Front Burner – U.S. vs Iran: a decades-old fight

CBC | Host: Jamie Poisson | Guest: Nader Hashemi
Date: March 3, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode of Front Burner explores the complex, tension-filled relationship between Iran and the United States, tracing its roots from the 1953 CIA-backed coup, through revolution, war, and nuclear crises, up to the present day hostilities and lingering hopes for change. Host Jamie Poisson is joined by Dr. Nader Hashemi, director of the Al Waleed Center for Muslim Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, to unravel the history of coups, revolutions, proxy wars, sanctions, and shifting alliances that have defined U.S.-Iranian relations for over seven decades.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The 1953 Coup: Roots of Resentment

[01:58–03:30]

• The U.S. and Britain orchestrated a coup in Iran, overthrowing democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and reinstating the monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

• Motivation: Cold War concerns about Iran potentially aligning with the Soviet Union and control of Iranian oil resources.

• Quote:
  “This was the key issue that was at the top of the Iranian political and national agenda at the time.”
  — Nader Hashemi [03:24]

• Oil nationalization was seen as an act of self-determination and anti-colonialism, offending Western powers who felt entitled to Iran’s resources.

2. The Shah’s Modernization and Its Discontents

[05:28–09:37]

• The Shah, propped up by the West, launched rapid modernization—women’s suffrage, land reform, industry—and embodied a cosmopolitan, Westernized Iran.
• Hashemi emphasizes the cost: Modernization was top-down, benefiting elites while rural areas often lacked basic infrastructure.
• Quote:
  "It was modernization under the heavy hand of an increasingly repressive state... policies were imposed... without any societal input."
  — Nader Hashemi [06:49]
• The Shah’s legitimacy was deeply undermined by his association with foreign powers: “He always suffered from a crisis of legitimacy because people never forgot he came back to the throne because effectively the Americans put him there.” [08:50]

3. The 1979 Islamic Revolution and Khomeini’s Vision

[09:37–14:52]

• Widespread anger, protests, and a coalition of nationalists, leftists, and Islamists culminated in the Shah’s ouster.
• Ayatollah Khomeini presented an alternative: justice, independence from the West, and an Islamic republic—an abstract but alluring concept for many Iranians.
• Quotes:
  “Khomeini presented himself as a humble cleric […] willing to challenge the authoritarian repression of a very pro-Western and arrogant monarch.” — Nader Hashemi [10:57] “The key, most powerful sort of slogan at the time that captured the ideals of this revolution was freedom, independence and an Islamic republic.” — Nader Hashemi [11:50]

4. U.S. Hostility: The Hostage Crisis

[15:34–19:18]

• In 1979, revolutionaries stormed the U.S. embassy, holding staff hostage for 444 days—the Iranian Hostage Crisis.
• Historical context: The act reflected decades of anger at U.S.-backed dictatorship, not simply blind religious fanaticism.
• Quote:
  “They felt they were the ones held hostage for 25 years by this brutal dictatorship that was backed by the West... So when the revolution takes place, there's an incredible amount of anger and resentment, of course at the Shah, but and then especially at the United States.”
  — Nader Hashemi [17:10]

5. The “Great Satan” Rhetoric: Political, Not Theological

[19:18–22:25]

• The U.S. is branded the “Great Satan”—a powerful symbol of imperialism. Israel is referred to as “Little Satan.”
• Hashemi argues this is political, rooted in national humiliation and anti-imperial sentiment, not ancient religious dogma.
• Quote:
  “Often outsiders think that Iranian politics are irrational because they're driven by these theological politics... These are fundamentally political grievances.”
  — Nader Hashemi [19:39]
• Khomeini’s language echoed anti-imperialist rhetoric from nationalist and leftist movements worldwide.

6. The Iran-Iraq War: Trauma and Strategic Shifts

[22:25–26:05]

• Iraq invaded Iran in 1980; the West and Gulf Arab states backed Saddam Hussein, who used chemical weapons with relative impunity.
• This deepened Iranian paranoia of Western intentions and fostered a siege mentality among revolutionary leaders.
• Quote:
  “A critical part of this story that is forgotten in the West, but is very much remembered and commemorated in Iran is that in the early years of the war, Saddam Hussein starts to use chemical weapons...”
  — Nader Hashemi [24:33]

7. Proxy Warfare: IRGC and Regional Influence

[26:05–29:06]

• Outmatched conventionally, Iran doubled down on asymmetric warfare: supporting proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad.
• Hashemi’s analysis: These groups share grievances against Israel, Arab dictators, and the West; they are not mere “puppets.”
• Quote:
  “Iran… realizes it can't go to battle against the United States or Israel because of this deep asymmetry and power. So it develops a national defense strategy that's very much rooted in supporting these regional allies, or proxies, if you will...”
  — Nader Hashemi [26:47]
• Recent developments: With the fall of Assad and Israeli strikes, Hezbollah’s influence has waned, further weakening Iran’s position.

