Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Need Help..Was the Shah of Iran Pro-American--chat
10/20/01 | self

Posted on 10/20/2004 12:20:16 PM PDT by Sybeck1

Hello, in a debate with someone on another board and require your resourses the exchange is as follows:

Sybeck: Bin Laden is strawman at this point. The WOT isn't over if he showed up tommorrow. It includes the thugs in Iraq, Beslan, Bali and elswhere.

I really wish Bush would have said that he is not worried about UBL, but UBL should be worried about the US. I watched Mail Call on the History Channel with Gunney last night and showed the fighting that is going on still today with the Taliban remnants. Part of the Bush Doctrine is to destroy governments who harbor terrorists.

We have the true leader of terrorism in the area surrounded, Iran. We have troops in Iraq in the west, Afganistan in the east. With pro America governments in both of these, the mullahs in Iran might face civil war. We are in affect fighting a proxy war with Iran now.

Oh, this is a great ad, by the director of Airplane and Naked Gun:

http://69.20.122.45/

[ October 20, 2004, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Sybeck1 ]

Dunsel: Sybeck, I'm not sure how our deployment of troops in Iraq & Afghanistan equates to surrounding Iran, especially since our troops in those countries seem to be busy enough dealing with insurgencies there. Also, I have no confidence in the governments of those counties - whether in their loyalties or in whether they have the loyalties of the people. We had the frienship of Iraq and Iran at various points in history and eventually found ourselves on the shit-lists of each. The Soviets had a friendly government in Kabul for years - unfortunately, its mandate went little further than Kabul. We can't forget either that Afghanistan and Iraq are also surrounded by countries of dubious loyalty if not outright hostility - Saudi, Syria, Pakistan and who knows how many post-soviet republics, and again there are the insurgencies in Iraq & Afghanistan. If anybody is surrounded, it's not Iran...

Sybeck: We had a good ally in the area until President Peanuthead went with the world in deposing the Shah of Iran: http://www.americanewsnet.com/cmntrs/cmntrs04.htm

Since then the area has been a vacuum of Islamfacisism.

Today we are fighting Iran in Iraq: http://www.kurdishmedia.com/news.asp?id=5612

Here's where their preparing to attack in Ramadam in Iraq

http://www.kurdishmedia.com/news.asp?id=5612

We are fighting Iran by proxy in Iraq. Terrorists are in fact coming from all over the area because they don't want ELECTIONS in January.

Dunsel: Sybeck, I spent much of last spring reading "Iran Iraq, War in the Air, 1980-88", which is this huge book on the first Gul War. It's a huge read by two guys who seem to have done their leg work on the region, including the initial Islamic revolution that took down the Shah. Acc. to Wikpedia, the Shah endured two oustings - including one in the 1950's by a nationalist Minister. US & British intel brought the Shah back in a move that became a rallying point with the Islamists 25 years later. Apparently, Mr. Peanuts took the heat for the fall of the Shah, when it's clear that he had little enough support at home keeping him up. I wouldn't classify as an ally a guy who calls himself "King of Kings" and relies on secret state police to ensure domestic tranquility through intimidation and torture.

As a child during fall of the Shah can anyone give better knowledge than myself on this? Thanks


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Unclassified; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: iran; pahlavi; shah; shahofiran

1 posted on 10/20/2004 12:20:16 PM PDT by Sybeck1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

The US proped up the Shah, Carter pulled out the props and allowed radical Islam to take over the country


2 posted on 10/20/2004 12:21:53 PM PDT by w1andsodidwe (Jimmy Carter allowed radical Islam to get a foothold in Iran.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

Yes, the Shah we a very good ally in the region. That's why Iran still has F-14s, F-4s, Hawk missiles, etc. We sold them to Iran as they were our best friend until Peanut Head.

Carter listened to FRANCE.


3 posted on 10/20/2004 12:23:34 PM PDT by datura (Let's roll? No, Lock and load.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
The Shah was "Pro-Shah" first, and "Pro-USA" second (after we installed him in a coup in the late 50's). He was a dubious ally, human-rights-wise, and Presisdent Peanut was throwing "those kind" overboard left and right, to the great detriment of our own country.

