Need Help..Was the Shah of Iran Pro-American--chat

10/20/01 | self

[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

[Cricket24]

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.

[First_Salute]

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."

[nuconvert]

"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.

[steveeboy]

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...

[nuconvert]

They still do.

[OH Swing Voter]

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" .

[nuconvert]

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.

[NY Attitude]

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.

[Sybeck1]

Thanks all, great info

[NY Attitude]

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.

[leadpencil1]

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?

[SMARTY]

I remember this.

[NY Attitude]

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.

[Republican Wildcat]

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

[SpookBrat]

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

Blessings...

[OH Swing Voter]

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?

[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.

[PAR35]

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.

[NY Attitude]

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.

[PhiKapMom]

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.