The USA is deeply opposed to countries behaving in an independent fashion, L.E.J., specially when we are talking about moves to establish economic independence. That is why they went against Castro from the time he threw out American big business interests in Cuba. They would have loved him if he'd been a ruthless dictator who cooperated with American big business.

They went against Torrijos and later Noriega in Panama, because the Panamanians were moving to legally take over national sovereignty of the Panama Canal Zone (negotiated with Jimmy Carter) and were also attempting to kick out American training bases for paramilitary groups in Panama (the School of the Americas, etc). The Panamanians were also negotiating with Japan to build a newer, bigger, better Panama Canal to replace the USA-controlled one. This would NOT have been of benefit to American contractors, but to Japanese contractors. It would have meant the loss of a huge strategic asset to the USA. The result: A totally illegal act of aggression by the USA against Panama during Bush the Elder's term of office, all ostensibly to "get" one evil man...Noriega! LOL! Talk about a phony excuse for a war. Noriega was simply the media scapegoat of the hour. He didn't matter. The Canal and the other matters I mentioned did.

They went against Roldos in Ecuador because he was attempting to steer an independent line in regards to the USA oil corporations, and he was expelling an American quasi-religous Pentecostal organization (the SIL) that pretends to do helpful missionary work all over Latin America, but actually engages in US-sponsored espionage work on behalf of the American corporate agenda. Roldos was attempting to steer an independent course for Ecuador. He was blown in his airplane.

They went against Allende in Chile because he was attempting to steer an independent course for Chile. He ended up dead, as usual.

They have gone against Iran ever since 1979, because Iran is not acting as a willing corporate servant for American interests...has not done so since the Shah was deposed.

They went against Saddam as soon as he deviated from USA instructions, but they loved him as long as he cooperated.

They went against the Taliban because the Taliban did not agree to open up Afghanistan as a corporate conduit for moving corporate oil through to the Indian ocean.

They moved against Chavez recently in a coup, but it failed. Chavez has been popularly elected. Twice. It's incovenient when demoratic elections don't elect the guy the USA wants, isn't it? Well, then, other means must be found to put someone in power that the USA wants...regardless of what a bunch of damned Panamanians, Chileans, Ecuadorians, or Iranians have on their minds.

It's always primarily about one issue: Is the leadership of a country cooperating with greater USA corporate development and marketing objectives (as the Shah of Iran did, for example, and as the Saudis have done) or are they resisting the corporate agenda in favor of their own local, social, and national independence?

If they are doing the latter, the USA will move against them ruthlessly by:

1. economic war
2. media war
3. covert war (including terrorism and/or assassinations)
4. outright open war and invasion with the US armed forces

Iran is presently being subjected to items 1, 2, and 3 above, although item 3 isn't getting much news coverage in our press. Item 4 is likely to follow sometime in the next 2 years, because that's all the time Mr Bush has left, and I don't think he intends to simply pass the job on to the next administration.