Carter "lost" Nicaragua the same way....

4 posted on 10/20/2004 12:24:18 PM PDT by Ghost in the Machine (Yes, I exist. No, I am not a virus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: w1andsodidwe

The Shah, a leader propped up by the U.S., needed medical treatment. Carter allowed him to come the the US, which ignited pent up unrest fanned by Khomeini which I believe led to the hostage situation.


5 posted on 10/20/2004 12:28:21 PM PDT by leadpencil1 (Hey Kerry, does this rag smell like chloroform to you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
two oustings - including one in the 1950's by a nationalist Minister.

Change "nationalist" to "Communist puppet of the Soviets" and you will start to get on the right track.

The Shah was a loyal ally of the US until he was betrayed by Jimmy Carter (who was rewarded by his new friend via the embassy hostage crisis.

6 posted on 10/20/2004 12:29:03 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
I really wish Bush would have said that he is not worried about UBL, but UBL should be worried about the US.

That is exactly what Bush did say except he mangled it as he is wont to do.
And, yes, we not only propped up the Shah but we installed him basically. It was one of the CIA's great accomplishments(?), effected by a CIA officer by the name of Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Teddy.

7 posted on 10/20/2004 12:29:46 PM PDT by thegreatbeast (Quid lucrum istic mihi est?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ghost in the Machine
He was a dubious ally, human-rights-wise

I won't completely deny that, but it was primarily the Left that was shouting that the Shah was a monster. The evidence of his monstrosity was never overwhelming. When Khomenini came to power, the smackdown in Iran was much greater, with a large body count. But the human rights concerns vanished.

The Shah's single biggest crime was being pro-American.

8 posted on 10/20/2004 12:30:02 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

You should know what the other side (Khomeini) was like too:

http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/khomeini.html


9 posted on 10/20/2004 12:32:35 PM PDT by GoLightly (If it doesn't kill ya, it makes ya stronger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

He was and that's why they wanted him out!


10 posted on 10/20/2004 12:34:22 PM PDT by SMARTY ('Stay together, pay the soldiers, forget everything else." Lucius Septimus Severus, to his sons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
That reminds me, everything had to be put into the context of the cold war. It's not like we acted in a vacuum, as the Soviets were dabbling into all of the states in the area at the time too.
11 posted on 10/20/2004 12:35:15 PM PDT by GoLightly (If it doesn't kill ya, it makes ya stronger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
-Recalling the Shah of Iran--
12 posted on 10/20/2004 12:35:46 PM PDT by backhoe (Just a Keyboard Cowboy, ridin' the Trackball into the Dawn of Information...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert; knighthawk; DoctorZIn; faludeh_shirazi; SusanTK; LibreOuMort; Reza2004; F14 Pilot; ...

Iran questions ping


13 posted on 10/20/2004 12:36:07 PM PDT by sionnsar (Cbs: "It's fake but true!" | Iran Azadi | Traditional Anglicans: trad-anglican.faithweb.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leadpencil1

I thought Kohmeini was still livin large in Paris at that time. The "student movement" was fired up for change, but they didn't plan for anything to replace the Shah's government & Kohmeini swooped in to fill the vacuum.


14 posted on 10/20/2004 12:37:07 PM PDT by GoLightly (If it doesn't kill ya, it makes ya stronger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ghost in the Machine

If the Shah would have stayed in power, Iran would likely be a democracy today. In spite of his flaws he is much better than anything that Middle East or Iran has today perhaps with the exception of Jordan. In any case, he was overthrown not because of his human rights abuses (which have been wildly overexaggerated by the current regime in Iran) but because he was promoting silly "western" ideas like women's rights, etc. Needless t say, this did not go over well with the radicals. Also, I don't think his failing health helped matters much.

Having said that, Carter really f'd upped on Iran and completely misunderstood the intentions of the clerics. That was the beginning of the war that we are currently fighting.


