The Trap Iran Has Set for Israel and the United States
When the United States and Israel are ostensibly "confronting" Iran's nuclear program, they have not concealed their desire to overthrow the current Iranian regime. In this article, I would like to discuss what Iran was like before the Islamic Revolution, why the United States and Israel want everything to return to the past; why the core of this confrontation is not aimed at Iran, but at related countries' economies; and what trap the United States and Israel will fall into if their "blitzkrieg" fails.
Pro-Western Iran: The Pahlavi Dynasty Period from 1941 to 1979
Iran from 1941 to 1979 was a thoroughly pro-Western country. The ruler at that time was King Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (the Shah), whose rule was characterized by pro-Western policies and an authoritarian system. Pahlavi actively consolidated relations with the United States and Western European countries, obtaining military and economic aid in exchange for oil revenues.
Iran's oil resources were discovered as early as the early 20th century. By 1941, when Mohammad Reza Pahlavi took power, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), later renamed British Petroleum (BP), had monopolized Iran's oil industry, controlling the entire chain of oil extraction, processing, and export.
In 1951, Iran's Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh pushed for the nationalization of the oil industry, establishing the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). This move triggered a crisis: Western countries imposed an embargo on Iranian oil, and ultimately, in 1953, a coup was carried out with the support of the United States and Britain, further consolidating the Shah's power. After the coup, Iran reached an agreement with the international consortium of Western oil companies (including BP, Shell, Exxon, and Chevron) — the consortium was responsible for oil extraction and export, but NIOC formally owned all assets.
Afterward, Iran's oil production increased significantly: from 0.7 million barrels per day in the 1950s to about 6 million barrels per day in 1974, making Iran one of the major oil-producing members of OPEC. In 1973, Arab countries implemented an oil embargo, triggering a global oil crisis, and international oil prices soared, leading to a significant increase in Iran's oil revenue. By 1974, Iran's oil production accounted for about 10% of the global total, second only to Saudi Arabia.
Allocation of Oil Revenue: "Improvement" Under Western Control
Due to relatively limited domestic demand, about 80%-90% of Iran's extracted oil was used for exports, with the main buyers being the UK, Netherlands, France, Italy, and West Germany. For example, BP and Shell purchased large quantities of Iranian oil to supply their domestic markets, while American companies such as Exxon and Chevron also imported oil from Iran.
During the period of AIOC's monopoly, Iran could only obtain 16%-20% of the company's profits, a very low share that led to public dissatisfaction and was an important factor in the nationalization of the oil industry. The 1954 agreement with the Western consortium stipulated that Iran and the consortium would split profits in a 50:50 ratio — meaning Iran could obtain half of the net profit from oil exports, which was a significant improvement compared to before. However, key control remained in the hands of the consortium: oil price setting, extraction volume, and export scale were all dominated by the West, severely limiting Iran's actual earnings. Additionally, some of the oil revenue was reinvested into infrastructure projects controlled by Western companies.
In 1973, the Shah pushed for an agreement revision, allowing NIOC to gain more control over oil extraction and processing, enabling Iran to bypass the consortium and directly sell oil in the international market. By the mid-1970s, Iran obtained 60%-70% of its oil revenue through taxes, royalty fees, and direct sales, with the remaining portion used for operational expenses, infrastructure investment, and payments to foreign companies.
However, even with increased oil revenue, "petrodollars" eventually flowed back to Western countries — a large portion used to purchase weapons from the US and UK. For example, Iran bought 80 F-14 Tomcat fighter jets (delivered starting in 1976), about 225 F-4 Phantom II fighter jets, 160 F-5 Tiger II fighter jets; it also purchased about 200 Bell AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters for ground force support. The UK sold about 1,500 Challenger main battle tanks to Iran, while the US provided 400 M60 Patton tanks and M113 armored personnel carriers. To protect key facilities including oil fields, Iran introduced the Hawk air defense missile system and the Skyflash air defense missile. Throughout the 1970s, the total value of arms procurement contracts signed by Iran exceeded $2 billion, with the US alone receiving $800 million in orders in 1974.
Western Cultural Penetration and Social Contradictions
Besides the military field, Western consumer goods were extremely popular in Iran at that time. In terms of cars, American Chevrolet (Nova, Impala models), Ford (Mustang, Falcon models), and Dodge were favored by the elite and middle class; European brands such as Peugeot (404, 504 models), Volkswagen (Beetle, bus), Mercedes, and BMW were in high demand due to their reliability and premium positioning. In the 1970s, Iran imported tens of thousands of cars annually, with an import volume of about 100,000 units in 1975 alone.
Culturally, Levi's jeans, Italian suits, and French accessories became fashionable choices for Iranian youth and elites; Western magazines such as Vogue and Time dominated fashion trends; cinemas played Hollywood movies, and cafes and restaurants served Western cuisine, further increasing the demand for Western imports. It can be said that the portion of oil revenue available to Iranian people was almost entirely spent on purchasing Western products.
