Precipitated by Israel’s deadly bombing operations that have killed top military commanders and nuclear scientists, the U.S. is poised to attack Iran as part of a long-held goal of orchestrating a regime change there.
The U.S government appears to want to install as Iran’s new leader Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of the Shah of Iran, who has called for an uprising against Iran’s Islamist government, which took power in a 1979 revolution against the Shah.
Pahlavi wrote on X: “The Islamic Republic has reached its end and is in the process of collapsing. Khamenei, like a frightened rat, has gone into hiding underground and has lost control of the situation.”
Since the 1979 Iranian revolution, the U.S. has been intent on destabilizing and overthrowing the Iranian government in an attempt to restore the Shah and his family to power. From 1953 to 1979, the Shah functioned as a U.S. proxy that gave favorable concessions to U.S. oil companies.
Ayatollah Khomeini, who spearheaded the revolution against the Shah, called America “the great Satan.” These remarks did not come out of any innate hatred for the U.S. or out of a vacuum but were, rather, rooted in Iran’s victimization at the hands of U.S. imperialism.
The recent history of U.S.-Iran relations is indeed a disgraceful one. While the Western press attempts to portray Iran as some type of fanatical and dangerous state that needs to be brought to heel by the U.S., the reverse is actually true.
The 1953 Regime Change and Its Aftermath
U.S. intervention began in earnest in the early 1950s when the CIA, upon the urging of the United Kingdom, overthrew the democratic and secular government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Mossadegh’s great sin was his nationalization of British oil companies, which had controlled and profited from Iran’s vast petroleum reserves since the beginning of the 20th century.
In Mosaddegh’s stead, the U.S. installed the Shah, a monarch.
In order to maintain its control over Iran after the 1953 coup, the CIA helped set up the murderous SAVAK, which helped the Shah rule Iran with an iron hand. The CIA trained the SAVAK in Nazi torture techniques which the CIA in turn had learned from the Nazis the U.S. helped rescue from Germany after the war and used to build the U.S.’s modern military and intelligence infrastructure.
In 1979, the Shah was finally overthrown in a popular revolution led by both leftist and Islamic groups which had organized for years to rid Iran of its murderous monarchy. In the end, the Islamists, who were able to successfully organize within the mosques, became ascendent and established what came to be known as the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The new government was given little time to breathe and, within a short period of time, the U.S. and other Western powers prevailed upon Iraq, then under the leadership of CIA asset Saddam Hussein, to attack Iran in an attempt to overthrow the revolutionary government and reinstall the monarchy. What followed was an eight-year war which would cost a total of one million lives and untold destruction.
Of course, while the Reagan administration was arming Saddam’s forces against Iran, it also began to arm Iran simultaneously, selling arms to Iran in order to illegally fund the Nicaraguan Contras after the U.S. Congress, disgusted with the Contras’ terrorist tactics, cut off their financial support.
The Reagan administration, in a cynical move, was quite happy to see Iraq and Iran destroy each other. And, of course, shortly after the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988, Reagan’s successor, George H. W. Bush, would attack Iraq in the first Gulf War; Bush Jr. would attack it again in 2003, finally dealing a death blow to the Baathist government of Saddam Hussein.
If Reagan’s Iran-Contra strategy were not insane and Machiavellian enough, it is worth remembering the roots of this strategy—that is, Reagan’s coming to power largely thanks to his “October Surprise” of working with sectors of the CIA to make a deal with the new leadership in Iran after the Islamic Revolution to delay the American hostages being held by Iran through the 1980 election and presidential inauguration so that his opponent, Jimmy Carter, would not benefit from their release prior to the election.
9/11 and the War on Terror
After the 9/11 attacks—which George W. Bush used to justify his war against Iraq despite the fact that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a mortal enemy of al-Qaeda—Iran, also an enemy of al-Qaeda, lent a hand to Bush in the War on Terror.
Naively, Iran believed that its help in this effort, which included assistance in overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan and setting up a new government, could lead to a general rapprochement with the United States. However, this was never meant to be. Thus, while Iran sent a letter to the White House offering to discuss the possibility of a “Grand Bargain” to settle all issues of contention between the U.S. and Iran, silence was the rude reply.
In short, after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the U.S. government has never wanted peace with Iran; it has only wanted and intended another overthrow.
