This post is guest authored by Dr. Beatrice Guenther, who was the moderator of this panel discussion.

News about the multifaceted crisis in Iran, its neighbors, Israel, and the United States have filled headlines around the world. As a way to make sense of a variety of shifting news reports, the Program of International Studies proposed a panel on “Iran in Context” on Thursday, April 9th. Dr. Andrew Kunze (Asian, International Studies, and History) organized the interdisciplinary panel, which included specialists at BGSU from Ethnic Studies, History, International Studies, and Political Science. Dr. Beatrice Guenther, Director of International Studies & Professor, World Languages & Cultures/French, served as moderator.

Dr. Vibha Bhalla (School of Cultural & Critical Studies, Director, Global Village) provided an overview of Iran’s more recent, pre-Revolutionary (pre-1979) Iranian history. Iran’s history is complex, including its shift from the name Persia to Iran in 1935. Dr. Bhalla’s talk as well as Dr. Savitri Kunze’s comments especially helped shed light on the long, tense relationship between Iran and the United States.

As a nation with the largest oil reserves in the world—resources discovered in 1908—Iran’s economy was quickly overtaken by Western nations. Already by 1908, the oil reserves were processed by Great Britain, and profits flowed out of the country (leaving Iran with 16% of the profits and no way to monitor how much was actually being exported and, thus, earned). Iranian workers experienced squalid conditions and poverty as a result.

Dr. Bhalla set the stage for Dr. Savitri Kunze (Assistant Professor, History) by flagging the significance of 1953 in Iran’s history. Dr. (S.) Kunze highlighted how the coup of 1953 can be linked to the current crisis. The economic exploitation of Iran was followed by political manipulation with a Shah (monarch) placed into power, propped up by British forces in 1924. By 1951, Iran had its first democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddegh, who set out to counter the loss of national revenues by nationalizing the nation’s substantial oil reserves, as far as we know today, the largest in the world.

The 1953 coup in Iran, we learned was orchestrated through propaganda that falsely portrayed Prime Minister Mosaddegh as a communist and incompetent leader, with the newly formed Central Intelligence Agency backing efforts that included paid protests and media manipulation to destabilize his government. After Mosaddegh was overthrown and placed under house arrest, Western oil interests, particularly U.S. companies and British Petroleum, secured the majority of Iran’s oil profits, while the United States supported Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose rule contributed to lasting Iranian resentment toward the U.S.

Whereas many of us in the United States are not familiar with this story of the 1953 coup, it is certainly an important factor that explains why the United States is perceived in Iran as the “Great Satan”—not least, since after 1953, the US supported the reign of the absolutist Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who modernized Iran while funneling funds away from the Iranian population.

A key question when discussing the current war with Iran is, of course, how to stop this crisis and attempt to return to peace or at least some order. To what extent can the region stabilize and work toward more collaboration? Dr. Andrew Kunze’s overview of the split in Islam between Shiite and Sunni Muslims helped to clarify why the violence is also being directed at Iran’s Muslim neighbors and why collaboration among the Middle Eastern neighbors is unlikely.

Dr. (A.) Kunze explained that after the death of Muhammad in 632 CE, disputes over succession led to the enduring split between Sunni Islam—which emphasizes following the Prophet’s example and comprises about 80% of Muslims—and Shia Islam, a minority centered in Iran that traces leadership through Ali and the Prophet’s lineage. Despite being marginalized after 680, Shiite clerics (Mullahs) retained influence through control of education, law, and religious authority, which later enabled them to challenge the Western-backed Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose modernization efforts threatened their power. This opposition culminated in the 1979 revolution led by Ruhollah Khomeini, replacing the monarchy with an authoritarian theocracy, shaping Iran’s regional role and contributing to ongoing tensions, including support for groups like Hamas and the lasting divide with Sunni-majority states such as Saudi Arabia. The Iranian Revolution did bring change, but ultimately, Iranians traded in an absolute monarchy for an authoritarian theocracy, which exists to this day.

Adding to this backdrop of historical and cultural orientation, Dr. Matt Schumann (Lecturer in History, International and Canadian Studies) used a constructivist perspective to explain how long-standing traditions of power politics shape both Iranian and U.S. strategies, noting that Iran draws on deep Persian precedents of centralized authority, strategic patience, and indirect conflict through proxies, while the United States operates within inherited Western norms rooted in cases like France’s handling of the Jacobite issue in the 18th century. These norms, later globalized through post-World War II human rights frameworks, helped justify interventions such as the 1953 ousting of Mohammad Mosaddegh in favor of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, but more recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have revealed the limits of such legal and ideological frameworks for regime change. Despite violating some Western norms, Iran’s regime remains internationally recognized without a clear alternative, contributing to ongoing frustration in Washington over both Iranian actions and the constraints of modern international law.

As the final speaker on the panel, Dr. Neal Jesse (Chair and Professor, Political Science) drew on Kenneth Waltz’ Theory of International Politics, arguing that global politics is shaped by a tension between anarchy and hierarchy. He noted that the Cold War (1949–1991) represented a relatively stable bipolar order in which the U.S. and USSR acted as hegemonic powers supporting institutions like the UN and global financial systems. However, since the 2010s, the shift toward a multipolar world—with rising powers such as BRICS—and declining U.S. support for international norms has weakened this stability. As hierarchy erodes, Jesse emphasized, the risk of miscalculation and conflict increases, evident in recent global tensions, while growing competitive, power-driven behavior further destabilizes the international system.

The panel “Iran in Context” covered quite a bit of ground. It also laid out how difficult a resolution to this current war in Iran continues to be, especially in light of the decades-long struggles that have placed Iran at odds with the United States. The exchange of insights during the panel met with a high turnout of students and a substantive Q&A discussion that went another thirty minutes beyond the allocated time. Clearly, this interdisciplinary panel has launched a debate that needs to be continued.