I'm asking because I don't see any markers indicating that it is and I get this wrong every 3rd comment or so.
If it isn't sarcasm you are somewhat mis-informed. If it is sarcasm then please ignore this comment.
As for the Shah, he was very much there with the support of the oil industry, but that doesn't make him all bad. He wanted to make Persia a modern state and in doing so upset the Mullahs which culminated in the return of banished Ayatollah Khomeini (who resided in Paris, of all places during his exile), and how that ended we probably all already know.
IIRC, he oppressed, imprisoned, tortured and killed people in large numbers, for decades.
An Introduction to the Modern Middle East: History, Religion, Political Economy by David S. Sorenson (Page 202) http://bit.ly/1S9HrTA
The Cold War Museum http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/OperationAjax.asp
If the U.S. didn't overthrow Mossadegh, why did the CIA admit to doing so years later in declassified documents?
Temper runs high and patience is thin when it comes to questions like this, so it's understandable when people boil over—but it also breaks the rules of this site, which are there for good reason. Please don't post comments unless they are civil and substantive.
The U.S. did not 'set up' the Shah; he was the legitimate ruler of Persia. Nor did the U.S. overthrow a 'democratically-elected leader'; the Shah's legitimate government successfully defeated a coup attempt by his prime minister Mossadegh, who died peacefully under house arrest years later.