Works for me.
Odds pretty high he is right.
Most of this is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia influence on the US during the 1970s. Their oil had asserted their power, and the primary focus of their power was (and is) to hate Shiites. Iran is the central locale of the Shiite faction, with KSA being Sunni central.
So the Shah was intended to crush that religious faction, and that religious faction objected to all efforts at crushing it, be they foreign or domestic.
The Shah was tossed by the Shiites and his puppeteer (the US, and KSA) was blamed every bit as much as he was.
So that began the whole affair, Saudi influence on the US to have the Shiite religion eradicated. America believes in freedom of religion and should never have gone along with this.
Well, now it has evolved, much to KSA’s delight. American no longer needs its strings pulled to hate Iran. As for this Khamainei guy saying that the US wishes to dictate Iran’s behavior, how could anyone argue with that.
It is indeed what is desired. There is a hugely powerful lesson in this. The failure of sanctions on Iran. Sanctions, particularly on oil, have a century of failure history, going back to Japan and FDR cutting them off from oil.
Did that compel the behavior FDR wanted? No. That started a war, beginning with Pearl Harbor, intended to disable the US Navy and how it would interdict oil tankers from Indonesia north to Japan.
Then we have the oil embargo of the US by Arabs, intended to halt US support for Israel. Hugely long lines at US gas stations as US oil production could not replace the Arab oil import. But did it compel the desired behavior change? It did not. The US continued to support Israel, until flow from Prudhoe Bay arrived and made it all pointless.
And so. Sanctions on oil fail. They generate the opposite behavior of what is desired.