Experts trace U.S.–Iran tensions to 1953 coup and warn of mounting civilian toll in current strikes

Three Iran experts who testified at a congressional briefing said the roots of the current U.S.–Iran confrontation run deep, pointing to the 1953 coup that ousted Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh as a foundational moment that continues to shape Iranian attitudes toward the United States. The panelists described Iran as politically plural and socially complex, and they warned that simplifying the country as uniformly authoritarian can enable policies that increase civilian suffering rather than secure U.S. interests.

The panel put recent strikes and targeted attacks in a broader strategic and humanitarian context. Panelists recounted widespread civilian displacement, damage to hospitals, schools and refineries, and the destruction of cultural sites. They said one of the earliest reported strikes struck an elementary school in a city identified in the briefing as Mino, killing many students and staff and prompting calls from rights groups for an independent investigation. Panelists described smoke and pollution from damaged refineries, reported local incidents of acid rain mixed with oil, and said strikes on banks and other civilian infrastructure have heightened fears that efforts to "collapse the state" are harming noncombatants.

Panelists criticized recent U.S. policy choices and messaging, including the 2018 U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, as factors that increased regional tensions. They argued the current administration’s public rationales for military action have shifted over time and said changes in oversight — including reductions in civilian‑protection functions — risk fewer safeguards against strikes that harm civilians. Several experts warned that policy driven by narrow short‑term goals, or by outside actors, can produce strategic blowback: disruption to global oil markets, attacks on U.S. bases and partners across the region, and a strengthened role for Iran’s unelected security institutions.

Looking ahead, the panelists said the conflict risks widening. They described a range of possible Iranian responses — from targeting Gulf infrastructure to using proxies — intended to raise the economic and political costs for the United States and its partners. Those risks, they said, are compounded by the prospect that continued bombing and political pressure will strengthen hardline elements inside Iran and set back democratic movements.

The experts urged more nuanced U.S. debate and media coverage that distinguishes regime critiques from the views of ordinary Iranians, and they encouraged policymakers to weigh the humanitarian costs and the limits of military options. The briefing closed after questions and final remarks; the chair thanked the panelists for their testimony.