15 posted on 10/20/2004 12:38:10 PM PDT by Avenger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

The Shah was noted by many at the Pentagon in the 70's for being a better ally than Israel in that neck of the woods. Bear in mind that Israel blew the hell out of a US Navy ship in '68 and the US curtailed joint manuevers for quite a while thereafter.
The Shah was so trusted that Iran was allowed to purchase F-14 Tomcats and Phoenix missiles - a weapons platform Israel was never allowed to have.
Iran also was allowed to purchase Federal Reserve currency printing technology - which the US has sold to no one else - ever.

The US owed the Shah a debt of honor and when the man came to the US for medical help we allowed it. As we should have. He was our friend in the region and the filthy, evil, despots who overthrew him have been our enemies for centuries.


16 posted on 10/20/2004 12:39:26 PM PDT by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM, they can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
"But the human rights concerns vanished."

Just like Viet Nam. Americans could not kill VC but it was ok for VC and Communists from out side Viet Nam to murder S. Vietnamese wholesale after we left. Go figure. Anyway, after the Shah was out, I still remember seeing a photo of a long row of bloated, bloody corpses of the entire cadre of Iranian officers all put to death by the Khomeini. Then, wonder of wonders, he went to war with what was left of his army and tried to fight against the Iraqis. When you're done figuring out the previous question, you can go to work on this one. Duhhh.
17 posted on 10/20/2004 12:41:28 PM PDT by SMARTY ('Stay together, pay the soldiers, forget everything else." Lucius Septimus Severus, to his sons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
US & British intel brought the Shah back in a move that became a rallying point with the Islamists 25 years later.

The Islamists (if you could even call them that in the 1950s) didn't give a damn about the Shah regaining the throne. In fact, they likely preferred him to the Soviet (read atheist) puppet that held power before.

What pissed Khomainie(sp?) and eventually got him booted from Iran, was the Shah's moves to modernize and Westernize Iran. The biggest bitch from the Islamists -- really fundamentalist Shiites -- was the Shaw's granting civil rights to women. He had seperation of "Church & State" not Sharia law or Islamic courts. That drove them absolutly nuts.

18 posted on 10/20/2004 12:47:22 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn

"Iran also was allowed to purchase Federal Reserve currency printing technology "

With which the new (current) regime printed hundreds of millions in US currency.


19 posted on 10/20/2004 12:47:34 PM PDT by JSteff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
The Shah of Iran was definitely Pro-American. During the initial gasoline crisis when Arab countries were boycotting the United States, he supplied the US with oil. He essentially debunked the notion that we here in the US had an oil crisis.

The Shah was the stabilizing military force in the Middle East. There has been so much unrest in that part of the world since the departure of the Shah.

Meanwhile, Khomeini was waiting in the wings to return to Iran from France. The bloodshed since the Shahs departure has been enormous and all of this done because the Shah was viewed as a person that could not allow human rights.

Jimmy Carter is solely to blame for this fiasco and we are seeing the results of that cluster f*** still today.
20 posted on 10/20/2004 12:48:20 PM PDT by NY Attitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leadpencil1

You are so right. That's how it happened!
Jimmy Carter to the rescue! He was just awful as a president and I think Kerry could be even worse, if elected.


21 posted on 10/20/2004 12:50:04 PM PDT by Cricket24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1; snopercod; joanie-f
The Shah was stuck, as are all the people of Iran, with the location of being, from the point of view of the communists and otherwise in Russia and in Red China, of being a "buffer state."

The Soviets won; they engineered the overthrow of the Shah, by all public appearances, an Islamic event --- but it was not.

The facts of the events are not fully understood because how we know what happened remains a mystery.

Suffice to say, President Carter's insistance on the destruction of American military capacity, which included his personally ordering the destruction of our industry and "related items," included our support for many operations against the communists in the Soviet Union and in Red China.

President Carter got a lot of our intel people killed; the people about which you have not seen in a movie or in a book.

President Carter's and of course "President" Clinton's (quotes because he was Impeached), and certainly if elected, it will be "President" Kerry's (quotes because he is a pretender to the office) ... policy to continue the destruction of intel gathering and all technical support of it, except where key jobs must be kept in order for political support, such as in Georgia where aircraft are made and other places where ships are made, "to preserve jobs," until such worker bees can be put out to pasture on State-controlled (read blue-blood and Hollywood-funded mandates) farms for the preservation of green.

