This is to some extant based of the premise that the US intervened in Iran due to British Oil interests.
One would assume that if that behavior was consistent that the US would also have intervened in Saudi Arabia when Aramco was nationalized.
Is the premise incorrect? Or were there other deciding factors?
It's still as good a question as it was when you asked it 11 days ago, and I hope someone answers. But I wonder why you're still assuming the US government to have consistently intervened to protect oil companies from nationalization--as I pointed out last time, this assumption is not supported.