Vice President of the National Intelligence Academy (MIA) Hakkı Uygur spoke at the International Strategic Communication Summit (STRATCOM) 2026 in a panel titled “From Regional Tensions to Global Fractures: The Strategic Implications of the Iran War.”
Uygur said that any discussion of Iran and U.S.–Iran relations must begin with 1953, noting that the military coup orchestrated by the United Kingdom and the United States in Iran during that period led to a deep-rooted sense of mistrust.
He stated that the successful coup enabled Mohammad Reza Shah to rule the country with absolute power for 25 years, while also radicalising the Iranian opposition—not only Islamist groups, but other factions as well—and leading to the emergence of numerous armed groups.
Uygur explained that these groups, seeking revenge for the coup, carried out attacks against the United States, followed by the revolution, and that the U.S. Embassy was attacked six to seven months after the revolution. He added, “Iran increasingly came to be perceived as fanatical in the United States. In recent years, we have also seen Hollywood films portraying the embassy incident to the public. There are historical ruptures and tensions at play here.”
Uygur noted that during this period, then–U.S. President Donald Trump could have called on Iran to reach an agreement, adding: “What could Iran have done? In fact, it made some attempts—there were efforts in 2005. Khamenei was under significant pressure at the time, with questions raised such as, ‘Why can we not reach an agreement with the United States?’ However, he maintained that the U.S. could not be trusted. He drew a parallel to a conflict involving Muawiya, referring to the struggle between Hasan and Muawiya in Shiite history. Yet no concrete steps followed. Khamenei later addressed the public, saying, ‘I gave you permission, and you concluded a nuclear agreement.’ But Trump said, ‘It is the worst deal I have ever seen. I will withdraw from it, and we will not give you money.’ The United States was unwilling to make commitments to Iran, and as a result, Iran stood to gain nothing.”
“They have come to pursue a policy aimed at eliminating Iran”
Uygur underlined that the psychological dimension related to President Trump is also significant, stating: “Let us not forget that Trump ordered the killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020. This also altered the thinking of Iran’s elites. Unfortunately, Trump and the U.S. administration came to be seen as unreliable. They have come to pursue a policy aimed at eliminating Iran.”
Recalling that Trump put forward 12 conditions when withdrawing from the deal in 2018, Uygur said, “Similar demands—particularly regarding missiles and militia groups—are still being raised today. An opportunity may have been missed during the Biden administration, as it was a significant four-year period. A new agreement could have been reached during that time. Talks were held in February 2022; everything was prepared—the agreement, the venues, even the journalists—but it could not be concluded.”
Uygur stated that the exact reasons for the failure remain unclear, adding: “The Russia–Ukraine war also broke out around the same time. Within Iran, there was internal disagreement over who would sign the agreement—whether the Rouhani or the Raisi government. Then Trump returned.”
Uygur said that, when looking at the overall picture, it became clear that an attack had taken place during the course of negotiations, and continued:
“When we examine the causes behind the outbreak of this war, which has now been ongoing for a month, we see that it is in fact a continuation of the so-called 12-Day War. This also explains why the conflict is interpreted differently by the parties involved. The United States is essentially saying, ‘You will accept everything we put forward.’ Iran, however, rejects this and responds by saying, ‘You will not be able to alter our strategic position.’ They chose Oman as the venue for negotiations, signalling, ‘We will continue the process.’ Yet, in the end, we have witnessed the onset of a new phase of war. In this sense, it becomes evident that this, too, was a form of deception.”