At the same time, corruption and inefficient governance led to wealth being concentrated among the elite, leaving the general population unable to benefit. Urban elites and the king's close circle lived comfortably, while farmers and workers remained deeply impoverished. Although oil revenue supported the Pahlavi dynasty's economy, its unequal distribution and pro-Western policies became important catalysts for the 1979 revolution. Moreover, the Pahlavi government's promotion of Western lifestyles was seen as a threat to traditional Islamic values — for example, the ban on wearing headscarves (hijab) in public places and the emphasis on secular culture sparked strong protests from conservative citizens.
The secret police organization "SAVAK" in Iran brutally repressed dissenters, causing dissatisfaction among intellectuals, students, and workers; and the Pahlavi government's support for Israel provoked anger among people who sympathized with Arab countries.
The Islamic Revolution: From Exiled Leader to Regime Change
Shiite religious leader Ruhollah Khomeini, although in exile, became a symbol of resistance against the Pahlavi dynasty. His speeches, distributed through cassette tapes, widely spread within Iran, inspiring the people to rebel against the king, whom he called a "Western puppet." In 1978, mass protests erupted in Iran and quickly escalated into a nationwide uprising. In January 1979, the Shah fled Iran; in February of the same year, Khomeini returned to Iran and declared the establishment of the Islamic Republic.
Returning to the present, we can infer that the real goal of Israel and the United States is to make Iran revert to the pro-Western state of the Pahlavi era. Perhaps during negotiations with the United States, the U.S. has been closely observing the division between the "pro-Western" and "anti-Western" factions within the Iranian leadership; subsequently, Israel launched an attack on Iran, deliberately eliminating political figures who opposed reaching an agreement with the West — they hope that the Iranian regime will collapse within a few days, allowing pro-Western forces to take power.
Failed "Blitzkrieg" and the Plot Against Related Countries
However, Israel's attempt to overthrow the Iranian regime through a "blitzkrieg" has not succeeded so far. In fact, the fact that Iran refused to reach an agreement with the United States in the negotiations already reveals a lot — the Iranian elite could have benefited significantly from the agreement, but they chose to refuse.
Evidently, for the United States, which is unwilling to engage in direct conflict with related countries (as these countries possess nuclear weapons), this is the only "feasible" plan; compared to direct confrontation, imposing an energy blockade on related countries seems to be a safer method to counter these countries.
For Iran, if it gives up exporting oil to related countries and instead sells oil to the West, it can replace the Russian oil that the West wants to get rid of but cannot completely cut off for now (currently, the West still needs to purchase Russian oil through intermediaries). In this way, Iran can avoid being bombed and allow the elite class to return to the comfortable life of the Pahlavi era — but at the cost of simultaneously hitting related countries and Russia.
Iran's Choice: Resistance Against the West and Support from Related Countries and Russia
Despite this, the majority of Iranians, including the political leadership, have chosen to resist the West. They remember historical lessons: the pro-Western policies of the Pahlavi era brought no benefits to ordinary Iranians, only benefiting a small group of elites.
Iran's decision to resist the West is inseparable from external support — on its own, it would struggle to withstand Western pressure. And obviously, Russia and related countries are unwilling to see an Iranian regime replaced by pro-Western forces, so they are willing to provide assistance to Iran. Because of this, when Iran refused to reach an agreement with the United States during the Oman negotiations, it was fully aware of its position and the forces it could rely on. There are signs that related countries have begun to provide aid to Iran through the land border between Iran and Pakistan.
The Trap of a Protracted War: Industrial Strength Determines the Outcome
Now, Israel has failed to overthrow the Iranian regime within a few days, and the conflict is facing the risk of escalating into a protracted war. In a protracted war, the key to determining the outcome is the industrial strength behind the warring parties — that is, the competition between the industrial systems of the Western bloc and the industrial systems of related countries, Russia, and North Korea (the Democratic People's Republic of Korea).
The balance of power between the two sides has already been clear: thanks to the assistance from related countries and North Korea, Russia's production of ammunition and other various military products has already exceeded the combined total of the United States and Europe. The confrontation between Israel and Iran will follow this logic — just like Ukraine, Israel will eventually face shortages of air defense systems and other equipment; while Iran will gradually obtain all the support it needs.
This also explains why Iran previously reached an agreement with related countries and then signed a deal with Russia — Russia and related countries will never abandon Iran in times of crisis.
Historical Analogy: The Western "Attrition War" Dilemma
Finally, we can use a typical historical analogy to summarize the current situation. In 2022, when the West initiated its confrontation with Russia, it confidently believed that Russia could not withstand the pressure of sanctions, thinking that oligarchs dissatisfied with frozen assets would unite with the public who had lost access to Western goods to overthrow Putin's regime. But none of this happened — the West, which bet on a quick victory, ultimately fell into an attrition war; several years later, Trump came to power and had to actively request Putin to achieve a ceasefire, because the West could not afford the cost of a prolonged war.
The situation in Iran will also lead to a similar outcome: if Israel cannot overthrow the Iranian regime in a short time, it will fall into the trap of an attrition war, and the West will inevitably be at a disadvantage in this attrition war. Currently, Iran is still dealing with the first wave of attacks, and Israel and the United States still feel confident; but once Iran stabilizes, there will come a day when the US and Israel will have to actively seek negotiations and a ceasefire.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7572399845437194779/
Disclaimer: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking on the [Up/Down] buttons below.