‘There's a significant lack of knowledge': Iranian American legislator on countries' tangled history amid conflict

The Guardian

13 hours ago

Arizona congresswoman Yassamin Ansari brings an unusually personal perspective to the US's fraught relationship with Iran. The daughter of two Iranian parents who fled their homeland – her father as a student in the 1970s who couldn't return after the 1979 revolution, her mother as a 17-year-old in 1981 escaping the new regime's restrictions on women – Ansari grew up immersed in the complexities of US-Iran relations.
This deep familiarity with both Iranian domestic politics and the tangled history between Washington and Tehran has given the Democratic freshman a distinctive edge in debates over military strikes, sanctions and diplomatic engagement.
As tensions teetered for 12 days, culminating in the direct US bombardment on Iranian nuclear facilities, Ansari finds herself navigating between hawkish calls for regime change and concerns about empowering Iran's authoritarian government.
We spoke to Ansari about how her background influences her approach to one of foreign policy's most intractable issues.
It's a topic I not only grew up learning about at home but also studied formally during my undergraduate years. I have a minor in Iranian studies, I speak the language [Farsi], and I wrote my college thesis on Iran's nuclear breakout capacity. So I've been working on and thinking about these issues for a long time.
When it comes to US-Iran policy – especially during the Trump administration – I think there has been a significant lack of knowledge. And even within Congress, there's often limited information about the historical and political context – not just since 1979, but also what led up to that point and how we arrived at the current situation.
I don't believe the strikes were the right move for several reasons. First and foremost, we wouldn't even be in this position if Trump hadn't unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA [in 2018]. That agreement would have prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and created a framework for diplomacy. Even after the withdrawal, we were in the midst of negotiations. Based on briefings I've received from subject matter experts, those negotiations were progressing – until the US suddenly shifted the goalposts and demanded zero uranium enrichment, which had never been part of the deal. That effectively derailed talks.
Beyond that, Trump never made the case to Congress or the American public. There was no presentation of intelligence justifying strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. In a country with such a fraught history of military interventions in the Middle East – from the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup in Iran to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – that lack of transparency is especially dangerous.
I'm not familiar with all the specifics of that proposal, but I see what you're getting at. And I do think Trump's actions have emboldened the Islamic Republic, a regime that is deeply unpopular with the majority of Iranians. Since the recent escalation, we've seen reports that hundreds of people have been arrested on espionage charges – charges often used by the regime to imprison political opponents. Iran's most notorious prison, Evin, is full of some of the country's brightest minds, including Nobel laureates.
It's heartbreaking. Trump's actions have not only hurt US foreign policy interests and increased the risk of a wider war, but they've also given the regime cover to intensify its domestic repression. During the past two weeks, we've even seen the government black out the internet to prevent communication with the outside world. This is a regime focused entirely on its own survival – and it will do whatever it takes, including more arrests and crackdowns. We should be supporting Iranian civilians, not strengthening the regime or risking another war.
Exactly. I think any sort of US-led military intervention or regime change would be a terrible mistake. I was genuinely terrified during the days Trump was making contradictory threats – one moment urging civilians in Tehran to evacuate, the next talking about regime change, and then suddenly calling for peace. That kind of unpredictability is dangerous.
There are also groups like the MEK – a cult-like organization that was once designated a terrorist group by the US – that are trying to position themselves as the alternative. They've paid people like John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani to support them, but they could be even more repressive than the current regime.
That said, there are ways the US could support the Iranian people – like helping provide secure internet access or advocating for the release of political prisoners. But instead we're seeing more crackdowns because the regime feels threatened and is reacting in the only way it knows: repression.
Not directly, but many of us are still pushing for the War Powers Resolution to come to a vote so members of Congress can make their positions clear. It's important that we reassert Congress's constitutional authority over decisions of war and peace. Unfortunately, the Republican lead on the resolution, Representative Thomas Massie, recently said he no longer sees the need for [the resolution] due to the ceasefire. I strongly disagree. The resolution isn't just about this moment – it's about reaffirming that only Congress has the power to declare war, as the constitution lays out. Trump should never have taken unilateral military action. We've already seen the consequences. I know the Senate is moving forward with it, and it'll be important to see where key leaders stand.
You're right, I'm definitely not the spokesperson for all Iranian Americans, but I can share some perspective.
Nearly all Iranian Americans strongly oppose the regime. That's because most of our families came here after fleeing it, either during the revolution in 1979 or in the years since. But there's a wide range of views on what the solution should be.
Some Iranian Americans, including a sizable portion who voted for Trump, believed he would help topple the regime. I remember when Trump posted 'Make Iran great again', a segment of the diaspora was genuinely excited. Many of those people support the son of the former Shah as a potential leader.
Others – myself included – strongly oppose US-led regime change. The US has a bad track record in this region. The 1953 coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mosaddeq is still remembered bitterly by many Iranians. He was democratically elected and wanted to nationalize Iran's oil, but the US and UK didn't want that. So they overthrew him. Then came the Shah, then the revolution, and now this regime.
So while we all oppose the current regime, there's disagreement about what comes next and how to get there. I think most Iranian Americans fear war and want a better future for Iranians – without more violence, repression or foreign intervention.
My dad came to the US in the early 1970s on a student visa to attend the University of Oregon for his engineering degree. He planned to go back but once the revolution happened, it wasn't safe to return, so he stayed.
My mom fled in 1981. Women's rights had already been severely restricted – forced hijab, schools being shut down. She happened to be a US citizen because her father had done a medical residency in the US in the 60s. So her parents sent her here alone at 17 to live with a family in Delaware.
She talks about it a lot, about how she and her family opposed the revolution even though it was popular at the time. Coming here alone was traumatic. She went through deep depression for years before the rest of her family could join her. That experience shaped a lot of how I was raised. She always stressed not taking freedom and democracy for granted, and that's something I carry with me in my work today, especially when I see authoritarian threats here in the US.