Iranian,
The points you raise are valid, when one looks at it from one's own country's view.
However, if that be the case, then the US is also entitled to view it from its national point of view.
To many, this would appear unilateralism and hegemonic.
With the collapse of the USSR, US became the ONLY global superpower. Yet, there were 'challengers' lurking in the corner e.g. even Russia (once they stabilise) and China (Read the NIC 2020 Report).
Obviously, this is not in the interest of the US.
To ensure supremacy in perpetuity, it is in the interest of the US to:
1. Defend the US homeland;
2. Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars;
3. Perform the ‘constabulary’ role associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions.
Oil is a major factor. Read up on the Peak Global Oil (in essence it means while one barrel is discovered, the consumption is four barrel; i.e. oil is a vanishing commodity). True, much has been written about Alternate Energy, but till now there has been no economical alternate fuel made. Therefore, oil becomes a key strategic weapon.
The country that controls (or influences) oil, control the global economy and, in turn, controls the world.
Therefore, the US is interested in the Central Asian Republics, Venezuela, West Africa and even Iran. The US in this context was also not too pleased with the Yukos (Russia) issue.
A small digression: the events in Ukraine, Georgia, CAR is pertinent, since it weans away these countries from Russia's influence and from the Russian point of view, it is taken to be an attempt to stifle Russian power.
Back to to Oil. The testimony of the Unocal representative to the Congress on the Caspian Oil areas is interesting. In fact, the complete proceedings are.
This Caspian Oil areas hold huge untapped hydrocarbons. Two US Consortium are already in action there. The problem is how to transport the oil free of Russian influence as also economically.
The European Market is appreciated to be near stagnation. The Chinese and Indian markets are on the upswing and will continue for a long time. Their oil requirements will be collosal and hence the companies that own such oil will reap a rich harvest, and, in turn, fill the cofferes of the countries backing them since the money will be repatriated to those countries.
How can this oil be transported cheaply? The cheapest way is through Iran. Next is through Afghanistan onto Pakistan and to the Gwadar Port. Thereafter, come the option to the Turkish port through a couple of countries and lastly the western alignment.
Why is Iran so important? The Caspian area has Azeris and so does Iran. And as per the testimony, Iran is the 'natural leader' of that area. Therefore, the present fundamentalist govt of Iran is not the best of situation for the US. Therefore, like Saddam was no longer of use to the US (as he was in the 1980s) and so he had to go, the present religious govt of Iran too, from the US strategic perspective, also has to go.
Let's look at the 'War on Terror'. It is basically against 'terrorists' and 'WMD' and making the world safe.
I don't think anyone can refute that these are goals all would like to be fulfilled. After all, these two factors do impinge on the lives of all in the world.
Interestingly, the only nation that subscribe to these two issues is Pakistan.
1. They have WMD officially; as also the delivery systems in the form of missiles as also planes.
2. The 'terror factories' of the Taliban and AQ took birth in Pakistan and are still continuing to churn new 'warriors of Islam' by the 100s.
And yet the US is tolerant to Pakistan and are even selling sophisticated weapon systems.
Paradoxical? Not really.
Remember the oil pipeline through Afghanistan and the future economic boom if this line goes through? If Pakistan get antagonised, then this pipeline will be a pipedream! Obviously, it is not in the US interest.
Yet, now come an new input - the serious unrest in Balochistan. Even as I write, the US Ambassador is meeting the Balochi leaders to discuss the issue. There is a school of thought: now that the US is tired of pandering to Pakistan (and constantly worried about the Islamist but powerful opposition political alliance of Pakistan) , a new nation called Balochistan would possibly a better option. But this is just speculation and a 'could know' factor. The frenzy of teh Pakistan newspapers in asking Musharraf to bring in democracy in its actual forms suggests that Pakistan is equally worried that the Balochistan issue could go the Bangladesh way.
That is how most simplistically one could view the issue.
Therefore, to blame the US for all the sufferings of the world is not really fair. They do what they do for their national interest, as would any other country.
Therefore, if one puts emotions aside, one can see things beyond the fog, or at least think that he is seeing it beyond the fog, the reality will dawn.