Posted on 12/12/2006 4:18:10 AM PST by Doctor13
Today, our country is paying for one of the most disasterous foreign policy mistakes in U.S. history. It was made by former President Jimmy Carter when he pulled the rug out from under the Shah of Iran. That action ushered in the 1979 Iranian Revolution that transformed Iran from a constitutional monarchy under the Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) to a theocratic Islamic republic under the rule of Imam Ayatollah Khomeini. In the process the American Embassy was invaded and 52 Americans were held hostage until their release 444 days later.
"Facing a revolution, the Shah of Iran sought help from the United States. Iran occupied a strategic place in U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East, acting as an island of stability and a buffer against Soviet penetration into the region. Pahlavi was pro-American, and domestically oppressive. The U.S. ambassador to Iran, William H. Sullivan, recalls that the U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski 'repeatedly assured Pahlavi that the U.S. backed him fully.' However, President Carter arguably failed to follow through on those promises. On November 4, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would 'back him to the hilt.' At the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department decided that the Shah had to go, regardless of who replaced him. [emphasis added]. Brzezinski and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger (former Secretary of Defense under Ford), continued to insist that the U.S. would support the Shah militarily. Even in the final days of the revolution, when the Shah was considered doomed no matter the outcome of the revolution, Brzezinski still advocated a U.S. military intervention to stabilize Iran. President Carter could not decide how to appropriately use force, opposed a U.S. coup and ordered the USS Constellation aircraft carrier to the Indian Ocean, but soon countermanded his order. A deal was worked out with the Iranian generals to shift support to a moderate government, but this plan fell apart when Khomeini and his followers swept through the country, taking power 12 February, 79." (Wikipedia free encyclopedia)
One of the main reasons that the Shah met with President Carter's disapproval seems unbelievable in the context of international politics. The Shah was doing what every Middle-Eastern leader or dictator does - he bribed. He was paying "baksheesh," a time-honored Middle-East tradition in order to keep his powerful Islamic clerics in line, much the same as the royal family in Saudi Arabia has to pay off their religious fanatical Wahabbis to keep them under control, (for how long is now the question). Once the "baksheesh" stopped, the Shah no longer had the support he needed; he was overhrown; the mullahs took control and became the catalyst of the wars that we are seeing today.
Iran/Bosnia connection.
President George W. Bush has repeatedly accused Iran of being the main instigator of the conflict in Iraq by sending Islamic insurgents to defeat any attempt to bring peace to that war-torn nation. But there is another place where Iran sent insurgents (Mujahedin) to destabilize a nation - The Balkans.
LTC John E. Sray, former U.S. Army senior analyst with the Foreign Military Studies Office at the Army's Combined Arms Command, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, wrote in his 1995 report titled, "Selling the Bosnian Myth to America: Buyer Beware," that "Funding for the Mujahedin has been provided by Iran and various other Islamic states with an interest in expanding extremism into Europe. International radical groups, such as Hizbollah, have also been included on the suspected list of sponsors. Bosnian government sources only grudgingly acknowledge the presence of the Mujahedin but publicly intimate that they have accepted their presence as a 'necessary evil' to maintain the flow of aid from international Islamic contributors. This 'aid' has been distributed in forms ranging from hard currency to clandestine arms shipments. As time progresses, these professional 'holy warriors' will likely divert their attention to politicizing the Muslim population and attempting to establish an Islamic republic obedient to fundamentalist doctrine."
The New York Times of 1 January 1997, reproted that, "Iran Gave $500,000 to Bosnian President's Election Effort, U.S. Says." It further writes: The contributions, delivered by the Iranians in at least two suitcases full of cash, came on the evening of the national elections in September, in which Izetbegovic won a seat on the three-member presidency that is now to govern Bosnia after four years of war, the officials said. . . Iran's presence in Bosnia has exposed President Clinton to sharp criticism, particularly from Republicans on Capitol Hill, who have argued that the administration opened the door for Iran when it decided not to object to the flow of Iranian arms into Bosnia in 1994 in violation of an arms embargo."
U.N. Complicity
A 1995 Reuters report stated, "Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati arrived in Sarajevo Thursday for meetings to discuss the Dayton Peace Agreement and post-war economic relations with Bosnia, Bosnian government source said. Velayati had been scheduled to fly in Wednesday after meetings with Croatian President Franjo Tudjman in Zagreb, but diplomats here said the United Nations would not allow Velayati's Iran Air jet to land at the U.N.-controlled airport for fear of provoking Bosnian Serb soldiers who still man trenches along stretches of its perimeter. He arrived on Thursday in a U.N. aircraft. Iran has been an active supporter of the Bosnian government in its 43-month war against separatist Bosnian Serbs, shipping small arms and ammunition to the Bosnian army despite an international arms embargo against former Yugoslavia."
From the August 1996 The American Spectator, "....Iran has been sending waves of elite forces into Bosnia ever since [U.S. Ambassador to Croatia] Galbraith's green light Intelligence sources told Los Angles Times reporter James Rosen that in 1994, 'A different kind of Iranian was showing up in Bosnia, military and civilian advisors who appeared to have been sent by the Tehran government on well-defined missions.' These included members of the Iranian Revolutionaty Guards and Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS). One highly placed intelligence sources says, 'We saw the Iranians equipped with all sorts of sophisticated electronic easvesdropping equipment, casing out U.S. positions in the region'."
Iran had aid from an an unlikely source in its shipment of arms into Bosnia to fight the Christian Serbs. A 1997 report of the Senate Republican Policy Committee titled, "Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base," and a House Republican Research Committee on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare report titled, "Iran's European Springboard?" spelled out how Iranian involvement in the Balkans was encouraged and facilitated by the Clinton administration.