Indeed, as we know from General Wesley Clark, the U.S. decided just after the 9/11 attacks to overthrow seven different countries, including Iran, even as it was accepting Iran’s help in the War on Terror. And after overthrowing the Sunni-led Baathist government in Iraq in 2003—a move which was universally viewed as empowering Shia-led Iran, given that it helped bring the Shia majority in Iraq to power—the U.S. became even more set on regime change.
Using the Specter of Nuclear Weapons As a Pretext
The pretext that the U.S., with the connivance of Israel, seized upon to overthrow the government in Iran has been the oft-repeated, but false, claim that Iran is seeking to build a nuclear weapon. Of course, the elephant in the living room is that it is Israel itself which is the only country in West Asia which possesses nuclear weapons—weapons that it refuses to even acknowledge the existence of in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And, the U.S. government is complicit in denying the existence of Israel’s nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, despite the claims of Israel and at least some in the U.S. government, including President Donald Trump, that Iran is in the process of trying to develop a nuclear weapon and that it is on the verge of doing so, U.S. intelligence has consistently over the years debunked these claims.
Indeed, CNN reported on June 17, 2025, that U.S. intelligence has recently affirmed that Iran is still years away from even being able to develop a nuclear weapon. And this makes sense, because Iran’s two successive Supreme Leaders have issued Fatwas (religious decrees) against the creation, maintenance and use of nuclear weapons as being against Islam and the will of God.
But these facts have not stopped successive U.S. administrations from using the nuclear-weapons canard as a bludgeon against Iran, using false claims about Iran’s development of nuclear weapons to justify both brutal economic sanctions and the threat of military attack.
President Trump’s conduct in this regard is especially bizarre in that it was he, during his first term in office, who tore up a nuclear deal reached between President Barack Obama and Iran—a deal which forbade Iran from developing nuclear weapons and which Iran was abiding by—and it is now Trump who is justifying Israel’s pre-emptive military attack on Iran on the basis that Iran will not now sign on to a similar agreement.
Moreover, Trump ensured that Iran would not sign on to such a deal by first saying that Iran would be permitted under such a deal to continue enriching uranium for peaceful purposes of energy development, only to abruptly reverse course by insisting that Iran could not have any nuclear program at all and would have to maintain zero enrichment of nuclear materials. In short, Trump has purposefully made Iran an offer it had to refuse, and he has done so to lay the groundwork for military action.
Military action has come, as we now witness. While the Trump administration at first tried to claim that Israel was acting unilaterally in pre-emptively attacking Iran, Trump then acknowledged that the U.S. knew of Israel’s intentions and is in fact providing assistance in its attacks.
As The New York Times explains, “[t]he administration at first distanced itself from the strikes, then grew more publicly supportive as Israel’s initial military success became evident. Now Mr. Trump is seriously considering sending American aircraft in to help refuel Israeli combat jets and to try to take out Iran’s deep-underground nuclear site at Fordow with 30,000-pound bombs.”
Meanwhile, as the Times also makes clear, Trump has been aiding Israel with its attacks from the very beginning with intelligence support and by “turning up the pressure on Tehran to give immediate concessions at the negotiating table or face continued military onslaught.”
In addition, as the Associated Press reports, the U.S. military has played a crucial role from the beginning of the hostilities in utilizing “American air defense systems and a Navy destroyer” in helping “Israel shoot down incoming ballistic missiles…that Tehran launched in response to Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and top military leaders….”
As the days have gone by, Trump has taken more and more ownership of the war against Iran, declaring on X that “We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn’t compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured ‘stuff.’ Nobody does it better that the good ol’ USA.” Trump then followed this up with a tweet stating that “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ [of Iran] is hiding,” and may kill him if U.S. assets or personnel are attacked. Quite ominously, Trump then demanded “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” of Iran.
In short, the U.S. is already deeply involved in the assault on Iran after setting up military action through its sham negotiations over a nuclear bomb which Iran has made clear it has never wanted. And, lest one believe that the discussion above about the U.S.’s installation of the Shah of Iran in 1953 is somehow a matter of historical trivia, we now see the son of the Shah emerge to support the strikes against his own country, clearly in the hope that his monarchy will again take power in Iran with the help of the United States.
Indeed, lest there be any doubt about these intentions, Reza Pahlavi has just been given a supportive platform on Bloomberg, discussing how he is leading a “campaign” of regime change in Iran. And so, it may be that the U.S., despite its incessant claims of supporting democracy, will be successful again in restoring the monarchy of Iran.
