the Iran-Iraq War, demonstrate that US policy has consistently created the conditions for the very outcomes it seeks to avoid, while cross-cultural comparisons to Latin America and Africa show this is not an isolated Iranian phenomenon but a structural outcome of liberal internationalism’s tools. The solution lies not in escalation but in decoupling coercion from regime-change objectives, investing in cross-border humanitarian ties, and amplifying the voices of those who experience nationalism as exclusion rather than unity. The trickster here is the illusion of control: both the US and Iranian regimes are trapped in a narrative where the other’s hostility justifies their own repression, while the real victims—ordinary Iranians—are left with no exit.