and it's not as if the information that is the evidence for this pattern is hidden - just the 'history of ... ' section about any middle country demonstrates it clearly. As Caitlin says "If the oil-rich nations in the middle east ever had democratic rule, their governments would quickly move away from their official and unofficial alliances and partnerships with the United States and Israel, and would in all likelihood form their own powerful bloc in support of their own interests." People hate the fact that Saddam and Gadhafi were both elected (Fake news! Rigged!) and proceeded to try to trade oil in Dinars, the primary reason for their countries' annihilation. But empire tactics don't always work, with Iran being the greatest example. Despite their lies about 'defending democracy' the US and the British connived to oust Mossadeq's elected socialist government because they immediately set about nationalising their oil industry and getting rid of the West based big oil corporations. In response the allies staged a coup and put the brutal dictator Shah in place, which the Iranians finally rid themselves of. Of course, because democracy had been completely corrupted by then, it had to be accomplished by revolution, with Islamic Religion being the only rallying flag available. That this regime is so hard line is a by product of the need for absolute control that revolutions necessitate. Left to it's own devices - i.e. not economically sanctioned, and not surrounded by enemy military bases on all sides, and not having wars with their neighbours deliberately provoked and paid for, Iran would surely gradually revert to the perfectly pleasant and vibrant country it has been since time immemorial. As it is, like in so many countries oppressed by the US empire, a strong and unwavering regime is needed simply to hold a nation together. The alternative - as Iran is quite aware - is subjugation, chaos, poverty, having all your resources stolen.