How about South Korea, Japan, Germany, and France? US military intervention has had really good outcomes in the past, why just cherry pick the bad ones?
That's a ridiculously cherry-picked list. What about Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Congo (1960), Cuba (1961), Vietnam, Dominican Republic (1965)... I'm still in the sixties.
Basically anyone anywhere in the planet other than the US would find your statement outrageous.
I would suggest reading into the history of South Korea after the war. Nothing suggests to me that it was a good outcome. As a small sample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Uprising
How many times have the people of those countries stormed american embassies? Iranians may hate the regime but they also hate american imperialism. The country is not a monolith, many will not accept american intervention.
Preferential satrap treatment is for countries whose geopolitical alignment helps US... i.e. containing USSR, PRC. Iran/Shah muscle and Saudi money use to be US twin pillar strategy for MENA influence, including coldwar anticommunist containment. Israel is muscle now, and they sure as shit isn't going to share with Iran. Deputy sheriff position is zero-sum.
The current realpolitik geopolitical fate for Iran is to be suppressed and relegated, regional players don't want to redistribute power / influence to accommodate Iran. Bluntly Iran is too big allow to flourish, but not so big it cannot be suppressed. That's Iran's fate under current dynamics, no one wants to save Iran, they want to neutralize Iran, naive to pretend otherwise. Iran is no longer in the minority of potential strategic intervention successes, its in the bucket of dozens of countries US intervention fucked over because that's the strategic end goal is for these countries to remain weak. If Iran wants bigger lightcone, it needs to fight for one.
