Vice President Kamala Harris declared Iran America’s greatest adversary during an interview with CBS in October. By doing this, she hoped to attract those to the right of Donald Trump who are rhetorically hawkish towards Iran and treated Iran as a de facto enemy during President Trump’s first presidential term. The United States has treated Iran as a global rogue state ever since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Rather than evaluating the geopolitical blowback that has come with our treatment of this regional power, policymakers in Washington are quick to push the notion that Iran is irredeemable as a state, and acts out of hatred towards Israel and the United States. This conviction is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and Trump can change it.

Rather than observing Iran’s confrontational actions as uniquely evil, or based around hatred towards the West or Jews, President-elect Trump should view the conflict through a realist lens that acknowledges the consequences of US involvement in the region and accepts the rational geopolitical aims of most world leaders, with the Supreme Leader’s goal being the continued existence of his dynastic state amid pressures from terror groups, regional competitors, and Western influence. 

Iran’s animosity towards the United States predates even the Iranian revolution of 1979, going back to Western attempts at influence in the region shortly after World War I. The British and Russians split occupation during the war, and the British made a diplomatic and trade agreement with Iran in 1919. 

Reza Shah Pahlavi ruled the country from shortly after WWI until 1941. He was sympathetic to Nazi Germany both because he believed that they would win WWII, and because he too was a strong anti-communist. As Iran was sympathetic in action towards Germany, the British and Soviets invaded and occupied the country in 1941. After WWII ended, the official borders were drawn, but both powers maintained a level of influence in different parts of the country. 

Parliamentary elections in 1950 awarded Mohammad Mosaddegh the seat of Prime Minister. He was somewhat revolutionary, nationalizing Iranian-owned interests in British Petroleum and banning further Western investment in 1951. Mosaddegh, not giving into British economic pressure, was ousted in a CIA and MI6 coup in 1953. The country was then ruled by an American-supported autocrat until the revolution in 1979. 

Tensions were often high during American-backed rule. Leadership under the Shah was in action much friendlier to Western business interests, and many in the public were unsatisfied with their new government. Religious, student, and revolutionary groups protested in large numbers in 1978. The Shah attempted to handle the protestors through appeasement and crackdowns, but ultimately his attempts proved futile. 

In January 1979, Iranians revolted. Spurred by a hatred of Western involvement in the country, and support for spiritual leader Ruhollah Khomeini, the public overwhelmingly supported the institution of an Islamic Republic, which became official in March. American attempts to continue its puppet government ended after students overran the American embassy, taking over 50 hostages in November of that year. 

It was during the aftermath of this revolution that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, with the backing of Arab States, the Warsaw Pact, the United Kingdom, and eventually the United States. The war was brutal for Iran, as Hussein used chemical weapons on the Iranians, while Iran did not reciprocate. The war ended in 1988 after both sides accepted a UN-moderated truce. Estimates place Iran’s casualty count as high as 1 million. 

Supreme Leader Khomeini died in 1989, with his council naming Ali Khamenei the new Supreme Leader of Iran. Relations with the United States have been extremely tense since the revolution in 1979, with few instances of diplomatic normalization. The United States has worked hard to ensure that the Iranian faction in the Middle East does not gain regional dominance, instead preferring Israel and the Saudi-led coalition. 

Iran has reacted to American/Israeli/Sunni cooperation by funding proxies and allies throughout the region, including Houthis in Yemen, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iraq. The Houthi movement in Yemen is a strong ally of Iran, but not under the command of the Supreme Leader. The Houthi movement has been fighting for political domination in Yemen for decades, with the United States heavily supporting the Saudi-backed forces in the country. As for Syria, the secular Ba’ath party in power has a strategic relationship with Tehran. Israel, the United States, and Saudi Arabia have regularly opposed Assad’s government in Syria, including with jihadist rebel groups, some of which would form ISIS. Iran and Iraq have strong relations and historically worked together to oppose ISIS and other terror groups. They benefit heavily from high levels of trade and cooperation. 

