On February 28, 2026, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed in one of the largest U.S.–Israeli strikes in decades. Both governments stated that Khamenei was “almost certainly dead,” and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was shown a photograph of his recovered body. According to Reuters, the strike involved up to thirty precision‑guided bombs that destroyed several buildings in his compound. President Donald Trump declared that Khamenei was “one of the most malicious people in history” and “had no chance of escaping our surveillance system.”
As explosions lit up the night sky over Tehran, the Iranian government announced forty days of national mourning. Across the region, the reaction was immediate and volatile: mass protests erupted in Iran, Pakistan, and Iraq; demonstrators in Karachi attempted to storm the U.S. consulate. Iran responded with missile strikes on Israel and several Gulf states hosting U.S. bases. Within hours, the Middle East stood on the edge of a regional firestorm.
Yet as dramatic as this moment is, it does not represent a break with the past. Instead, it marks the continuation of a geopolitical pattern that has shaped world politics for more than seventy years—a pattern that today feels more dangerous than ever. Since the end of World War II, one principle has repeatedly structured the international order: the United States decides who may govern a country, and who may not. This has taken different forms over time—sometimes through coups, sometimes through sanctions, sometimes through covert operations, and sometimes through open war.
This pattern persists not only because of American military power but also because of America’s institutional position. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the United States holds a veto that can block any resolution—even one supported by the entire international community. The veto shields U.S. interventions from international scrutiny and turns regime change into a political tool without consequences.
Ironically, this long arc of intervention begins exactly where it reappears in 2026: in Iran.
1953—The Overthrow of Mossadegh: The Beginning of the Pattern
The modern cycle of U.S.‑backed regime change does not begin with a dictator. It begins with a democratically elected reformer. Mohammad Mossadegh, Iran’s prime minister from 1951 to 1953, was a jurist, parliamentarian, and one of the most popular political figures of his era. He was elected by the 16th Majlis and reaffirmed by the 17th Majlis in 1952. His legitimacy was unquestionable—and that made him dangerous to those who controlled Iran’s resources.
Mossadegh was not an ideologue. Instead, he was an Iranian nationalist who believed that a sovereign state must control its own resources. His government introduced sweeping social and economic reforms: a national social insurance system, land redistribution to weaken the power of large landowners, and new taxation measures such as a land‑lease tax. These reforms were not designed to provoke the West; rather, they were intended to modernize Iran and strengthen its sovereignty.
The turning point came with the nationalization of Iran’s oil industry. Since 1913, the British‑owned Anglo‑Persian Oil Company (later BP) had controlled Iran’s oil fields, extracting enormous profits while Iran received only a fraction. Mossadegh ended this arrangement, declaring that Iran’s oil belonged to the Iranian people. Inside Iran, this was celebrated as an act of national dignity. In London, it was a geopolitical shock. In Washington, it was a strategic threat. Consequently, both governments feared that other nations might follow Iran’s example.
In 1953, the British MI6 and the CIA, led by Kermit Roosevelt Jr., orchestrated Operation Ajax—a coup that overthrew Mossadegh. The operation relied on bribery, psychological warfare, street mobilization, and direct military manipulation. As a result, Mossadegh was arrested, tried for treason, sentenced to three years in prison, and then placed under house arrest until his death in 1967.
After the coup, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi consolidated his power. In 1954, a new oil consortium agreement divided Iran’s oil production among Western companies until 1979. Meanwhile, the CIA gained unrestricted access to Iran, and political opposition was systematically crushed. A democratically elected leader who governed for his country was replaced by an authoritarian ruler who governed for Western interests.
The Mossadegh case reveals the core logic that continues through 2026: those who protect national resources are removed, while those who protect Western interests are supported. In this pattern, democracy becomes irrelevant, sovereignty is negotiable, and international law is optional. Ultimately, the pattern does not begin with tyrants—it begins with a democratic reformer.
The Continuation of the Pattern: Guatemala, Vietnam, Chile, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela
The pattern resurfaced repeatedly across continents in the decades that followed. In 1954, the United States helped overthrow Guatemala’s president, Jacobo Árbenz, after his land reforms threatened U.S. corporate interests. Two years later, Washington blocked nationwide elections in Vietnam because Ho Chi Minh was certain to win; by 1963, it supported the coup that killed Ngo Dinh Diem. The cycle continued in 1973 with U.S. backing for the military overthrow of Chile’s democratically elected president, Salvador Allende. In 1989, American forces invaded Panama, deposed Manuel Noriega, and transported him to the United States. By contrast, the 2003 invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussein under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, and subsequently, NATO’s 2011 intervention resulted in the overthrow and death of Muammar Gaddafi. Most recently, in 2026, Nicolás Maduro was detained during a U.S. operation in Venezuela.
The Structural Constants of U.S.‑Backed Regime Change
The United States defines who is a “tyrant”—not the UN, not international law. Moral labeling replaces legal process. Those labeled tyrants may be overthrown, abducted, or killed. The United States acts without UN authorization and blocks any condemnation with its veto. Populations bear the consequences—never the political elite. The methods grow more extreme: from covert coups to invasions, from drone warfare to the targeted killing of a sitting head of state. And the consequences become global: oil prices surge, tankers halt, OPEC+ adjusts production, Gulf states report casualties, and markets react.
The death of Ali Khamenei is not an isolated event. It is the continuation of a seventy‑year pattern in which the United States determines who may govern—and who must fall. From Mossadegh in 1953 to Khamenei in 2026, the line is unmistakable: regime change is not an exception. It is a system.