CovertAction Magazine is made possible by subscriptions, orders and donations from readers like you.
Blow the Whistle on U.S. Imperialism
Click the whistle and donate
When you donate to CovertAction Magazine, you are supporting investigative journalism. Your contributions go directly to supporting the development, production, editing, and dissemination of the Magazine.
CovertAction Magazine does not receive corporate or government sponsorship. Yet, we hold a steadfast commitment to providing compensation for writers, editorial and technical support. Your support helps facilitate this compensation as well as increase the caliber of this work.
Please make a donation by clicking on the donate logo above and enter the amount and your credit or debit card information.
CovertAction Institute, Inc. (CAI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and your gift is tax-deductible for federal income purposes. CAI’s tax-exempt ID number is 87-2461683.
We sincerely thank you for your support.
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the author(s). CovertAction Institute, Inc. (CAI), including its Board of Directors (BD), Editorial Board (EB), Advisory Board (AB), staff, volunteers and its projects (including CovertAction Magazine) are not responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. This article also does not necessarily represent the views the BD, the EB, the AB, staff, volunteers, or any members of its projects.
Differing viewpoints: CAM publishes articles with differing viewpoints in an effort to nurture vibrant debate and thoughtful critical analysis. Feel free to comment on the articles in the comment section and/or send your letters to the Editors, which we will publish in the Letters column.
Copyrighted Material: This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a not-for-profit charitable organization incorporated in the State of New York, we are making such material available in an effort to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School.
Republishing: CovertAction Magazine (CAM) grants permission to cross-post CAM articles on not-for-profit community internet sites as long as the source is acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original CovertAction Magazine article. Also, kindly let us know at info@CovertActionMagazine.com. For publication of CAM articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: info@CovertActionMagazine.com.
By using this site, you agree to these terms above.
About the Author
Daniel Kovalik graduated from Columbia University School of Law in 1993. He then served as in-house counsel for the United Steelworkers, AFL-CIO (USW) until 2019.
While with the USW, he worked on Alien Tort Claims Act cases against The Coca-Cola Company, Drummond and Occidental Petroleum—cases arising out of egregious human rights abuses in Colombia.
The Christian Science Monitor, referring to his work defending Colombian unionists under threat of assassination, described Mr. Kovalik as “one of the most prominent defenders of Colombian workers in the United States.”
Mr. Kovalik received the David W. Mills Mentoring Fellowship from Stanford University School of Law and was the recipient of the Project Censored Award for his article exposing the unprecedented killing of trade unionists in Colombia.
He has written extensively on the issue of international human rights and U.S. foreign policy for the Huffington Post and Counterpunch and has lectured throughout the world on these subjects. He is the author of several books including The Plot To Overthrow Venezuela, How The US Is Orchestrating a Coup for Oil, which includes a Foreword by Oliver Stone.
Daniel can be reached at dkovalik@outlook.com.
Two quotes from this article:
“Since the 1979 Iranian revolution, the U.S. has been intent on destabilizing and overthrowing the Iranian government in an attempt to restore the Shah and his family to power.”
“In 1979, the Shah was finally overthrown in a popular revolution led by both leftist and Islamic groups which had organized for years to rid Iran of its murderous monarchy.”
The above two quotes are 100% CIA propaganda. Flat-out lies. The Shah was deposed by a concerted operation by Western intelligence agencies (CIA, MI6), western media (the BBC, CBS), and British Petroleum. Once signal was given, the Shah was suddenly—almost overnight—the target of a concerted media blitz, a barrage of character assassination—exaggerations and outright lies. The Shah’s secret police, the SAVAK was infiltrated by Mossad agents. Overnight, the Shah was suddenly portrayed as the world’s most brutal, repressive dictator, meanwhile the US was cozy in bed with far more brutal and repressive regimes, such as Saudi Arabia a where you could be beheaded for possessing a Bible.
