US financing, arming, and supporting the likes of Saddam Hussein, Al-Qaeda Network, ISIS, Nusrah and the like? Is this not a one-sided perspective of things? Last time I checked - Iran did not invade Iraq and topple Saddam regime in 2003.
Perhaps your survey did not reach back far enough?
You might also be interested to search for certain accounts from Saddam's own advisers testifying how the CIA provided the Iraqi Baath regime with lists of communists to eliminate right after Saddam's coup.
This is on top of the massive military and financial support granted to Saddam by US allies in Europe and West Asia. Support which the US could have had interrupted at a simple request.
Add to that the US veto opposed at the UN Security Council against a resolution condemning Saddam's use of WMD against Iran (WMD use which, upon orders from Imam Khomeini, were never responded to in kind by the way).
Finally, add to the mix direct US involvement on Iraq's behalf in the Persian Gulf towards the end of the war (complete with the shooting down of an Iranian civilian aircraft by the US Navy killing everyone on board), as a reaction to Tehran
responding to Iraqi interdiction of oil tankers carrying Iranian oil, and if you choose to remain impartial you'll be hard pressed to admit Saddam enjoyed considerable backing from the US.
He was toppled as a result of the machinations of the Israel lobby in D.C. (as demonstrated by Mearsheimer and Walt) once he had outlived his usefulness to US and zionist imperial designs.
Last time I checked - Iran did not invade Afghanistan and dismantle Al-Qaeda Network in the region as well as kill Osama Bin Laden and his sons.
Same as above. And that was after Bin Laden granted US neocons and the authors of the "Project for a New American Century" their dearest and most pressing wish, i. e. "another Pearl Harbor" in the words of the above pictured Donald Rumsfeld, who explicitly defined such an attack on the US a necessary condition for the implementation of the then-hatched US-Isra"el"i concept for a "New Middle East" which is ongoing to this day. Some believe it is too much of a coincidence for Bin Laden to conduct the right operation and the right moment in time in absolute conformity with the zionist and US imperial plan. And I must say their argument is convincing.
Last time I checked - ISIS strongholds did not fell to Iranian-backed forces in Syria and Iraq respectively. Americans have fought and eroded these regimes to large extent because SNAKES are not trustworthy
Various local ISIS strongholds did actually fall to Iranian-allied forces in Syria and Iraq respectively. That being said, again my suggestion would be to focus on the timeline. The US regime deliberately held back long enough to allow ISIS to occupy these swaths of land in the first place, as evidenced by various leaked documents:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq
Their belated intervention only came because:
1) ISIS had accomplished what the US regime wanted to see them accomplish, namely to wrestle away sovereign Syrian and Iraqi territory that Washington and its allies could then occupy with a semblance of "legitimacy" in order to continue their above mentioned plan for the balkanization of the region's nation-states.
2) Iran and her allies could not be alowed to refill the vacuum.
Iran has benefited the most from American moves in it surroundings since 2001 - even American allies in the region are in ENVY.
Iran faced an enormous challenge, a serious threat to its very existence as a result of American moves in its surroundings since 2001. Let's not forget the motto of Yankee troops in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq: "real men go to Tehran". That was and still is the goal (after which, it'll be the turn of their own allies, I mean Saudi Arabia, Turkey and yes, Pakistan, which figures on both Bernard Lewis's and Ralph Peters's "death lists"). However, Iran managed to counter these threats and turn them into opportunities.
Besides, it is not as if Iran plotted together with the US so as to benefit from their moves. If Iran managed to contain the US-zionist onslaught on its borders by projecting power into the theaters where Washington and its allies triggered conflict, it was against and in spite of the US. So, Iran isn't indebted to the US and whatever influence it gained came as an unexpected consequence of US actions. If it was up to the US, Iran would already be in a state of civil war and balkanized as we speak. "Real men go to Tehran", they used to say. And they still are working relentlessly towards that goal.
