"We should work to undermine it and to support the Iranian people and their desire for a more stable and inclusive government form." I'm with you otherwise, but you lost me here: American subterfuge against sovereign governments is how this all got started in the first place, and nobody knows that better than the Iranians.

"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart...But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force..." - John Q. Adams

I was referring to the CIA led overtheow of an elected PM and replacing him with the Shah. Of course Iran had been a colonial pawn of the Russians and the Brits before that and the Ottomans before that.

Ah, an isolationist. I will simply note that this is no longer the early 18th century and we are no longer a hardscrabble rabble trying to stand up a nation. The isolationist impulse isn't new, it was common at the dawn of the 20th century and again as the Depression started to bite. Neither survived reality Fortress America then was an illusion, today a dangerous delusion.

"I was referring to the CIA led overtheow [sic] of an elected PM and replacing him with the Shah." I am confused; you made it sound like you were supporting covert regime-change, but surely you realize that was a monstrous act that led to exactly where Iran is now? It was also showcase of just what Adams was warning against (as well as Exhibit A as to why the "Special Relationship" is long-overdue for reappraisal)?

Scaramouche, I referred to the CIA overthrow of Mosaddegh as a bad thing, a terrible thing. If that didn't come across, I'm losing my touch. CIA overthrew Mosaddegh because he was planning to nationalize the oil fields that the UK had been milking like its own personal cow. That led to the Shah, and then to the CIA-trained SAVAK secret police. It's no damned wonder the Iranians hate the US.

"Reality"? We're talking about politics here, it's a game of make-believe. "I will simply note that this is no longer the early 18th century and we are no longer a hardscrabble rabble trying to stand up a nation." 250 years have passed, but the important things have either not changed, or come full-circle: We are an already-collapsed nation struggling to stand BACK up, and our enemy in that effort is transnational corporations who want us all to be slaves yoked to eternal debt. I claim your calling me an "isolationist" is a strawman (and "Fortress America" doesn't even enter into it). You are missing JQA's point entirely, which is awful because it's as accurate as can be.

OK, so we are on exactly the same page there, glad to hear it! I was just confused because you'd initially said, "We should work to undermine it and to support the Iranian people and their desire for a more stable and inclusive government form." Those first 6 words describe what the CIA did to Mosaddegh, and the rest would be (a contemporary edition of) how they'd spin their actions to the American public. Note how those protesters in Iran a while back were holding signs and chanting in English, THAT'S how you know it was not an organic uprising but an attempted color-revolution: Their real audience was NOT the Iranian government, but English-speaking Viewers Like You.