USA vs Iran
Historical and Diplomatic Note: United States–Iran Relations from the 1979 Revolution to the 2026 Conflict
By
Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia
Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC
United Nations
Introduction
The relationship between the United States and Iran is one of the most complex stories in modern international diplomacy. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, the two countries have been locked in a prolonged cycle of tension, marked by ideological differences, strategic interests, and repeated failures in dialogue. The United States has often used the state of its relations with Iran to justify its actions toward that country. Each American president has adopted his own approach, with President Donald Trump being the one who pursued a more forceful policy from the beginning of his first term, particularly evident now as his current presidency has just completed its first year.
Nevertheless, successive administrations from President Carter to President Trump have encountered repeated setbacks. Many within the United States itself have viewed aggression against Iran as unlawful and a significant financial burden — reportedly costing approximately 500 million USD per day amid mounting economic challenges. This has been described by some as a “war for nothing,” one that failed to achieve its objectives and contributed to the erosion of American hegemony and strained relations with several Arab nations.
This paper seeks to present the historical background and recent developments in a neutral manner, based on factual historical records and reports from various sources, without favoring any party.
Historical Background: The 1979 Revolution and the Onset of Hostility
In November 1979, only months after the fall of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iranian militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 52 American citizens hostage for 444 days. This event marked the “opening act” of the new Islamic Republic of Iran toward the United States, leading to the formal severance of diplomatic relations in April 1980. Since then, neither country has maintained an embassy in the other’s territory, and communication has occurred through third parties (Switzerland representing U.S. interests in Iran, and Pakistan representing Iranian interests in the United States).
The United States had previously been a principal ally of the Shah for decades, including support for the 1953 coup that restored him to power. However, the 1979 revolution was fundamentally an internal Iranian movement driven by popular discontent with authoritarian rule, rapid Western-style modernization, and economic inequality. Historical records indicate that the Carter administration was surprised by the Shah’s downfall and failed to anticipate it. Claims that the United States “sponsored” the revolution lack substantive evidence; on the contrary, the revolution significantly undermined the U.S. strategic position in the Middle East during the Cold War.
Decline in Relations Since the 1980s and the Political Dynamics of U.S. Presidents
Bilateral relations deteriorated sharply from the early 1980s onward. Following the break in diplomatic ties, tensions persisted through economic sanctions, mutual accusations of interference, and indirect conflicts. Iran has frequently been a central focus of U.S. foreign policy.
With nearly every change in U.S. administration, Iran has remained a high-priority issue. Approaches to Iran have often reflected the political interests and priorities of each president and their party. Some presidents emphasized diplomacy and sanctions, while others adopted harder lines involving economic isolation or support for Iran’s regional adversaries. This pattern illustrates how the Iran issue has been integrated into U.S. domestic and international political strategies for more than four decades.
Among these presidents, only Donald Trump has pursued direct military action against Iran, both during his first term (including the 2020 assassination of General Qasem Soleimani) and in his current term. The large-scale military strikes in 2026 represent a significant escalation. Contributing factors include political considerations, the failure of prior nuclear negotiations, concerns over Iran’s missile and nuclear programs, and elements of President Trump’s personal leadership style, which tends to favor decisive action.
The 2026 Conflict: Escalation and Efforts to End It
On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched a series of military strikes against targets in Iran. The action was driven by long-standing concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, Iran’s support for armed groups in the region, and the collapse of previous indirect negotiations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu actively encouraged the operation, while President Trump stated that the primary objectives were to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to ensure the security of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
The conflict lasted more than 40 days, resulting in loss of life, damage to infrastructure, and global economic repercussions, including disruptions to energy supplies. Following this intense period, on 7–8 April 2026, both sides agreed to a temporary two-week ceasefire, mediated by Pakistan. The agreement included the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic and space for further negotiations. This ceasefire was not the result of unilateral surrender by either party, but rather a pause for diplomacy amid losses experienced by both sides.
Direct talks held in Islamabad, Pakistan (11–12 April 2026) — the first of their kind in over a decade — lasted 21 hours but did not yield a final agreement. Key differences centered on the level of uranium enrichment, missile programs, support for proxy groups, sanctions relief, and security guarantees. As of mid-April 2026, both parties were considering an extension of the ceasefire to allow continued technical negotiations. The United States maintained a blockade of Iranian ports as leverage, while Iran emphasized the need for a fair and permanent agreement.