Iranians responded with Extremism and Militia politics by extension which brought more harm to its reputation than good in recent years.
You ought to ponder the fact that what you refer to as extremism (debatable qualification in the case of an organization such as Hezbollah, respected as it is by Lebanese citizens from all strands of society and from all confessional groups for its legitimate resistance against zionist aggressors) and militia politics, is not of Iran's doing but much rather a direct consequence of systematic, zionist-inspired US and NATO policy to dismantle the social fabric of the targetted nation-states of West Asia and to split them up along ethinc and sectarian lines.
Mentionning the toppling of Saddam by the US is all fine, but doing so without immediately adding that in the aftermath of the illegal invasion, Washington, through its local neo-colonial vice regent Paul Bremer, made absolutely sure that Iraqi political life and state institutions would be divided along communal (ethnic and confessional) lines, which was reflected both in the constitution that US occupiers imposed on Iraq and in the manner in which the US coopted its local clients, only conveys part of the picture.
Same with Lebanon: it wasn't Iran which turned that country into a failed polity eternally divided along confessional lines, but the French colonial occupiers, responsible for the "communalized" Lebanese constitution.
So the setting in which Iran acts is not due to its policies, said setting preceded any Iranian intervention. All Iran did was to score relative successes within those frameworks entirely brought about by its adversaries. I cannot blame Iran for beating western powers in a game which the latter instigated and whose rules and conditions said extra regional powers defined to start with.
Iranian moves are not helping Palestine one bit - the latter are being squeezed more and more by Israel as time passes by. Perhaps Israeli are also on the brink of Extremism now.
I know one thing: overtures and attempts at negotiating with the zionist occupier have not helped the Palestinians one bit either, quite the opposite. The fate of the Oslo agreement and preceding attempts speak for themselves. The zionist occupier is not interested in peace, it has always strived on conflict (another example being how Isra"el"i security firms benefit from international terrorism by offering their services to foreign governments and pocketing juicy contracts all over the world).
If Iran is very eager to defeat ZIONISM then it should take its chances with Israel in honorable manner instead of trying to fight them through militias because it would be 'another country' on the receiving end of Israeli firepower in this process; homes of other people will burn in short. This is nationalism at the expense of others.
A look at the map will make it unmistakebly clear that the distance betwen Iran and Isra"el" is such that fully fledged, direct conventional confrontation is out of the question. This goes both ways by the way, since Tel Aviv too cannot put into practice its "regime change" (euphemism for destruction of sovereign state structures + balkanization + triggering never ending civil war) goal vis a vis Iran through direct conventional border war - not that the zionist regime in recent decades engaged its targets in such a direct manner, no, it systematically used its control over US and EU institutions to have the Americans and Europeans (plus their regional allies) do its dirty work.
Secondly, could you name a country from whose soil Iran is helping to organize anti-zionist resistance against the express will of the local government? If there is no such example, then how can we put the blame on Iran?
Lastly, I'm not sure the concept of resistance is perfectly understood by every user in this thread. Resistance is not about launching wars, it is about assisting the oppressed side, the occupied country or land against the aggressor; alternately it is about fighting off the occupier when it is your own land that is occupied.
Iranians should TRY to understand perspectives of others around them - this is the best way forward to make "amends." Iran will do BIG FAVOR to much of the Islamic bloc in this manner.
I think the numerous Iranian initiatives listed by raptor22 for negotiations with those certain others around them are proof enough that Iran is trying just that. Now the question is, why were does initiatives rejected or ignored by their addressees?
Nice talk but the conditions are not acceptable when Iran want All GCC to cut its ties with the US.. is that rational..or child's play..
Could you point us to when and where Iran set the cuttingt of ties with the US as a precondition for negotiations?
even Iran offered an security architecture like Helsinki accords to ease the tensions .. after the conclusion of JCPOA, Iran sought to propose to create a ‘Regional Dialogue Forum’. That proposal fell on deaf ears, but is still on the table. 
