"So which is it, was supporting the Shaw during the Cold War hypocritical or nuanced?"
First, I admit to being cold blooded here - I am considering American interests and little else. I want our approach to these countries to be that which preserves and protects the Un ited States. I have a clear conscience on this matter because I know in the long run it is good for the world to have the United States remain strong.
The problem with the way we handled the Shah is the end result - we got something worse. I'm not at all convinced that won't be the situation in Saudi Arabia.
If I had a simple solution to this I'd be running for office - I don't and I'm not. I bet Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Rice would agree that the situation is complex and we need a nuanced solution -does that make them liberal?
Liberal is not the opposite of simple and conservative is not the opposite of complex. We do ourselves a disservice when we think otherwise.
I do think you underestimate the complexities of the Cold War. No losing Iran was not a minor thing. I don't know if you were alive then but as today, think oil. Oil is everything and the Soviets were quite interested in Iranian oil as were we. Since you are thinking of American interests I can tell you that at the time I was filling a gas tank and heating a house in the northeast. There most certainly were implications for losing the Iranian ally. And considering who was President I have no doubts at all that it could and should have been handled better.
As for your philosophy about liberals and conservatives, it all sounds really nice. I don't know if you saw this yesterday but I found it quite entertaining. Not because it breaks any new ground but we "conservatives" have all been in these arguments/discussions/debates with similar results.
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/lileks110205.html