That, from "President" Kerry, who wants to be lofted high for his medals for inserting intel teams into Cambodia, while he wants to destroy the insertion of intel teams as a method of operation (except against Christian churches where some members of the congregations would vote conservatively), because the end game is, to give everything away to State powers who will then benignly administer to the needs of the people according to the "new paradigm" that kids --- who have been taught in public schools by "professional educators" who have leaked out of Columbia with theories on Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Hillary --- are instructed:

The purpose of government is to redistribute the benefits and burderns of "life's lottery."

22 posted on 10/20/2004 12:50:55 PM PDT by First_Salute (May God save our democratic-republican government, from a government by judiciary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

"When Khomenini came to power, the smackdown in Iran was much greater, with a large body count. But the human rights concerns vanished."

Absolutely right. And the Left kept their mouths shut and STILL do today about the untold 10's of thousands of human rights violations that have ocurred in Iran since the ouster of the Shah.


23 posted on 10/20/2004 12:52:27 PM PDT by nuconvert (Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: leadpencil1

The US and Brits sponsored a coup against Iran's elected leader Mossadeq in 1953 or so...

This was a successful black op by Ike--he liked to do things on the sly--and the CIA

--Mossadeq made the mistake of trying to get a better deal out of oil companies extracting Iran's resources by nationalizing the oil fields. This got him branded "communist" and allowed the brits and US to intervene under Cold War foreign policy doctrines.

--the US at this point, had little use for the Iranian oil, they did, however, want to secure oil access for western europe so that they could rebuild their economies and reduce post war conditions that were thought to be favorable to the electoral chances of various state communist parties.

The US then supported the Shah's regime, made Iran a client state, and provided it with weapons, trained its secret police (SAVAK), and used Iran as a buffer state against Soviet expansionism in the region.

The Shah was very westernized but he was also a brutal dictator.

During the 1970s, the Iranian's mobilized, started a nationalist revolution, and deposed the Shah.

The Shah (very sick with stomach cancer I think at the time) sought sanctuary in a variety of nations--including the US--but was denied.

I think he ended up in Panama-but you should check that...

The hostages were taken by the Iranian student movement because they were afraid of US intervention--having lived with the memory of the US-sponsored coup in the 1950s.

This was AFTER the revolution had occurred and the Shah had been kicked out.

The Iranian revolution, however, went bad, with religious fundamentalists seizing power, establishing an Islamic state, and gradually reducing the involvement of the other sectors of Iranian society through various means--jail, death, intimidation, etc.

At this point the US needed another ally in the region to project power and keep an eye on the commies AND the Iranians.

the Cold War was still a concern, and the commie invasion of Afghanistan was a major problem--the US was far more dependent on middle east oil by this time.

So, at this point the Reagan Adminstration started helping Iraq AND training mujahadeen in Afghanistan--and this initiative was actually Carter's idea--to fight the Soviets and give them their own "Vietnam."

Thus,in 1983 the Reagan Administration sent Rumsfeld--then a private citizen--to meet with Saddam Hussein and offer him better relations with the US.

The US sided with Iraq in the first Gulf War and provided him with arms, intel, money, bank credits, etc.

And, in an effort to deal with both sides and perhaps play off one against the other, Reagan got involved with secret deals to send weapons and spare parts (F-14 stuff, HAWK stuff, other stuff) to Iran in exchange for their help in freeing American hostages in Lebanon--proceeds from these transactions were then sent to the COntras in Nicaragua.

By playing off Iraq against Iran and making sure that neither power dominated the region, theoretically the US could prevent the spread of radical Islam and maintain a balance of power that would prevent any one local power from dominating the Persian Gulf.

This all made sense in the realm of Cold War foreign policy, but it sure came back to bite us in the ass...

























24 posted on 10/20/2004 12:56:09 PM PDT by steveeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JSteff

They still do.


25 posted on 10/20/2004 12:57:04 PM PDT by nuconvert (Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
The Shah of Iran was one of the greatest friends that America ever had in the Middle East. He kept stability in the entire region and was a true believer in Western culture and values.

