When you have a democratically elected president of Iran you don't topple him for the Shah. You don't help topple Arbenz in Guatemala. You don't do what we did in Vietnam, etc.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I'm not an Iran expert.
President George W. Bush, in his now-rare public appearances and interviews, still refuses to acknowledge he did anything to help Iran. But it doesn't really matter what he thinks.
At face value, the U.S. Congress, there is a - they have a long way to go before they fully appreciate and understand Iranian people.
The responsible choice? Steer clear of business with Iran.
Iranians are very proud and don't want to become a pariah state like North Korea.
Faced with the crippling sanctions, Iran could simply decide it is paying too high a cost to pursue its nuclear program and could opt for negotiations and reconciliation with the United States and other members of the international community. This is clearly the preferred option of American leaders.
Where in the Constitution does it say that because we don't like a foreign country's leader, we should go in and topple the dictator?
The Iranians don't want the same thing we do in Iraq, not really; they want to control Iraq... the Ayatollah hates the United States; the Iranians are enemies of the United States.
What the United States wanted in Guatemala - and in Iran, where the C.I.A. also deposed a government in the early 1950s - was pro-American stability.
Fighting back against Iran is difficult and costly. No American president from Carter to Obama has been willing to take it on.
No opposing quotes found.