8. The Nuclear Issue: Deterrence, Diplomacy, Collapse

[30:02–34:34]

• Iran’s nuclear ambitions were, at first, a matter of energy and prestige under the Shah, with tacit U.S. approval.

• Post-revolution, the nuclear program became a hedge—deterrence against existential threats, especially after the Iran-Iraq War.

• International suspicions led to sanctions and negotiations, culminating in the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA), which was praised domestically and abroad.

• Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the deal reignited tensions, spurred uranium enrichment, and underpins the current crises.

• Quote:
  “Long story short, the key event is in 2015 where after Iran, suffering heavy sanctions by the west, agrees that its national interests are best preserved by effectively giving up its nuclear program... It comes to a crashing end when Donald Trump gets elected and he tears up that agreement.”
  — Nader Hashemi [32:36]

• Trump’s move is attributed to influence from Netanyahu, pro-Israel lobby groups, and domestic political motives.

• Quote:
  “I'm 100% sure he never read the agreement. He does it largely because I think he's encouraged by Netanyahu and by pro-Israel forces in the United States, but also Arab states in the region who are antagonistic toward Iran that, look, this agreement is not a good thing...”
  — Nader Hashemi [33:06]

9. Recent Escalations: October 7th and Beyond

[34:34–36:01]

• The 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, followed by Israel’s response—seen by many as genocidal—reshaped the strategic landscape.
• Now, Israel, with U.S. support, seeks to confront not just Hamas and Hezbollah but the Iranian regime itself.
• The Trump and Biden administrations’ divergence on Iran is discussed, with Trump’s hawkish advisers taking a more aggressive stance.

10. The Future: Could the Monarchy Return?

[36:01–39:10]

• Some U.S. and diaspora voices hope to reinstall Reza Pahlavi, son of the deposed Shah, as Iran’s leader.
• Hashemi believes this could only occur through foreign intervention (i.e., “on the back of an American or an Israeli tank”) as Pahlavi has little organic support inside Iran.
• Quote:
  “I certainly hope that Iran does not witness a moment where the monarchy is restored, because that would effectively mean going back politically... I strongly believe everything that I've seen and read by him, that if he does, it would not be a net gain for the prospects of democracy and human rights.”
  — Nader Hashemi [37:08, condensed]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the role of oil in the 1953 coup:
  “They had a view that the British and the Americans found very offensive, that the resources that lie under their feet should belong to the people of that nation, not to a foreign country.” — Nader Hashemi [04:20]

• On the top-down nature of the Shah’s modernization:
  “It was modernization under the heavy hand of an increasingly repressive state...” — Nader Hashemi [06:49]

• On Khomeini’s popular appeal:
  “He presents himself as a humble cleric who lived on a diet of yogurt and raisins.” — Nader Hashemi [10:57]

• On the meaning of “Islamic government” for Iranians in 1979:
  “Islamic government for many people in Iran simply meant an alternative to the pro-Western secular policies of the Shah.” — Nader Hashemi [13:09]

• On why the Iranian Hostage Crisis happened:
  “...not just the religious forces, the secularists and the nationalists had the same view — was a deep anger that they felt that effectively they were the ones who were held hostage for 25 years...” — Nader Hashemi [17:10]

• On the West’s silence over Saddam’s chemical weapons:
  “The West is relatively silent on this... they keep backing him because they view him as the lesser of the evil. And the Iranian regime is outraged over this.” — Nader Hashemi [24:56]

• On why the nuclear deal collapsed:
  “He does it, I think, for a couple of reasons ... I'm 100% sure he never read the agreement.” — Nader Hashemi [33:06]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 1953 coup and oil nationalization: [01:58–05:28]
• The Shah’s reign and modernization: [05:28–09:37]
• Revolution and rise of Khomeini: [09:37–14:52]
• Iranian Hostage Crisis: [15:34–19:18]
• “Great Satan” rhetoric explained: [19:18–22:25]
• Iran-Iraq War and Western support for Saddam: [22:25–26:05]
• Proxy strategy and rise of IRGC: [26:05–29:06]
• Nuclear program, the JCPOA, and Trump withdrawal: [30:02–34:34]
• Recent Middle East escalations: [34:34–36:01]
• Question of monarchic restoration/Reza Pahlavi: [36:01–39:10]

Conclusion

Hashemi and Poisson’s conversation provides deep, clear context for today’s US-Iran confrontation, tying current headlines to historical traumas, policy missteps, and ongoing battles over national dignity, sovereignty, and survival. Hashemi consistently argues that Iranian actions and anti-American sentiment have heavily political, not simply religious, roots and warns against simplistic, ahistorical explanations for this enduring conflict. The possibility of regime change or restoration of the monarchy, he suggests, is unlikely to advance real democracy or resolve the deep scars left by decades of intervention and repression.

A must-listen for understanding the roots and patterns of U.S.-Iran tensions, and the prospects—grim or hopeful—for a different future.