19

Jan

Sanctions, Coups and Coercion: How External Interference Shaped Iran’s Present Unrest

image

Masood Abdali

New Delhi | Monday | 19 January 2026

To describe the recent public unrest in Iran as merely an internal disturbance or a short-term reaction to inflation is to ignore the long arc of history that has shaped the country’s political and economic reality. The turmoil did not erupt overnight, nor can it be explained only by currency depreciation or rising prices. Iran’s current predicament is the cumulative outcome of decades of foreign intervention, punitive sanctions, regional power rivalries, and sustained external pressure. Ironically, many of the powers that today issue statements in the name of the Iranian people are the same actors that, for over seven decades, have repeatedly intervened in Iran’s internal affairs and constrained its development.

The roots of this confrontation lie in the early 1950s, when Iran’s first democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, took the historic decision to nationalise the country’s oil industry in 1951. At that time, Iran’s vast hydrocarbon resources were controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a subsidiary of British Petroleum. Mossadegh’s move was a powerful assertion of national sovereignty, but it was unacceptable to London and Washington, who feared the loss of strategic and economic influence. The Cold War lens further distorted Western perceptions, with U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill convinced that Mossadegh was drifting toward the communist Tudeh Party.

In August 1953, the CIA and Britain’s MI6 orchestrated a covert coup—known as Operation Ajax in Washington and Operation Boot in London—that overthrew Mossadegh’s government. The intervention, though relatively bloodless, ended Iran’s brief democratic experiment and restored the Shah’s authority. This episode planted a deep and enduring mistrust of the West in Iranian political consciousness. It is noteworthy that similar tensions later emerged in countries such as Venezuela, where the nationalisation of oil resources also triggered sharp confrontation with the United States.

Article at a Glance
The article argues that Iran’s current unrest is rooted not only in domestic economic hardship but in decades of foreign intervention and sanctions. It traces tensions back to the 1953 CIA–MI6 overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalized Iran’s oil, creating lasting distrust of the West.
Continued hostility followed the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iran–Iraq war allegedly backed by the U.S. and its allies, and later the politicization of Iran’s nuclear programme. Although the 2015 JCPOA eased tensions, the U.S. withdrawal in 2018 and renewed sanctions severely damaged Iran’s economy, triggering inflation and public anger.
The author claims recent protests have been exploited by external powers, particularly Israel and the U.S., and concludes that sanctions and interference have deepened instability rather than promoting peace.

The Shah’s rule, sustained by Western backing, failed to secure popular legitimacy. Widespread discontent culminated in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which forced the monarch into exile despite strong U.S. support. The establishment of the Islamic Republic transformed U.S.–Iran relations from uneasy partnership into open hostility. From Tehran’s perspective, this antagonism soon took a military form when Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, invaded Iran in September 1980. The eight-year war devastated Iran’s economy and society, costing hundreds of thousands of lives. Iran has long maintained that the attack enjoyed tacit U.S. encouragement, while Washington’s regional allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, provided Iraq with massive financial assistance to contain Iranian influence.

Iran’s nuclear programme, now at the centre of international controversy, did not begin as a secret or subversive project. It was launched in the 1950s with American cooperation under President Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” initiative. Over time, however, the same programme came to be portrayed as an existential threat, and by the early 2000s, sweeping sanctions were imposed. These measures progressively isolated Iran from global financial systems and energy markets, inflicting severe damage on its economy.

After years of pressure, Tehran agreed to negotiations, leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in July 2015. The agreement, concluded between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, and endorsed by the European Union, was hailed as a landmark diplomatic achievement. Under its terms, Iran accepted strict limits on its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. The deal was approved by large majorities in the U.S. Congress and welcomed by the United Nations, though Israel remained a vocal critic.

This fragile diplomatic equilibrium was shattered in May 2018 when President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA and reinstated severe sanctions. The economic consequences were immediate and profound: oil exports collapsed, the currency depreciated sharply, inflation surged, and living standards deteriorated. It is this sustained economic squeeze that forms the backdrop to today’s public anger and unrest.

Initial protests were driven largely by economic grievances. However, overt expressions of support from leaders in the United States and Israel transformed their political meaning, allowing Iranian authorities to portray them as part of a broader campaign to destabilise the state. Tehran has accused Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, of orchestrating acts of sabotage, alleging that more than a hundred security personnel have been killed using drones, grenades and other sophisticated weapons. Former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has also claimed that Israeli operatives have played a role in organising anti-government activity. Whether or not all such allegations can be independently verified, they reinforce a long-standing Iranian perception that domestic unrest is being exploited by external powers.

What is beyond dispute is that sanctions have imposed immense hardship on ordinary Iranians. If the stated concern of Western governments is the welfare of the Iranian people, the most direct and effective step would be to ease or lift the economic restrictions that constrain their daily lives. Instead, inflammatory rhetoric and coercive measures have often deepened confrontation rather than encouraging stability or reform.

In an interconnected world, the destabilisation of one country rarely remains confined within its borders. The Middle East has repeatedly demonstrated that coercion and isolation generate long-term insecurity, not sustainable peace. Iran’s history suggests that coups, wars and sanctions have not resolved disputes; they have entrenched mistrust and prolonged suffering. If global stability is the objective, the lesson is clear: extinguishing the flames of conflict requires diplomacy and economic engagement, not the perpetual application of pressure that risks turning domestic discontent into enduring regional turmoil.

**************

  • Share:

About Us

We must explain to you how all seds this mistakens idea off denouncing pleasures and praising pain was born and I will give you a completed accounts..

Contact Us

Contact Info

  • 70, Gyan Khand- 4, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh.
  • +91-9810533682
  • info@mediamap.co.in
  • Week Days: 09.00 to 18.00 Sunday: Closed