The Shah was forced out, and Western intelligence agents flew the Ayatollah Khomeini into Tehran on a French jet, and set him up in power. The Ayatollah was the desired, tailor-made “bogeyman.” As astutely summarized by Studien von Zeitfragen in 2009 (excerpts):
“We now know that the idea of deposing the Shah was broached continually, from the mid-seventies on, in the National Security Council in Washington, by Henry Kissinger…”
“…but what did the Americans have against [the Shah] really? …his country’s rapid rise to power, his proposal to de-nuclearise the region – which was anathema to Israel – and his plan for a security-pact linking the countries with coasts on the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, which would allow them to tackle common problems, themselves.”
“Then there were the big oil-multinationals, who would not forgive him for the role he played in raising OPEC against them, and in which he had the support of King Feisal of Saudi Arabia – another modernising sovereign, and one who was assassinated, in 1975, in circumstances, which are still unclear.”
“[Jordan’s King Hussein told the Shah in autumn 1978] ‘..what the Americans are doing in Iran is what they tried to do to me, five years ago [Black September 1973].
“On 6th January 1979, at Guadeloupe…Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Jimmy Carter, Helmut Schmidt, James Callaghan sealed the fate of Iran.”
“An urgent mission was then assigned to General Huyser, the American deputy-Commander-in-Chief of NATO, to speed up the Sovereign’s exit.” “Huyser met all the revolutionary leaders at least three times. One of these meetings lasted ten hours.”
“Now, it has all come out – from the statements of numerous witnesses – that Huyser was ‘advising’, in the name of the .. western powers, the formation of a…government inspired by Islam…”
“Huyser stayed in Iran for several days…even participated…in…the welcoming, of Khomeyni to Teheran. Under these conditions, the dismissal of General Alexander Haig, the Commander-in-Chief of NATO – and therefore Huyser’s superior officer – for objecting to his deputy’s being assigned this mission, passed almost unnoticed. Reagan’s future Secretary of State was indeed hostile to the idea of lending any American, or western, support to the Iranian revolution.”
Kovalik further contorts the truth regarding the Iran-Iraq War. The entire reason that the West deposed the Shah was to destabilize the Mideast and initiate ever-expanding, perpetual war, beginning **with** the Iran-Iraq War. The West covertly sold arms to both sides in that war; the weapons were covertly funneled through Kuwait. Hillary Clinton and George H.W. Bush sat on the board of American Lafarge, the US subsidiary of a company that sold chemical weapons precursor chemicals to Saddam. The now-famous photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam (on December 20, 1983, btw) was likely Rumsfeld closing a sale. Henry Kissinger called Rumsfeld “the most ruthless man I have known.” Which is quite an endorsement. But to make the Iran-Iraq War possible, they had to first remove the Shah. The Shah was a force for peace, stability and progress in the Mideast, which was anathema to Washington.
Ayatollahs have always been pawns of the West. Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA man on the ground in Iran in ’53, also used Ayatollahs in the ’53 operation. Installation of the Shah was relatively easy because the Shah already had massive popular support in Iran. All Kermit had to do was grease a few palms. He did such a good job in Iran in ’53 that Allen Dulles ordered Kermit to spearhead the CIA’s planned coup in Guatemala. Kermit Roosevelt **heroically** refused, essentially telling Dulles to pound sand up his ass. Because he knew that the Guatemalan coup was not supported by the people, would require bloodshed, and Dulles’s proposed proxy had absolutely no popular backing in Guatemala. And the uatemalan coup (without Kermit) was indeed bloody, becoming the prototype for what would later come to be called the “Salvador Option” due to CIA’s re-use of the tactic in El Salvador and other Central American countries. In Guatemala 200,000 people died; in El Salvador, the tactics included raping and murdering Catholic nuns, and murdering (or “disappearing”) outspoken dissidents. Likewise, the Phoenix Program used by the CIA in Southeast Asia. The Salvador Option was supervised by John Negroponte was to use the same tactic in post-US-invasion Iraq, to start sectarian wars between the Shia and Sunni. In 2011 the Salvador Option was exported to Libya; we know what followed. To export the Salvador Option to Syria, Robert S. Ford was appointed “ambassador” to Syria. Ford had been Negroponte’s protégé in Iraq, and served in “Arab Spring” ops in other Arab countries.
Kovalik is fully in a position to know the truth about events in 1979 and immediately thereafter. But he does not tell it.
I disapprove of almost everything Trump says or does, but having said that the majority of Iranians support regime change and there would a huge celebration of joy and happiness if the present regime was dismantled. For the most part human beings worldwide do not like Authoritarian regimes and yearn for democracy.
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202302036145