Yes. Khomeini was your puppet, because it was the only one you could find against the Shah and you knew he would make Iran weak again so USA could continue it's exploition. Things go wrong, things don't always go right.
But American oil interests in Iran were nationalized by the state after the revolution! I suppose you think Khomeini (who, by the way, I am not defending!) was secretly shipping oil money out the door to the Americans, even though he spent all his time in public bashing them and fomenting Shia uprisings in Iraq and Lebanon.
I am attempting to say this as respectfully as I can: I believe your view of history to be delusional. However, I don't see why your view of history requires Khomeini to have been an American puppet. If the Americans played some role in stirring up the Revolution -- and this I could believe, since Western-educated Iranians with exposure to democratic traditions were among the first to support it -- then you could just argue it got out of control and Khomeini seized the momentum and turned it to his advantage. This could have happened whether he was a puppet or not, and if Khomeini was a puppet he sure had an odd way of showing it.
The Hostage crises got a lot of enemies killed, beause "USA didn't have enough time to shred information on spies" and it allowed USA to freeze Iranian assets outside of Iran. How did the Islamic revolution save American interests? Let's see: The nation is weak, thus you can continue exploit it. Iran was sent hundreds of years back.
That I don't deny, though as I've said previously I believe the Shah to have been an American client ruler and that the Iranian people did in some way ultimately benefit from being out from under the American thumb, although it came at the (brutal) cost of a theocracy. What I would have preferred to see (as much as my opinion as a non-Iranian Westerner counts for anything) is a republic or a constitutional monarchy emerge from the revolution, with real power vested in the Majlis.
No, the Shah was not a client and I am still not seeing anything that can prove me to me how he was a client of USA.
Well, I'm not going to convince you if you don't want to believe it. He got massive foreign aid and military hardware from the U.S., his army was trained by Americans and even his son Reza Pahlavi was trained as a fighter pilot in the U.S. air force. After leaving Iran during the revolution he lived in Panama and Egypt (both within the American sphere of influence) and the United States. His son Reza (who you perhaps regard as Reza Shah II?) has lived in the U.S. for the last 25 years.
Most significantly, the Iranians themselves believed the Shah to be an American pawn during the Revolution. This idea had to come from somewhere. Now, you could argue that Khomeini the "secret American agent" fed the theory of the "American puppet Shah" with anti-American rhetoric and false accusations, but the idea of the Americans systematically stirring anti-American rhetoric as part of some nefarious plan beggars belief.
Either way, oh.. so you bring SAVAK into this. Right, what about your beautiful CIA who disappear people? Torture people? Kill people? Secret prisons in Europe, or do Americans not count?
First off, they are not "my" CIA: I'm not American. I am a Westerner, so I can't pretend to be entirely distant from that world. But have you been listening to anything I've been saying? I have accused the CIA of being behind the Mossadegh takedown, and they are responsible for far more bloody and terrible things in South America and elsewhere. At no point have I made any attempt to defend the CIA, and I shall not!
The CIA is terrible, SAVAK was terrible, and so are the institutions in today's Iran that disappear and kill people like Zahra Kazemi. All of these agencies show the ugly faces of the governments they work for, and attempts like yours to cleanse the Shah's reputation and make him out to be some sort of tragic hero will never convince me and others like as long as the history of SAVAK is alive.