With the Democrats now in control of Congress and promising a new approach to the Iraq War, it will be interesting to see what that approach will be, considering their "success" in the Balkans. As LTC Sray writes, "Our NATO allies, without bluntly stating the obvious, more realistically fear the establishment of a future base from which the Iranians can spread their fanatic ideology and orchestrate acts of terrorism." The truth is that Bosnia has become al-Qaeda's corridor into Europe.
Sources:
Iranian Revolution: wikipedia free encyclopedia.
Selling the Bosnian Myth: Buyer Beware:
(FYI: After LTC Sray wrote his analysis, he was transfered to another post)
Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To E-mail Banner of Liberty - Click Here
Website: http://www.bannerofliberty.com To E-Mail Mary Mostert, Analyst - Mary@bannerofliberty.com
Return to Banner of Liberty
I often think that a secular strongman is the best government for these countries. Did we make the same mistake with Iraq that we did with Iran?
Remember, Alexander Haig who was one of Carters top advisors.
He pleaded with Carter to support and arm the Shah.
Carter refused.
Haig then resigned from the Carter administration.
Jimmy Carter says the Iraq war was the worst American foreign policy ever.
No, you betraying the Shah was the worst foreign policy decision ever.
If Bush comes to his senses and creates a Kurdish state with Kirkuk and Mosul under Kurdish control.
America will be the winners.
Yes and no......Hussein had to go...but we should have replaced him with OUR strongman.
These people are not ready for Democracy...their Islamo-fascist religion precludes it.
"If Bush comes to his senses and creates a Kurdish state with Kirkuk and Mosul under Kurdish control."
Creating a land-locked state surrounded by bitter enemies, totally dependant on the fickle will of our US politicians for survival, is probably not the best of ideas....
Right on! Political assassination and dirty covert activity overseas is absolutely required. Ford and Carter share responsibility for castrating our covert services. This has brought us to the point of potential defeat.
Ff-150 sure was a kook, was he not?
I totally agree with you! In my opinion their religion and tribal culture makes it impossible for them to have a democracy. Their hatred for eachother has been going on for centuries and is ingrained in them. They need someone to keep them all in line. While we may not like it, it is what they know and understand. It is good to see someone reminding us that it was Jimmy Carter who started all of this nonsense. That man should be ashamed of himself. What a horrible human being he is. Gosh, I wish he'd just crawl under a rock and stay there.
Who built Jimmy's peanut farm? Jimmy or his daddy?
Ding Ding Ding -- We have a winner!
I'm not convinced that Hussein "had to go." We don't need perfection from strongmen like that. He kept the lid on things. Yes, he attacked Kuwait, but no one is perfect and that was pushed back. Silly to talk about it now, though...we have to look forward.
Yeah. Only problem: what Brzezinski meant was "we're going to stick a knife in your back, and it's going in right up to the hilt."
bump for later
ping
Jimmah Crack Corn, and I don't care,
Jimmah Crack Corn, and I don't care,
Jimmah Crack Corn, and I don't care,
de Hostages gone away.
An' when he fly der in de arternoon,
A foiler wid a hickory broom;
De copters being berry shy,
When bitten by de blue tail fly.
One day he rode aroun' Palestine,
De flies so numerous dey did swarm;
One chance to bite 'im on the thigh,
De Jimmah take dat blu tail fly.
De poney run, he jump an' pitch,
An' tumble de Shah in de ditch;
He died, an' de jury wonder'd why
De verdic was de 444 days of Jimmah's incompetence - dats why.
And yet, you brought it up.
Here is the way the reasons for using force in Iraq were OFFICIALLY given to the American people via our congress:
Iraq’s past war of aggression and illegal occupation of Kuwait in 1990.
Iraq’s failure to abide by the unequivocal sanctions agreed to after 1991.
Iraq’s history of possessing chemical and biological weapons and advanced nuclear weapons development program (and failure to prove complete destruction of such weapons)
Iraq’s flagrant violation of the cease fire
Iraq’s attempt to thwart efforts of weapons inspectors up until 1998
U.S. Congressional resolution conclusion that Iraq was continuing WMD programs in 1998
Iraq posed a continuing threat to the national security of the U.S, international peace and security in the Persian Gulf regions
Iraq continued to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability
Iraq supported and harbored terrorist organizations
Iraq engaged in brutal repression of its civilian population
Iraq refused to release, repatriate or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman
Iraq failed to return property wrongfully seized from Kuwait
Iraq has demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people
Iraq has demonstrated hostility toward and willingness to attack the United States by attempting to assassinate former President Bush
Iraq has demonstrated hostility toward and willingness to attack the United States and Coalition Forces by firing on many thousands of occasions on US and Coalition Armed Forces enforcing United Nations resolutions
Members of al Qaida are known to be in Iraq
Iraq continued to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens
The attacks of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations
Iraq’s demonstrated WMD capability, willingness to use WMD and the risk to use or provide such weapons to terrorists
UN Security Council Resolution 678 authorized the use of all necessary means to enforce UN SC resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions
The Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expresses the policy of the US to support efforts to remove the current Iraqi regime from power and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace the regime
It is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region
So the moral of the story is if you want to be popular with the European Union and the United Nations you take the Carter\Clinton foreign policy track of aiding and abetting Islamic fascism every chance you get.Let some poor s.o.b. Republican President have to deal with the results of those policies and take the heat of being a "warmonger" from the world, while these two birds go around giving speechs about how bad things are now and how great they were when they were in the White House !!!
bttt
I recall, around 1978, IIRC, on a business trip to San Francisco, staying in the Hyatt Regency, looking down from the balcony to the sidewalk below, seeing an anti-Shah rally.
Somewhere, I've got the photos I shot looking down on it. At the time, I was politically ignorant and had no idea what it all meant, other than concluding it made for some colorful photos.
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.