I think those are rationalizations for the larger reason: The U.S. and the West are the status quo powers; that is, we support the status quo power structure in

I think those are rationalizations for the larger reason: The U.S. and the West are the status quo powers; that is, we support the status quo power structure in the Mideast, with Sunnis and Saudi Arabia in particular dominating the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula. Iran is challenging that status quo. Speaking generally, in any such situation the challengers appear to be behaving badly because they are disruptive - they have to disrupt the status quo to bring change. In the end, neither side necessarily has a more legitimate claim to power and both would do the same in the other's shoes. I'm also not sure either side behaves better. Remember the U.S. played a major role in overthrowing a (mostly) democratic Iranian government in the 1950s, then supported a dictator who brutally oppressed the people of Iran for decades. The U.S. supports insurgent groups in and near Iran, sabotages their infrastructure (the nuclear program), imposes crippling economic sanctions, and very likely participated in the assassination of Iranian scientists. I happen to think the actions against Iran's nuclear weapons program are necessary, and Iran's government is generally a danger to many people's lives in the Mideast, but the West can hardly complain about Iran behaving badly. (And don't forget the U.S. misleading the world and invading a neighboring Mideast country for no good reason.)