PS. 1954 was not the first time we intervened in Iran. In 1941, the pro-Hitler Reza Shah asked for our help in preventing the Anglo-Soviet invasion. FDR rebuffed him. We supported the installation of the new Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. We also intervened to help the Iranians retake northern Iran in 1946.
Let us assume that we were completely wrong and imperialist etc in 1954. Does that mean that we should allow the mullahs to get nukes?
That is a good question, and I am not really arguing we should. Rather, I am arguing against the notion that our actions don't provoke other nations in any way, or the malignant notion that is so popular in these parts that American foreign policy is infallible and has never borne bad fruit. That silly view is not at all congruent with conservatism.
Rather, conservatism is the intelligent and reasoned approach as contrasted with the stubborn ignorance of the Left. Conservatives look at facts and respond appropriately, and if errors have been made we admit them and learn from them. We should understand the reality of international relations and the nuances involved, and seek practical results. Trying to carry off macho poses to look tough as candidates does not impress me at all.
Iran is a dangerous nation, and we should be watchful and do what has to be done for our own safety, but that shouldn't include intentional provocation when it isn't necessary or a view that the Iranian people themselves have no right to self-determination. It also shouldn't involve pretending that history started in 1979 and that we had no role in the twisted development of the America-hating nation that now occupies that place on the globe. We did a great deal to produce the current reality in Tehran, and we should be adult enough to admit it.