A moot point. If less exploitation happened, for whatever reason, then you can debate intent all you want but idealistic results were accomplished. There is no difference between idealism and accomplishing idealistic ends.I'm not sure where you are going with this, because the point was that "liberalizing" a country is not a sign by itself of pursuing an idealistic cause. Reversing the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry would be liberalizing their economic policy, but it also gave U.S. oil companies a considerable stake where they previously had none.
US Foreign policy has had everything to do with making the world freer. Its intended aims may have not been that end. Yet the reality is that the world is freer, more prosperous, and more scientifically advanced because of the United States.I think U.S. foreign policy had nothing to do with making the world freer and definitely hasn't made it less violent. Prosperity is the result of scientific advances rather than foreign policy.
In spite of the fact that both Taraki's and Hafizullah Amin's political parties (the foci of contention) existed well before US involvement? The existence of Islamic "freedom fighters" has never been a reason for Soviet involvement.We were more than responsible for it, it was a desired consequence of U.S. actions. Zbigniew Brzezinski of the Carter Administration noted that U.S. support for mujahideen prior to the invasion was a major factor in the invasion and was cited as a pretext by the Soviets. When the invasion happened it allowed the U.S. to give the Soviets their Vietnam, those are Brzezinski's words.