How the 1979 Revolution severed diplomatic relations and turned the US into Iran’s greatest enemy

The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have not maintained diplomatic relations since April 1980. The definitive break was the culmination of the Islamic Revolution of 1979, a popular and religious uprising that overthrew the pro-Western monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and established a Shiite theocracy commanded by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Today, the antagonism born in that historical episode dictates the geopolitics of the Middle East, reflected in the direct financing of paramilitary groups, the constant threat of blockade of commercial routes — such as the Strait of Hormuz — and in Tehran’s race to dominate the nuclear cycle amidst heavy economic sanctions from Washington.

Operation Ajax and the collapse of the Western project in the Middle East

The roots of anti-American sentiment in Iran predate the events of 1979 and go directly back to 1953. On that occasion, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the British Secret Service (MI6) orchestrated a coup d’état, which became known as Operation Ajax, to depose the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. The aim of the military and political intervention was to nullify the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, until then controlled by UK corporations.

With the fall of the prime minister, Western governments returned Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to absolute power. For the next two decades, Pahlavi promoted an accelerated process of structural modernization and militarization in the Asian country, but he ruled with an iron fist. The regime repressed political and religious opponents uninterruptedly through Savak, its violent secret police trained with the support of American agents. The brutality of the State, added to the profound social inequality, created fertile ground for the dissemination of the nationalist discourse of exiled clerics.

Ayatollah, hostage crisis and the consolidation of enmity

In January 1979, cornered by massive street protests and general strikes in the oil fields, the shah fled Iran. Weeks later, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from a 14-year exile in France to assume political and spiritual control of the nation, radically altering the form of government. The trigger for the formal and irreversible break with Washington occurred months later, when American President Jimmy Carter authorized Pahlavi’s entry into the United States for treatment of advanced cancer.

The dynamics of the rupture operated under the direct action of specific groups and leaders:

• University students and student militias: Operational agents of the attack on the diplomatic complex.
• Action of November 1979: Radicals stormed the US embassy in Tehran on the 4th of that month and took dozens of Americans hostage, demanding the immediate extradition of the monarch for civil trial.
• Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and theocratic leadership: Centralizing political summit of the new regime.
• Effect on the State: Khomeini publicly endorsed the kidnapping to marginalize moderate political factions and unify the grassroots in consolidating the anti-Western theocratic structure.
• Jimmy Carter and the American administration: Crisis managers in the Oval Office and creators of distancing.
• Response and retaliation: The White House ordered an immediate freeze on Iranian funds in the US and failed a military rescue operation, severing diplomatic ties completely in 1980.

The 52 diplomatic and military prisoners were only released after 444 days of captivity, on January 20, 1981, upon signing of the Algiers Accords. The release occurred chronometrically minutes after the inauguration of the new US president, Ronald Reagan, sanctifying the animosity between the nations.

Uranium enrichment and the undeclared war in the Gulf

The diplomatic vacuum opened at the end of the Cold War has evolved into an uninterrupted multidimensional confrontation. In the contemporary scenario, the absence of embassies has been replaced by constant hostile rhetoric, permanent technological sanctions, and violent proxy conflicts. Iran today acts as the main sponsor of the so-called “Axis of Resistance”, a multinational armed network that includes Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, using these fronts to undermine the military and diplomatic apparatus of Washington and Israel.

The evolution of the diplomatic dispute to date is concentrated on three highly unstable fronts:

1. The escalation of nuclear activity: Since the US unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, Tehran has abandoned limits on purifying radioactive material. Reports from 2026 indicate that Iran accumulates about 409 kg of uranium enriched to 60% — a technical purity capable of being quickly converted to the 90% required for the development of atomic weapons.
2. The strategic use of maritime routes: The geopolitical impact of friction is reflected in the global primary energy economy. Iran uses the presence of its fleet and coastal missiles to militarily threaten the Strait of Hormuz, a vital maritime corridor through which around 25% of the oil traded in the world transits daily.
3. A parallel diplomatic offensive: The severe American blockade suffocates the local production chain, putting pressure on the Iranian government to prepare periodic proposals for agreements through mediators in the Middle East, such as Oman. Tehran demands as a primary and non-negotiable condition the permanent removal of economic sanctions.

International law and the limitations of monitoring agencies

The absolute lack of direct bilateral relations transfers the burden of crisis containment to multilateral mechanisms. The United Nations (UN) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) function as the only independent technical bodies with formal authority to audit the operation of centrifuges and the safety of installations in Iran. The UN Security Council has the prerogatives to apply international punishments against nuclear proliferation, but Tehran’s legal apparatus repeatedly advocates the total legality of its activities, ensuring that they have strictly civil and medicinal purposes.

In practice, the coercive force of international law comes up against the veto architecture of nuclear powers and field restrictions. Without Tehran’s proactive cooperation, the nuclear surveillance agency faces repeated logistical obstacles to efficiently monitoring large underground complexes, weakening the transparency that the treaties seek to guarantee to the world.

The reconstruction of normal diplomatic channels between the White House and Tehran does not exist on the short or medium term strategic agenda. The balance of power created after the monarchical collapse of 1979 petrified the foreign policy of both states: for Iran’s ruling clerical core, systemic opposition to the American agenda operates as a vital instrument of ideological legitimation; for Washington, to nullify consolidated Iranian capabilities.