Cate
Pretty much invincible
So what you're saying, then, is that Gorbachev wanted a reformed, not dissolved, Soviet Union, and that he assigns Reagan responsiblity for the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which we've just established was not what Gorbachev was looking for.
That's not giving credit; it's called "blaming."
And don't make the mistake of thinking that Iran is an impovershed nation that can't afford to feed its people. Economic difficulties (and boy howdy, have they got some) aside, the current fuel rationing isn't from a lack of funds; it's from a lack of crude oil processing facilities. Iran is still a significant producer of oil, which it gladly sells to countries that do have refining capabilities, and is sitting on massive oil reserves. They're rationing to try and cut down on a budget deficit that's a result of fuel subsidies that are a result of a lack of refineries. You can try all of the Tom-Clancy-esque ninja-super-spy stuff you want, but if you really want to topple Iran's economy, try imposing sanctions on fuel exports to Iran.
Of course, then the question becomes whether or not you actually want to try to topple Iran's economy. The Cold War ended the way it did largely because, as has been mentioned before, the USSR was already in dire economical straits long before Reagan started exacting his influence, and because of the governmental structure at the time, and because, as mentioned, Gorbachev had some interest in reforming, whether or not he knew exactly what he wanted to reform or how to do it.
In Iran, you've got a near-totalitarian leader (and do note the differences between totalitarianism and communism, whether or not the outcomes are the same) with tight ties to a radical fundamentalist cleric and no desire to make the citizens anything but more beholden to their government. If you want to go in there and destabilize the hell out of that, go ahead, but the result is more likely to resemble Iraq than it is to resemble Russia. The current fuel riots are a mere THX preview to what we'd see with complete economic collapse.
There's always, of course, the option of influencing the 80 percent of Iranians who voted against Ahmadinejad in the first round of the 2005 election, many of whom still have their Levi's from back before western goods were banned; and trying to neutralize Khomenei's influence, which was largely responsible for his 70 percent victory in the runoff and which keeps Iranian politics on the straight-and-burqa today. But that option probably doesn't involve night-vision goggles and would be a better John Grisham than Tom Clancy novel.
