There are a lot of things we don't fully understand or about which we know the full story.<quoted text>
Carol, more atrocities were committed in Iraq after we invaded. And no stupid, we already know that the Iraq ware was a waste of lives and money which did nothing but play into the hands of the Iranians and gave Al Qaeda another area to operate in. I notice that you didn't mention Eisenhower's overthrow of the elected president of Iran putting the Shah in his place who was responsible for as many atrocities as Sadaam Hussein or Nixon using the CIA to overthrow Salvador Allende and put Augusto Pinochet into power whose abuses would make Sadaam blush with envy.
Apparently, the democratically elected, Mohammed Mosaddeq, planned to nationalize the oil industry and shut out the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company which was a vital interest to Britain's economy and provided them political clout in the region.
By the time Eisenhower came to office, fears that communists were poised to overthrow the Iranian government became an all-consuming concern. The power struggle between Russia and the U.S. back then was, in part, who had the most influence in oil-rich countries.
Both Britian and the United States had much to lose.
We could have gone back to the horse and buggy, I suppose.
As Madeline Albright summized, "The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons."
There are no crystal balls.