The seeds of intervention – American exceptionalism and the 1953 Coup in Iran

The question of why the United States often seems quicker to resort to military intervention than diplomacy is one of the most lasting and unsettling questions. The late President Jimmy Carter called the US the most “warlike” country on earth, and lamented his country’s thirty wars, conflicts, and assassinations since WWII. President Dwight Eisenhower coined the term “military-industrial complex,” which has since become synonymous with the American appetite for war. However, this enduring inclination towards conflict is not a recent phenomenon. Instead, it is deeply rooted in historical ideologies that have shaped American foreign and domestic policy from its embryonic years to the present day: the intertwined concepts of American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny.

The birth of American exceptionalism and manifest destiny                     

To understand America’s historical propensity for war, we must first grasp the ideological bedrock upon which the nation was built. Immediately following its independence from Britain, a unique self-perception began to crystallize among America’s leaders: that of being fundamentally different, morally superior, and divinely favoured. This concept, known as American Exceptionalism, posited the United States not merely as another nation-state, but as a “shining city on a hill,” a beacon of liberty and democracy ordained by God to lead the world.

French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville first described the United States as “exceptional” in Democracy in America (1835), noting its unique democratic character. The term “American exceptionalism” itself was coined by American communists in the late 1920s during intra-party debates, notably appearing in the Daily Worker in 1929.

This exceptionalist narrative was deeply intertwined with Christian Protestantism, particularly its Puritanical roots, which emphasised a covenant with God and a unique divine mission. From this perspective, American actions were not just practical policy decisions but righteous deeds driven by an inherent moral compass.

READ: Iran no longer trusts US will for talks, deputy foreign minister says

Hand-in-glove with American Exceptionalism emerged the concept of Manifest Destiny. While Exceptionalism provided the moral justification, Manifest Destiny supplied the practical directive: the divinely ordained right, even duty, of the United States to expand its dominion across the North American continent as a civilising mission.

The brutal, relentless march westward led directly to the displacement and killing of Native American populations and the dispossession of their ancestral lands. Policymakers rationalized these actions and believed they would deliver benefits that outweighed any short-term drawbacks. The “empty” or “untamed” lands were waiting to be brought under America’s righteous civilising Christian dominion.

This westward expansion inevitably collided with the established power of the Spanish and later Mexican empires. The Mexican-American War (1846-1848), a direct consequence of this expansionist drive, resulted in the United States acquiring a vast swath of territory encompassing modern-day California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma.

The Monroe Doctrine                                                                                      

The ideological foundations of American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny, quickly found expression in formal foreign policy doctrines. The first, and arguably most enduring, was the Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed by President James Monroe in 1823. Its core tenet was deceptively simple: “America for Americans.” This doctrine asserted US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, warning European powers against any new colonization or intervention in the affairs of newly independent Latin American nations.

Crucially, the Monroe Doctrine set a vital precedent for future US foreign policy: the willingness to intervene in the affairs of other sovereign nations under the guise of protecting regional stability, countering external threats, or safeguarding vaguely defined “US interests.” It established the notion that America had not just the right, but perhaps even the obligation, to act militarily to enforce its will in its perceived backyard, paving the way for countless interventions in Latin America throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

Operation Ajax and the 1953 Iranian coup                                                 

The immediate post-World War II era witnessed the rise of the Cold War, accompanied by a heightened focus on strategically vital regions. Iran, with its vast oil reserves and proximity to the Soviet Union, became a critical chessboard square.

Enter Mohammad Mosaddegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran. A towering figure of Iranian nationalism, Mosaddegh was known for his unyielding integrity and patriotic zeal. He was incorruptible. For decades, the lion’s share of Iran’s oil wealth had flowed into the coffers of the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). At the same time, Iran itself received a minuscule amount. On March 15, the Iranian Majlis passed legislation to nationalise the AIOC, a company over which British interests had long held dominance. “I nationalized Iran‘s oil industry and discarded the system of political and economic exploitation by the world’s greatest empire. This at the cost to myself, my family, and at the risk of losing my life, my honor, and my property. With God’s blessing and the will of the people, I fought this savage and dreadful system of international espionage and colonialism.” Mosaddegh declared^.

Nationalisation was about asserting national sovereignty and ensuring that Iran’s resources benefited its people, not foreign powers. However, Mosaddegh’s nationalism collided head-on with British imperial interests. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, incensed by the nationalisation, appealed to his old ally, the newly elected US President Dwight D. Eisenhower, to intervene to pull his chestnut out of the fire^. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax, a covert mission led by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt. The operation culminated in the toppling of Mosaddegh’s democratically elected government in August 1953, restoring the pro-Western Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to absolute power.

Here, the connections to American Exceptionalism become chillingly clear. How could the United States justify overthrowing a democratically elected nationalist leader who was looking after his country’s interests? The answer lay in the pervasive belief that American actions were inherently righteous. From this perspective, Mosaddegh was not just nationalising oil; he was creating instability, potentially opening the door to Soviet influence, and threatening the vital oil supply to the West. In the exceptionalist worldview, such actions could not be tolerated, even if they meant undermining a budding democracy. The intervention was framed not as an imperialistic power grab, but as a necessary act to protect “freedom” (from communism) and “stability” (for Western economic interests). There was little, if any, guilt associated with the act, much like the justifications for westward expansion. The “good” that would come of it – perceived geopolitical stability and continued oil access – was deemed to outweigh the violation of Iranian sovereignty.

It is a profound historical irony that just three years later, after the 1956 Suez Crisis, in which Israel, France, and Britain attacked Egypt over President Nasser’s nationalisation of the Suez Canal, President Eisenhower would develop his doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, which promoted the abolition of British and French colonial powers. This later stance seemingly contradicted the US’s earlier intervention in Iran, highlighting a flexibility, or perhaps a selective application, of its stated ideals based on perceived national interest.

READ: Iran demands US compensation before nuclear talks can resume

A pattern emerges                                                                                         

 The 1953 Iranian coup was not an isolated incident; it was a foundational case study that set a dangerous precedent. It demonstrated how the deeply ingrained ideologies of American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny, initially shaped during continental expansion, could be readily adapted to justify interventions far beyond America’s borders. The perceived righteousness of American power, coupled with a proactive stance against perceived threats, laid the groundwork for a foreign policy that would increasingly favour covert operations and military campaigns over patient diplomacy. This event, born from deeply held national self-perceptions, would profoundly shape future US interactions with the Middle East and, indeed, the world.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.