Absolutely correct. USA is a rival country....and we have to be aware that not all countries are friendly and benevolent. Look no further than Turkey, for months Trump and Bolton have been pressuring Erdogan with tariffs and currency manipulation. Not to mention they may have secretly backed the recent unsuccessful military coup, this is a NATO ally I'm talking about. But, instead of ratcheting up the tension and rhetoric Erdogan released the pastor that was in the center of the row between the two countries. At the same time he used the Khashoggi murder to put S.A. in their place and warm up to the USA. U.S. govt does not like Erdogan....trust me. But, they have no choice to play nice because Erdogan has proof that could make S.A. look like an international pariah, which is no good for Trump and Kushner (and Israel UAE) who have spent so much political capital on. So Trump quickly said nice things about Turkey and no doubt they will stop their economic war on the Lira...for now. This is how you play diplomatic chess in the international arena.
That is not playing chess. That is buckling under pressure. Would you please explain what Erdogan got out of all this except restoring the former status quo before they imprisoned that pastor? (if it is fully restored)
There are a lot of reasons why US my not like to go as hard at Turkey as it goes against Iran:
1- Turkey is the one an only country that can render bulk of Russia's naval power obsolete by just closing the entrance to Black Sea. That is the main reason it was accepted as a NATO member to begin with.
2- It is a NATO member with lots of "insider" information that it can easily share with Russia, China and Iran should they decide to change sides.
3- It is the most populated country in whole middle east with an economy almost in par with that of KSA. Losing that market would not necessarily help "making US great again"
4- Last and not least, it is the gatekeeper of Europe against any threat from east as it has always been throughout the history except for the times that it was the threat itself.
Attributing Iran's foreign policy only to supreme leader shows your lack of knowledge about how Iran is run. The recent revolution was not Iran's first attempt to get rid of monarchy style governments where only one person has all the power. Each time, system had automatically turned back to the same monarchy style. So this time, the people who designed the government, came up with such a complicated system that one person having all the power is almost impossible.
I know everyone thinks supreme leader has all the power, but it is just a misperception. Don't agree? Look at the chaos and corruption in Iran these days and compare that to countries that were in similar situation but with one person in power: Saddam's era Iraq after the first Persian Gulf war and today's North Korea. Both of them were and are under more severe sanctions compared to Iran, but I personally believe they managed it much better than what is Iran doing right now. Just look at Iran's monetary policy changing everyday. It is because there are so many different power centers in Iran that they just can't make up their mind about what to do. Do you think if Iran was controlled by only one man, you would see this chaos?
Lastly, Iran and the way it is run has a lot of space for improvement but when it comes to playing chess, no country in the region and outside comes close. This is how you play chess:
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/iran-won-face-iraq-181018101229959.html
US spent trillions in capital and human life to turn Iraq into a foot hold in the region. Iran spent merely a fraction and now Iraq is an ally. Same in Lebanon, same in Syria.