Do you understand ANYTHING about history?  The “facts to the contrary” you demand are there, IF you actually know Iranian history and their relations with the European powers and the US.  From Wikipedia, solely for ease of access.  “The ideology of the Islamic Revolution can be summarized as populist, nationalist and most of all Shi’a Islamic.  The Iranian revolution expresses itself in the language of Islam, that is to say, as a religious movement with a religious leadership, a religiously formulated critique of the old order, and religiously expressed plans for the new. Muslim revolutionaries look to the birth of Islam as their model, and see themselves as engaged in a struggle against paganism, oppression, and empire.|Bernard Lewis|[1]  The Iranian Revolution refers to events involving the overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was supported by the United States and United Kingdom, and its replacement with an Islamic republic under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution.  Demonstrations against the Shah commenced in October 1977, developing into a campaign of civil resistance that was partly secular and partly religious,[9] and intensified in January 1978.[10] Between August and December 1978 strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country.  The Shah left Iran for exile on January 16, 1979 as the last Persian monarch and in the resulting power vacuum two weeks later Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran to a greeting by several million Iranians.[11][12]  The royal reign collapsed shortly after on February 11 when guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting.[13][14] Iran voted by national referendum to become an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979,[15] and to approve a new democratic-theocratic hybrid constitution whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country, in December 1979.  The revolution was unusual for the surprise it created throughout the world:[16] it lacked many of the customary causes of revolution (defeat at war, a financial crisis, peasant rebellion, or disgruntled military),[17] produced profound change at great speed,[18] was massively popular,[19] and replaced a westernising monarchy with a theocracy based on Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (or velayat-e faqih). Its outcome—an Islamic Republic “under the guidance of an extraordinary religious scholar from Qom”—was, as one scholar put it, “clearly an occurrence that had to be explained”  Reasons advanced for why the revolution happened and for its populist, nationalist and later Shi’a Islamic character include a conservative backlash against the Westernizing and secularizing efforts of the Western-backed Shah,[21] a liberal backlash to social injustice,[22] a rise in expectations created by the 1973 oil revenue windfall and an overly ambitious economic program, anger over a short, sharp economic contraction in 1977-78,[23] and other shortcomings of the ancien régime.  The Shah’s regime became increasingly oppressive, brutal,[24][25] corrupt, and extravagant.[24][26] It also suffered from basic functional failures that brought economic bottlenecks, shortages and inflation.[27]  The Shah was perceived by many as beholden to — if not a puppet of — a non-Muslim Western power (the United States)[28][29] whose culture was affecting that of Iran.  At the same time, support for the Shah may have waned among Western politicians and media—especially under the administration of U.S. President Jimmy Carter—as a result of the Shah’s support for OPEC petroleum price increases earlier in the decade.[30]  That the revolution replaced the monarchy of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi with Islamism and Khomeini, rather than with another leader and ideology, is credited in part to the spread of the Shia version of the Islamic revival that opposed Westernization and saw Ayatollah Khomeini as following in the footsteps of the beloved Shi’a Imam Husayn ibn Ali and the Shah in the role of Husayn’s foe, the hated tyrant Yazid I.[31]  In other words, what you saw and interpreted as “progress” was NOT what the Iranian people wanted.  The Iranian people wanted Western dominance and culture out of their country, and saw an opportunity to achieve that goal.  THAT is DEMOCRACY at work, whether you recognize it as such or not, OR whether you agree with their choice or not, since Iran is a SOVEREIGN NATION.  In case you have forgotten, or never understood what it means, democracy “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system”.  The US is embarked on a quasi-religious course to convert the world to “democracy” when we, in fact, have none at home. We are a plutocracy, not a democracy.  Why is it the US preaches “democracy and freedom”, but then actively suppresses it in other nations when they attempt to obtaining?  The reason, obviously, is that it must be the “US brand of democracy” or it doesn’t count.  It is a demonstrable fact that US foreign policy is dedicated to the overthrow of legitimate regimes whenever their policies do not accommodate our global ambitions and to replace them with puppet governments.  The “poster child” of US aggression is Vietnam, which was engaged in a war to free themselves of French colonial rule. In other words, to secure rule of their own nation and achieve freedom for themselves. THAT is an undeniable fact which was suppressed by US government at the time. I find it impossible to believe the usual story that we didn’t understand what we doing and why. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a manufactured incident to further US interests in SE Asia (i.e. to spread “democracy”, but spelled “capitalism”).  Again, from Wikipedia regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident:  “In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded[7] that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the incident of August 4.  The report stated regarding August 2:  At 1505G, Captain Herrick ordered Ogier’s gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.[7]  It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi’s navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2.[8]  And then there is the classic Bush 2 “incident’ of “finding WMDs in Iraq”, when the real reason was to remove another US puppet who had become uncontrollable.  Those, and many others like them, are the acts of a totalitarian (i.e. imperialistic) empire, which is wrong no matter how you care to look at it.  We are a war-mongering nation driven by the economic demands of our “military-industrial complex”.
Iran must now accept or reject a proposal that offers some sanctions relief in return for Tehranâ��s reducing its stockpile of uranium enriched close to weapon-grade. This hopeful note â�� Tehranâ��s reaction was positive â�� comes as a showdown looms.