Power is always eager to "help" in areas where it lacks sufficient influence, principally as a means to establish greater influence. So you get yer Iraqz and yer Vietfragistans, whose measure of success boils down to whether sufficient influence was achieved, and for what cost, politically and economically speaking (and shit).
But let us observe that power is much less inclined to address identical challenges in areas where it already has influence, since this, by definition, means abandoning some mode of influence. And do you think the point of power, existing, is to evaporate on behalf of some corny constitutional principle?
No, my friends: there is a reason shit like that is deposited on paper! The point of power is to be advanced, defended, and maintained. Championing rights and freedoms is helpful when advancing in foreign terrain, but denying rights and freedoms is necessary when defending one's turf.
This is why Iranians are being "denied their rights" in the event that their unfree elections were additionally unfair, whereas American voters are merely disenfranchised by the former, and thus occupy a unique position to tutor others.