In my opinion, the U.S. has been paranoiac and defensive in its foreign policy since the nineteenth century.

For one thing, we had our "Cold War" with the Soviets, when both sides adopted an adversarial relationship. Another matter was that the CIA hired all those former Nazi experts. Instead of simply collecting intelligence, it branched out to manipulating other nations.

It was an extension of the "for us or against us" attitude where any country that didn't pay lip service to us was considered an enemy. There wasn't and still isn't any middle ground.

Some of the most repressive countries in the world, like Iran under Shah Pahlavi were considered as "free" countries, while others, like Nicaragua under the Sandinistas - which was a democracy and perhaps the best government the country ever had – were considered enemies. Other states, like Cuba after they toppled a U.S. friend, a repressive dictator named Batista, were also called enemies. Needing aid after that war, they turned to the Soviets.

Our, the U.S., influence in Iran has also been long, violent, and repressive. When the Iranians overthrew their king in the 50's, establishing a democracy, the U.S. and European troops stopped them, putting Shah Pahlavi in charge. His was a repressive dictatorship where he lived a rich life and his people a poor one.

When the Iranians ousted the Shah and established a religion-based government, they were once again our enemies. Later, we helped Saddam in his invasion of Iran, giving him arms and satellite intelligence.

Even now we're making no secret of our wish to change the Iranian government, now a democracy, to put in another dictator that will follow our wishes.

I think the Iranians have every reason to distrust the United States.

Also, bear in mind that the two countries, Iraq and Iran, share a border. What would be the U.S.'s reaction if some foreign country took over either Mexico or Canada? I think it would be much more violent than Iran's reaction to our invasion of Iraq.

Charlie from U.S.