Both Hezbollah and Hamas have historically existed to oppose Israel or its existence at some level. Hamas emerged from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood party in 1987. Hamas is a Sunni political party but has received much support from Iran to oppose Israel, as well as from Israel to counter the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Hezbollah was established in 1982 as to oppose Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, and exists to this day for that purpose. Iran and Hezbollah have strong ties and are collaborating in the current conflict with Israel. 

American interests in the Middle East exist because policymakers in Washington have chosen to become greatly entangled with powers there. The potential for a large-scale conflict with Iran would not exist had this not been the case. This can be seen when examining Iran’s attempts to work with the West and resist escalation. Iran largely held up to the terms of the JCPOA and resisted matching America’s escalation when President Trump assassinated general Qassem Soleimani without a declaration of war.

Instead of attempting to work with both sides, American policy-makers have been quick to ally with Turkey, Sunni states, Sunni rebel groups, and Israel over Iran and allies of Russia. Whether it is Al-Qaeda linked rebels in Syria, Kosovar Bin Ladenites, or the Saudis during their genocide in Yemen, Washington has no problem supporting problematic actors, as long as it is in the service of hampering Iran and Russia. Americans are told that these entangling alliances are formed to solve problems and keep the world safe, but they also ensure that security in the Middle East will remain forever relevant to the United States.

The West does not wish for Iran to have a nuclear program. That is understandable as more nuclear powers further complicate the world stage. However, it is noteworthy that Tehran’s nuclear program was first launched in the 1950s by America. If the United States had not so greatly meddled in Iranian politics, there likely wouldn’t be a serious nuclear program to speak of, and certainly not an Iranian revolution at the scale seen in 1979.

A reasonable deal between powers to discourage a nuclear program is achievable given the accomplishments of President Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This plan saw some Western sanctions on Iran ease, with Iran agreeing to restrain its nuclear development, and allowing for EU oversight. Iran largely complied with the agreement, and for a short time, Washington and Tehran reached new levels of diplomatic rapprochement.  

After a few years of effectiveness, President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal, and began a new path of aggression towards Iran, with President Biden being unable to return to normalization, and candidate Harris eager to continue with hostility. 

Approaching the situation with Iran must take more than declarations of opposition while ignoring any of Tehran’s regional concerns. The Saudis and Israelis indeed wish to shape the region according to their interests, and Washington enables this. Iran wishes for the same and works through the channels available. Pushed out of mutually beneficial deals, Iran has resorted to aggressive posturing and funding violent proxies. 

Today, Iran participates in anti-democratic acts, yet Washington is extremely hypocritical in condemning Iran while remaining close to Azerbaijan as it cleanses historic Artsakh and the repressive Saudi regime after it commits genocide in Yemen. Iran is not naturally America’s greatest, or most capable adversary (China might fit that bill) as Vice President Harris has said Iran has shown a willingness to be welcomed back into the global marketplace, and has shown restraint in its response to Israel’s regular instigations by primarily responding with symbolic missile attacks that are thus far unsuccessful or only meant for military targets. Tehran is also a regular bulwark against Islamic terror groups in the Mid-East, especially against ISIS. 

Opportunities for cooperation between Washington and Iran are abundant. Iran is a strong opponent of ISIS and other destabilizing groups. It has consistently displayed a willingness to return to a nuclear deal. It is clear however that Saudi and Israeli interests have previously clouded the judgment of American policymakers, thus making diplomatic normalcy difficult to achieve, but certainly possible. To avoid theocracies in the Middle East, the U.S. would have to give up most of its defense partnerships in the region. Perhaps that wouldn’t be such a bad thing. 

Aaron Sobczak is a foreign policy reporter for the Quincy Institute’s Responsible Statecraft and a contributor to the Mises Institute. His work can also be found at the Libertarian Institute. He received both his undergraduate and masters degrees in international relations from Liberty University.