I think the relevant question is whether the Saah was a better ruler than the previously democratically elected
Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. After all, this was the man that the US overthrew.
David
The reason I haven't engaged on that point, true or not, is that it is not relevant to the current situation. Right now, and for the past forty years, Iran has been calling for the death of Americans and the destruction of the United States. Those are threats to our people and sovereignty. Practically speaking, whether they have a justifiable reason to wish these things, they represent an immediate hazard to the life and liberty of Americans. Unless one wants to surrender life and liberty, regardless why, Iran must be opposed. Therefore, Iran's reasons, whether valid or not, are of no interest to Americans who wish to preserve their lives and their way of life.
As for Mossaddegh, I'll grant for the sake of argument that it was a terrible thing for the US to overthrow his government, installing the Shah in his place. I will further assume, again for the sake of conversation, that the overthrow of Mossaddegh in 1953 was the reason for the Ayatollah's constant threats to America. I will go farther and assume for the sake of argument that the Iranian reaction to the overthrow to Mossaddegh is justified. Regardless, Iran most be opposed because of the threat they pose to Americans now.
As for all those assumptions, my actual positions on the three points are:
1) Mossedegh was a Socialist who himself suborned and overthrew the monarchy that he was subject to at the time. Therefore, why be upset with his overthrow rather than how he took power from the then-current royal family? Also, Mossaddegh crippled the Iranian economy by stealing outright control of British petroleum refineries, essentially the same thing that happened in Venezuela. Having done that, it is no surprise to me that Britain and its ally, the USA, would want to recover their stolen assets through the coup they orchestrated. In the meanwhile, with British and other foreign technicians unavailable to manage their infrastructure, the Iranian economy was crushed. This was, in other words, monumentally stupid on the part of Mossaddegh and the Socialists who supported him. The same thing happened in Venezuela when they decided to nationalize the oil industry, in Israel when the Gaza strip was given to the PLO, and every other place where Socialism has been attempted. The Socialist theory seems to be that they can steal a successful industry and become themselves successful thereby. They don't stop to think that the reason the industry was successful was connected to the specific people who ran it, now run out of the country. It's a bit like the thinking behind a back alley mugging. In that situation, the most that can be gained is the amount of money carried by the victim at that moment. The cost is his future productivity, which is far more valuable.
2) overthrow of Mossadegh as reason for the ire of current Iranian regime: I do not think this is true. My impression is that it is the commonly stated reason but the more salient issue to Iran is that the US supports Israel and (at one time) Iraq as well, preventing them from overpowering both countries in offensive wars. Add to that the fact that the US and Israel are not Muslim, let alone Shia, and they want to destroy us for that reason also.
3) Iran's threats are justified: I don't think so. The reason is that our primary offenses are our opposition to their expansion by military force, opposition to the destruction of an ally (Israel), and our Christian-majority nation. Those are not adequate reasons for the murder of Americans and destruction of US property.
EDIT: I'll add my impression that if the US and England hadn't intervened in 1953, Iran would have become a Soviet protectorate instead. The Soviet Union was certainly interested in Iran and neighboring countries at the time. Without American and British assistance (in the form of Mossaddegh's overthrow) the country would have failed, much as Venezuela has. At that point, with no money or economy to speak of, the Soviet Union would have stepped in to "help" the Iranian people. That would have resulted in an atheistic regime in the center of Muslim-held territory. They likely would have been freed in the eighties when the Soviet Union fell apart, but the Ayatollah, or any Muslim theocracy, would have been impossible before then. If any attempt at creating one were made, it would have been crushed by the Soviet military.