There have been major issues between Iran and the USA ever since 1953. Those issues began when Iranians tried to take charge of their own domestic oil sources by nationalizing a western-owned oil company. That government was brought down by a CIA-assisted coup, because the one thing you CANNOT allow is for third world nations to control their own resources and set their own oil policies, is it?

(saracasm deliberate in that case)

I mean, hey, that's why the USA didn't like Castro at the beginning, only in his case it wasn't oil, it was other commercial interests that he nationalized. So naturally Castro went to Russia. ;-) You either play with one big bully or you play with the other.

This is all power politics between big nations and small ones. It has nothing to do with humanitarianism, democracy, or who is a nice guy. It has to do with markets, spheres of influence, and the control of strategic resources.

The Shah did what the West wanted to...as Saddam did also, prior to his invasion of Kuwait. The West loves dictators as long as they do what the West wants. The Soviets loved dictators as long as they did what Russia wanted.

There is no morality gap between those 2 attitudes, nor anything for either one of them to be proud of. Small countries are always the victims of great powers, and great powers are always motivated by totally self-serving and ruthless motives.

Carter was a humanitarian in his basic inclinations, no doubt. That Iranian crisis killed his presidency as surely as if someone had put a bullet in his head. You may recall that he did try an airborne rescue mission with helicopters, but it went awry. Is that Jimmy Carter's personal fault? No. It's nobody's fault, their luck just wasn't any good on that day, that's all.