So free markets have made people in the US poorer?

Why are free markets so great, then?

Depends on whom you ask.

There is zero interest inside Iran in the re-establishment of the Pahlavi dynasty.  They may be misguided, but most Iranians don't find Khomeini a worse option than the Shah.  And arguably many of them have more direct experience of both than you and I.

Better for whom?

Better for the US may not be the same as better for Egypt.

Now as you say, the US does things in its own interest (fair enough), but if that disadvantages other people, why should they have a good opinion of it?

Google provides

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jan07/Iran_Jan07_rpt.pdf

From which:

Very large majorities of Iranians have negative views of the United States overall, its influence in the world, its current government, its current president, and its culture. Views of the American people, however, are almost evenly divided Large majorities perceive that US foreign policy is threatening and that US bases in the Middle East are destabilizing the region and threatening to Iran. Very few believe that the primary goal of ‘the war on terrorism’ is to protect the United States from terrorist attacks: most believe that it seeks to dominate the region to control its resources or to undermine the Muslim world. Few believe the United States is really committed to creating an independent Palestinian state. Modest majorities of Americans take contrary views: that US bases in the Middle East are stabilizing, that the goal of the US ‘war on terrorism’ is to protect itself from terrorist attacks, and that the United States is committed to creating an independent Palestinian state. Most Americans, however, agree that US bases in the region are threatening to Iran. 

Anti-American is a sloppy term -  American individuals and civil society institutions (like universities) are liked and respected by many people in the ME.  US Govt policy in their region is differentiated from this, and often resented.

Because US foreign policy doesn't support Left wing dictators.

It's irrelevant whether you liked Mubarak or not. The Egyptians suffered the consequences for many years any way.

Sheer fantasy.  People like you, but they dislike your Government.  

Unless they have something to gain professionally or monetarily from saying so I doubt any Iranian would claim that US Govt intervention would be welcomed by most Iranians.

So is the promise of free markets - more prosperity for everybody - a false one?  That seems to be what you're saying.

Is it always in the US' tactical interests to acknowledge the truth? Especially during armed conflict.

What are the alternatives?  America cannot lead from the front in most countries in the ME - the well was poisoned by years of supporting dictators like Mubarak.  (Look there for the reasons for anti-Americanism.)

People keep writing as if there is a better alternative to the Arab Spring, and that the path taken depends on the US, but both of these assumptions seem utterly unrealistic.

Again: conflict sometimes requires subterfuge.

I think the term became standard after WWII as a response to the Holocaust (and to the anti-semitic traditions that preceded it).  

It's an assertion that Jews were part of the same tradition as Christians, not outsiders or different (as had been believed with horrific consequences for centuries).  

It's a good term and was adopted for sound reasons.

It's a deep human instinct.  

The oldest religion, Hinduism, is called Sanaatan Dharma, in Sanskrit - which can be translated as eternal law.

http://hinduism.iskcon.org/concepts/108.htm

Dharma is often translated as "duty," "religion" or "religious duty" and yet its meaning is more profound, defying concise English translation. The word itself comes from the Sanskrit root "dhri," which means "to sustain." Another related meaning is "that which is integral to something." For example, the dharma of sugar is to be sweet and the dharma of fire to be hot. Therefore, a person'sdharma consists of duties that sustain him, according to his innate characteristics.

Enlightened self interest.  

The society you create is the one you'll be living in.

Did your coworker and their spouse not consent to their marriage?

Arranged marriage isn't synonymous with no choice.  It's a misdirect.

For information: Muslim marriages are essentially just contracts.  Entered into, in the presence of a minimum number of witnesses, by the participants saying 'I agree, I agree, I agree' to seal the deal.  Iow, I consent, I consent, I consent.

 (Whether some are forced to consent, of course, is a real issue. )

To be honest, I think Natural Law is an attempt to make a religiously based argument without mentioning God.  Perhaps I've misunderstood it, but that's what it seems like to me, wrt the assumptions underlying what is good, evil, man, woman, purpose.  I prefer a frankly religious argument to that.

A religious argument is an argument that could not be made without an assumption about/belief in God, or about teachings from a specific religious tradition.

There’s no reason to exclude honestly religious arguments – though their being religious is a part of how one would evaluate them. (Similar to how one would evaluate openly materialist arguments, openly capitalist arguments, openly socialist arguments.)

I would exclude religious arguments which are presented as non-religious, but that’s more on the lines of good faith debating than on their being religious.  Basically I’m wary of any argument which camouflages its assumptions, or claims that they’re not assumtions, instead of owning them openly.

Maybe God is a little bit socialist. 

So what? Would the sky fall if he were?

It strikes me that anthropomorphising God often results in a tendency to re-cast him in our own image.  And that is not necessarily untrue, of course, but it isn't the whole truth.

google 'girl writes what' youtube.  She has a bunch of fairly brilliant stuff up - which is usually insightful, often engaging, only rarely unpleasant.  You may enjoy it.

Slouch