In order to achieve this stability, he had to imprison some people (Islamic religious extremist nut jobs for the most part) and he had some leave the country (notably an extreme trouble maker--a man named Ayatollah Khomeni). The exiled Ayatollah went to France (surprise surprise) and from there he plotted to overthrown the Shah.

An overthrow of the Iranian government would not have been possible with America supporting the Shah--and we had always strongly supported him (only about 15% of the people supported the Khomeni). However--when Jimmy Carter took office--he had the strange mindset of many modern Democrats--in that he had nothing harsh to say about America haters (like the Ayatollah, or the communistic Khmer Rouge who killed millions during his presidency). Instead of being harsh on our enemies--Carter was harsh on our friends and supporters (kind of like how the Democrats today want to cricize our friend and ally Israel for little imperfections more than our ENEMIES for major things). Carter criticized the Shah for imprisoning and exiling his enemies--and he refused to help the Shah while the Ayatollah was plotting to take over his government.

When the Ayatollah took over--many many people were killed (the Shah imprisoned or exiled his enemies--the Ayatollah was a bit more harsh with his). And Iran became a dismal theocracy--and a source of destabilization throughout the middle east from that time forward. Iran became a focal point for the growing Islamic fundamentalism--and it helped fund Islamic fundamentalists all over the world. Carter quickly suffered consequences of his actions--the Ayatollah took over our embassy Americans were taken hostage. This helped lose the election for Carter.

Unfortunately the Shah--one of America's greatest friends--was treated very shabbily by Carter. One of the saddest parts of the story is that Carter would not allow the Shah to even come to America when he fled. Not even later, when the poor man was dying of cancer and he badly needed treatment. Our great friend and ally had to go to Mexico to get treatment and to die.

The Shah's son was educated in California, he lives in the US and he is a great and intelligent man. He occasionally appears on television. I think if the fundies were overthrown, he would be very willing to go and help the people establish a new way of life. There are many great books about the Shah--my favorite is called "Bring Back the Shah" .
26 posted on 10/20/2004 12:58:25 PM PDT by OH Swing Voter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

You seem to be getting a lot of good info from the Carter yrs.
I will tell you, too, that Shah and Nixon were good friends.


27 posted on 10/20/2004 12:59:34 PM PDT by nuconvert (Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY
The death toll was enormous. It included the decimation of the top brass of the Iranian military, the Savak, and those people born during the reign of the Shah. Life magazine had printed a picture of Iraqi soldiers watching as children on bicycles were forced to cross a minefield that separated the 2 opposing forces.
28 posted on 10/20/2004 1:01:52 PM PDT by NY Attitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NY Attitude

Thanks all, great info


29 posted on 10/20/2004 1:04:45 PM PDT by Sybeck1 (Kerry: how can we trust him with our money, if Teresa won't trust him with hers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
Because all of the top military brass were executed that was the main reason that the war between Iran and Iraq lasted 8 years.

Previously to that early 70's there was a skirmish between Iran and Iraq. Iraq retreated its troops in defeat.
30 posted on 10/20/2004 1:08:14 PM PDT by NY Attitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: steveeboy

Good summary Steveeboy. I think the Shah ended up in Egypt, but it sounds right that he may have spent time in Panama. Also, during the whole Iran/Contra thing, wasn't Reagan dealing with some people who he thought represented the Iranian government, but in fact were not?


31 posted on 10/20/2004 1:12:17 PM PDT by leadpencil1 (Hey Kerry, does this rag smell like chloroform to you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NY Attitude

I remember this.


32 posted on 10/20/2004 1:12:59 PM PDT by SMARTY ('Stay together, pay the soldiers, forget everything else." Lucius Septimus Severus, to his sons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OH Swing Voter
You wrote "Unfortunately the Shah--one of America's greatest friends--was treated very shabbily by Carter. One of the saddest parts of the story is that Carter would not allow the Shah to even come to America when he fled. Not even later, when the poor man was dying of cancer and he badly needed treatment. Our great friend and ally had to go to Mexico to get treatment and to die"

I believe that this statement is incorrect. If my memory serves me correctly, the Shah was in Texas for treatment before the hue and cry of the Islamic students reached the White House. He was forced to go to Panama and eventually wound up in Egypt where he is buried.
33 posted on 10/20/2004 1:14:07 PM PDT by NY Attitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

Not necessarily "pro-USA", but definitely not hostile to the US like the current regime.