Peace Is Better Than War
After more than 40 days of escalation, the conflict demonstrated that Iran cannot be underestimated by the United States or Israel. Iran mounted significant resistance and retaliation, both directly against Israel and against targets in Gulf countries that served as bases for U.S. operations, including military facilities in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. Iranian counterstrikes involving hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles caused damage to military, energy, and civilian infrastructure in the region.
The escalation resulted in substantial destruction in Israel and several Gulf states, including casualties, damage to energy facilities, ports, and military bases. These losses extended beyond the directly involved parties, affecting regional stability and the global economy. Should negotiations fail and the two-week ceasefire expire, Iran’s potential targeting could intensify against its primary adversaries and Gulf states perceived as hostile, whether through military action or provocative narratives. This could further exacerbate losses for many parties and prolong suffering among the peoples of the region.
Indonesia’s Role in Achieving Peace
Although Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia recognizes that Pakistan’s role in mediating peace talks between the United States and Iran is not new — having served as a diplomatic facilitator between the two countries since relations deteriorated in the 1980s through the protecting power mechanism — the Foundation continues to question Pakistan’s neutrality in this matter.
We therefore strongly support President Prabowo’s positive initiative, expressed at the earliest opportunity, to serve as a facilitator for peace talks between Iran and the United States/Israel. Pakistan is not as neutral as Indonesia, whose foreign policy is constitutionally grounded in the principles of independence and active engagement. Furthermore, Pakistan maintains official defense ties with Saudi Arabia, a kingdom that has yet to demonstrate full sincerity in its relations with Iran — whether diplomatically or through Islamic brotherhood — amid tensions rooted in Sunni-Shia ideological polarization.
Indonesia, with its long history of contributing to world peace — from the 1955 Asia-Africa Conference in Bandung, peace efforts in Afghanistan, and mediation in southern Philippines, among other initiatives — is well positioned to act as a highly neutral party. In light of this, Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia proposes that the President establish PRABOWO INITIATIVES as a more structured framework for peace diplomacy. As of the date of this writing, we remain confident that Indonesia can make a significant contribution to achieving a just and sustainable peace.
The Active Role of the United Nations
The United Nations (UN), as is customary, has consistently played an active role in maintaining world peace, particularly in addressing the deeply distressing conditions in the Middle East. This is evident in its numerous efforts and the series of resolutions it has adopted to ease tensions and protect civilians.
However, regardless of the UN’s actions, the primary obstacle is not the effectiveness of the resolutions themselves, but internal constraints requiring consensus among all member states — especially when seeking significant changes to the influence of the permanent members of the Security Council, who hold veto power. As an NGO with ties to the United Nations, Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia believes that the current escalation, which has severely disrupted Middle East geopolitics and directly affected the lives of people worldwide, provides an appropriate foundation and timely opportunity for UN member states to address the bargaining position of the Security Council. This is particularly relevant at a time when the United States has lost some of its absolute influence due to various factors, especially economic difficulties.
If not now, then when should the UN act? If it fails to do so, the United Nations will continue to be viewed by certain political actors as a “paper tiger” — to borrow President Trump’s phrase.
Lessons for Peace and Education
This conflict reminds us that wars rarely end in absolute victory for one side. The history of U.S.-Iran relations shows that tensions rooted in 1979 have often been managed through a combination of military/economic pressure and diplomatic channels. Both the United States and Iran have their own narratives and interests: the U.S. emphasizes the nuclear threat and regional stability, while Iran highlights sovereignty and the impact of sanctions on its people.
Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia believes that a balanced and factual understanding of history is essential for the younger generation. By studying these events without prejudice, we can appreciate the complexity of international relations and support the spirit of peaceful dialogue. True peace is not the result of surrender, but of compromise that protects the shared interests of humanity — including freedom of maritime navigation, global energy security, and the well-being of citizens in both countries.
The situation as of April 2026 remains fluid. This fragile ceasefire offers both hope and challenge for leaders to reach a sustainable agreement. May the ongoing diplomatic efforts bring stability to the Middle East and the wider world.
Hashtags
#PrabowoSubianto #AntonioGuterres #DonaldTrump #Iran #Pakistan #SaudiArabia #MajelisUlamaIndonesia
