Yes and no. Oversimplification is your enemy, whether it be “they are bad guys who want a nuke and actively support terrorism” or “this is all about oil.” Both things can be true. Take oil out of the equation, and the world would still be better off if Iran wasn’t a violently hostile chaos agent. There’s no need for Persia to be so bellicose, particularly as to a nation they don’t even share a border with. The ramped-up Shiite hate against Israel and Jews is and always has been a transparent “let’s manufacture a perpetual enemy to keep our authoritarian government in power” move (FFS, we’re running the same play here in the US against Mexicans). It’s fucking pointless and has been almost 50 years of violence and bloodshed and exported terror. The world would indeed be much better off if Iran was governed by a regime that wasn’t singularly focused on authoritarianism and a pointless hatred and warfare against “Israel and the west.” But Iran of course would be much less important, and much less able to foment and support such assholery, if it did not have massive petroleum resources. And the history of western control and scheming for such control over those resources is a real thing. That said, there’s no real reason for “the west” to try to functionally capture Iran’s reserves. It’s a global commodity, China buys a bunch, etc. This isn’t the post WWII, Cold War, scramble for oil that set the table for the precious shenanigans in Iran. I don’t support US involvement in Iran in this conflict. I think this particular conflict is 90% driven by Bibi trying to save his ass and stay out of prison. I also think that Iran way fucking overplayed its hand, and got their ass handed to them in Syria and with Hezzbollah, and I shed no tears for either of those strategic losses. Iran is a bad actor, fucked around and found out, etc. I also think that the current conflict is unnecessary and is being fought for the wrong reasons by a bad actor.