Whose "sovereignty" are protecting anyway?

One thing becomes clear from all the turmoil in Iran. The current Iranian regime does not represent the Iranian people. The current Iranian theocracy is an evil dictatorship which holds on to power only by brutal repression and military force.

So why does president Obama legitimize this fascistic despotism by referring to its chief dictator as "Supreme Leader"? Why does he refer to Iran as the "Islamic Republic" when that is a name imposed on the nation by a regime which the people of Iran desperately wish to be free from?

While on this topic we could also ask why the American left became so incandescent with fury over the United States' "violation" of the "sovereignty" of Iraq when that nation was ruled not by an elected government which reflected the will of the Iraqi people but by a cruel tyrant whom the Iraqi people desperately wished to be rid of.

The only "sovereignty" which the US violated when it invaded Iraq was the sovereignty of Saddam Hussein and the small thugocracy which directly profited from his tyranny.

The United States would not have won its war of independence against England if France had not been willing to violate the "sovereignty" of King George and give us aid.

There is a story in the 18th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew about a servant who received great mercy and then refused to show mercy to another in even a small matter. I think that this should be a cautionary tale for a nation which has received much, and from whom much must surely be required, when we contemplate whether to "meddle" in the affairs of a people who wish only to be free from the torment of a clique of evil old men in religious robes.