How history has shaped Iranians' psyche

Can one understand modern-day Afghanistan without learning about the two major wars imposed upon its people over the past five decades? Can one even begin to comprehend the Afghan psyche without recognising that they fought a 10-year war (1979–1989) against the Soviet Union, followed by a nearly 20-year conflict (2001–2021) against American forces? The short answer is: no. It is difficult to understand Afghans without acknowledging that they went toe-to-toe with two of the world's most powerful militaries and ultimately saw both withdraw from their country.

In a similar vein, one cannot hope to understand the people of Afghanistan's neighbour - Iran— without recognising that, since 1901, they have had to contend with persistent interference from foreign powers, particularly Britain and the United States. Their collective psyche has, in many ways, been shaped by a long history of interference, mistrust and missed opportunities.

Over the past century and a quarter, many Iranians have come to believe that outside powers repeatedly treated their country as a strategic prize rather than a sovereign nation. This perception, reinforced over generations, explains much of the bitterness that has come to define Iran's relationship with the West.

The roots of this problem go back to the Qajar era, when the country - then known as Persia - was under monarchical rule (the name Iran was officially adopted in 1935). In 1901, Mozaffar ad-Din Shah Qajar granted a sweeping oil concession to William Knox D'Arcy. Known as the D'Arcy Concession, it gave D'Arcy extensive rights to explore, extract and sell oil across most of the country, paving the way for the discovery of oil in 1908 and the creation of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later BP).

Under the terms of the agreement, Iran received an upfront payment and just 16 per cent of annual profits. To many Iranians, the lopsided nature of the deal symbolised how national wealth could be handed over to foreign interests for a modest return. This sense of injustice became deeply embedded in public consciousness.

Such grievances helped fuel the Constitutional Revolution of 1905–1911, during which Iranians demanded limits on royal power and greater national control over their affairs. The movement was not merely about internal reform; it was also a reaction to a political order that appeared vulnerable to foreign manipulation.

The two world wars further deepened the damage. Although Iran declared neutrality in both conflicts, its territory was repeatedly violated. During World War I, Russian, British and Ottoman forces operated within its borders, causing occupation, famine and disruption. During World War II, Britain and the Soviet Union again invaded, forcing Reza Shah Pahlavi to abdicate and dividing the country into zones of occupation. These experiences reinforced a harsh lesson: great powers, despite their rhetoric, ultimately acted in pursuit of their own strategic interests.

The most traumatic episode in modern Iranian politics came in 1953. Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, elected on a wave of popular support, nationalised the oil industry in an effort to reclaim economic sovereignty. Britain opposed the move, and the United States eventually joined covert efforts to remove him from power. The resulting coup not only overthrew a popular leader but also strengthened the position of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, whose rule became increasingly authoritarian and closely aligned with Washington.

For many Iranians, this marked the point at which foreign intervention and domestic repression became closely linked. The Shah's modernising initiatives, including the White Revolution, brought visible change, but they were imposed from above and accompanied by political suppression, deepening rather than easing public resentment.

The 1979 Revolution was, in many respects, a culmination of this accumulated history. It overthrew the Western-backed monarchy and brought to power an Islamic government that defined itself in opposition to American influence. The subsequent embassy hostage crisis turned tensions into a prolonged rupture. Economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation and continued external pressure reinforced the belief among Iranian leaders that the United States sought not merely to influence Iran but to weaken or contain it.

In response, the revolutionary government became more rigid and suspicious. A cycle of escalation took hold: sanctions provoked defiance, defiance invited further sanctions, and each side came to view the other as inherently hostile.

The Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988) compounded these dynamics. Many in Iran came to know that Western powers sided with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, reinforcing perceptions of external hostility. The conflict strengthened Iran's emphasis on self-reliance and its determination to safeguard its sovereignty.

More recently, rhetoric around regime change from the United States and Israel has further heightened tensions. From the Iranian perspective, such statements appear as external pressure aimed at reshaping their political system. History suggests that such approaches rarely yield the intended results, particularly when they are perceived as coercive or dismissive of national sovereignty.

Taken together, these experiences help explain the enduring bitterness in Iran's relations with the West. In Iranian political memory, Britain is associated with oil exploitation and covert interference, while the United States is linked to the 1953 coup, support for the Shah, and sustained pressure on the Islamic Republic. Conversely, in Western narratives, Iran is often associated with revolutionary zeal, hostage-taking and defiance of international norms. Each side has developed its own narrative of grievance and mistrust.

Thus, the long conflict between Iran and external powers is not merely a story of geopolitical rivalry. It is also a story of repeated disruption. Time and again, Iran's political trajectory has been shaped by forces both within and beyond its borders. The result has been a recurring cycle: foreign interference fuels nationalism; nationalism breeds confrontation; and confrontation invites further intervention, leaving little room for stability.