34 posted on 10/20/2004 1:17:57 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
I thought you might know something about this. Ping me if you respond. I'm interested in this subject.

Blessings...

35 posted on 10/20/2004 1:23:38 PM PDT by SpookBrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NY Attitude

No--it is NOT incorrect. The Shah was indeed treated in the US however, that was BEFORE the revolution occurred.

After the revolution, as his condition was worsening, he was indeed refused entry to the US to get treatment. I have checked 3 books--they all say the same thing. This was AFTER the revolution, when he was very near to the end. His plane was refused entry into the US and he had to go to Canada for treatment. You are correct that he also was treated in South America (but that is not the same occasion that I am talking about). He suffered a long illness, and had to be treated many times. Perhaps you are mixing these multiple treatments into one occasion?

And yes--he is buried in Egpyt--that is not in dispute. I thought everyone knew that?


36 posted on 10/20/2004 1:32:39 PM PDT by OH Swing Voter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: OH Swing Voter

Sorry--Mexico--he went to Mexico and then South America for treatment--I am listening to the newspeople fight over Canadian prescription drugs--and typed Canada because it was in my head.


37 posted on 10/20/2004 1:34:40 PM PDT by OH Swing Voter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: steveeboy
You have the leftist line down pretty well, but lets compare it to facts (I'll just hit some of the main points):

against Iran's elected leader Mossadeq. Wrong, Mossadeq was not elected leader of Iraq. After the Prime Minister Razmara, was murdered by terrorists (because he opposed nationalization of the oil industry), the Shah was pressured into appointing Mossadeq as prime minister.

Mossadeq made the mistake of trying to get a better deal out of oil companies

If you consider complete expropriation and rejection of any attempt at negotiated settlement to be 'negotiating a better deal'.

This got him branded "communist"

Nationalizing industry, dissolving the legislature, ruling as a dictator. Shoot, he doesn't sound any more communist than his contemporary, Fidel Castro.

The US and Brits sponsored a coup

The Shah appointed Mossadeq; he fired him and appointed Zahedi as Prime Minister. When he refused to relinquish power, as anticipated, the CIA was ready with plan B, which proved sucessful. The coup attempt was by Mossadeq, the CIA helped maintain the legal rulers in place.

During the 1970s, the Iranian's mobilized, started a nationalist revolution, and deposed the Shah.

Can you post this with a straight face? Try "militant islamic fundamentalists" rather than nationalists, and you might be taken more seriously.

38 posted on 10/20/2004 1:40:48 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OH Swing Voter

Okay, I may be mistaken, but I remember the Shah being treated at a US Air Force Base in Texas in 1979. That date was after his departure from Iran on December 16th 1978.


39 posted on 10/20/2004 1:47:50 PM PDT by NY Attitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

One of our family's friends is from Iran -- no more loyal American BTW. He happened to be in Iran for the Air Force when the Shah fell and barely got out of the Country. He had to leave his apartment by the back and hide out in a car on the way to the airport and got out on the last plane before the new Government started cracking down at the airport. Part of his family who were friendly with the Ruling Party of the Shah had a hard time after the Shah fell.

As far as I am concerned the Shah was an ally of the US and if Carter had any backbone, we would not have seen Iran turn into chaos with the fall of the Shah and the capture of our embassy staff. Carter cared more about what France thought then doing what was right -- reminds me of the current Dem running for office.


40 posted on 10/20/2004 2:00:04 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Oklahoma is Reagan Country and now Bush Country -- Vote for Dr. Tom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OH Swing Voter
"The Shah's son was educated in California, he lives in the US and he is a great and intelligent man."

Actually, I believe he was educated at Williams College in Massachusetts. Richard Helms, who was a great DCI at the CIA until Frank Church got into the act, and who then served as Ambassador to Iran, was a Williams alumnus who helped steer the young man towards his alma mater.

41 posted on 10/20/2004 2:02:57 PM PDT by Reo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
The more I learn about the fall of the Shah and Carter's role and motivation in the process the lower my opinion of Jimmy Carter falls.

