I believe from my research , that they disagree with your findings somewhat. I listened to 70% of the Iran-contra hearing. It became clear that Reagan did not know the specifics, but approved of the overall operation. This is where we got the term "plausible deniability". He hired people to make the decisions and let them go and did not get directly involved himself as a way to deny accountability.

You are right about the Tet Offensive. I was wrong on that account. Nixon was guilty of incursions into Laos and Cambodia illegally and denying it until it came out and was undeniable. I was in the last draft call for Vietnam and I seem to remember an escalation on our part that was originally denied, but later exposed?

It was possible that Truman was approached first, but Eisenhaurer met with Churchill and negotiated the plans to incite the Iranian coup. Iran under a very popular leader nationalized the British oilfields in their country. Churchill wanted them back. Eisenhaurer used Truman's reluctance against him as being weak on communism and foreign policy. Iran was not failing to communism. It was a propaganda ploy that worked for both Eisenhauer who got elected and Churchill who got his oilfields back (the start of BP - British Pertroleum).

@t1nick

1. ok, but I’d heard that Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. ( the original name ) treated its Iranian employees almost as slaves. Also, I don’t know how overthrowing Iran benefitted the US.

Addendum. What do you say to the hypothesis that the leaders of big nations and big companies act like and probably are, sociopaths?

@yvilletom

I concur. It benefited Eisenhauer as portraying his opponent as weak and set up a supply of oil with an ally as opposed to a country that was so different culturally and governmentally than our own.