Prior to his fall the Shah was executing a grand national strategy to modernize the economy and society of Iran. Schools were modern and filled with both boys and girls. University attendance was on a large upswing both locally and internationally. Contracts with oil service companies were being modified to provide more training of the local workforce. Modern hospitals were springing up all over. The Shah's intent was to build an economic middle class which is normally lacking in an Islamic society. The key jewel in his plan was to build a massive port in Southern Iran where there was excellent access to deep water without the restrictions of the Persian Gulf. I have seen quotes indicating the Shah's strategy envisioned a future with a limited monarchy and semi-democratic involvement by the middle class.

The Shah was attempting to do this despite the inherent limitations of an Islamic society. As demonstrated by the still continuing brutality that followed his downfall, the secret police and repression were societal, not just a product of the Shah's reign. Iranian society was rooted in corruption, bribery and oppression. When the Shah was overthrown the corruption, oppression and secret police remained. It was the schools, hospitals, and sources of workforce training that were eliminated.

The media supported the overthrow of the Shah on the basis of human rights and Carter presented a front image to support that. The truth was far less noble. First Carter tried to force the Shah to agree to provide the US continually with oil at a fixed price. The Shah knew it was economically impossible and refused. Second the business consortiums, many with roots tied back to "Old Georgia Families" attempted to leverage the Shah through Carter to provide them with contracts to build and operate the new Southern Mega Port. The ploy would have worked if the Shah stuck to the traditional corrupt Iranian business plan, however it would have doomed his grand strategy and he refused. Carter retaliated. Every day I learn more about how ignoble Carter's motivations really were. Seeing Carter's less than noble conduct today is enlightening in retrospect.

The tragedy of Iran is that at the time it was the jewel of the middle east and could have truly been the linchpin in establishing a middle class economy to compliment the oil economy in the middle east. The economic despair which feeds the religious fervor in the middle east today might have been avoided if the Shah's grand strategy had taken root.
42 posted on 10/20/2004 2:05:34 PM PDT by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Avenger

More proof that the Peanut Farmer should have stayed on the range, and out of our safety.


43 posted on 10/20/2004 2:22:11 PM PDT by Ghost in the Machine (Yes, I exist. No, I am not a virus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Reo

He earned a graduate degree at UCLA. He was recently on TV talking about the situation over there---I taped what he said then--and just replayed it to refresh my memory. He spoke of living in LA as a student (he even mentioned that he had lived in Hancock Park--a very exclusive area of LA and that his place was near one owned by Mick Jagger).

Maybe he went to Williams for an undergrad degree? His English is impeccable, so he has obviously been around a long tme. He seems brilliant. I have been a long-time follower and fan of the Shah--so I have done a lot of keeping up on the family over the years.


44 posted on 10/20/2004 3:43:10 PM PDT by OH Swing Voter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: OH Swing Voter

Correct, he did his undergrad work at Williams. I, too, have been impressed with his appearances in television interviews.


45 posted on 10/20/2004 4:13:34 PM PDT by Reo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Reo

Yes--I agree with you--he is extremely sharp, well-spoken and has great ideas.

If the current regime is changed--I hope that he will go back and help the people get a democracy going. In the past, he has expressed a desire to do so. I think Iran would have a very good chance at being a successful democracy--the Persian people have a long history of equality and intellectualism that has been stifled by the mullahs.

I pray for the freedom of the Iranian people


46 posted on 10/20/2004 4:40:32 PM PDT by OH Swing Voter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: leadpencil1
The Shah, a leader propped up by the U.S., needed medical treatment. Carter allowed him to come the the US, which ignited pent up unrest fanned by Khomeini which I believe led to the hostage situation.

That is bunch of garbage. Jimmy Cartah orchestrated his fall and allowed it to happen because he wanted it to.

47 posted on 10/20/2004 5:53:24 PM PDT by w1andsodidwe (Jimmy Carter allowed radical Islam to get a foothold in Iran.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

yes,

gotta love those "facts."

some stuff for you to read at address below, nice declassified stuff.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/


48 posted on 10/20/2004 7:54:58 PM PDT by steveeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson