ass clown
Posted on 08/26/2007 7:37:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
In the mid twentieth century, US-Iran relations prospered. Many Americans celebrated Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as a model king. President Lyndon B. Johnson pronounced in 1964: "What is going on in Iran is about the best thing going on anywhere in the world".
During the 1970's Iran's Shah propelled Iran into becoming a dynamic middle-east regional power. The Shah implemented broad economic and social reforms, including enhanced rights for women, and religious and ethnic minorities. Economic and educational reforms were adopted, initiatives to cleanse politics of social upheaval were systematized, and the civil service system was reformed. When sectors of society rioted to demand even greater freedom, the Shah promised constitutional reform to favor democracy. In the face of Soviet and fundamentalist Islamic pressures, constitutional reform remained on the back burner, as the Shah built what on paper was the world's fifth or sixth largest armed force. In 1976, it had an estimated 3,000 tanks, 890 helicopter gunships, over 200 advanced fighter aircraft, the largest fleet of hovercraft in any country and 9,000 anti-tank missiles.
The Shah used Iran's military might to address regional crises consistent with foreign relations goals of the United States. The Nixon and Ford administrations endorsed these efforts and allowed the Shah to acquire virtually unlimited quantities of any non-nuclear weapons in the American arsenal.
The Shah used Iran's military might to address regional crises consistent with foreign relations goals of the United States. The Nixon and Ford administrations endorsed these efforts and allowed the Shah to acquire virtually unlimited quantities of any non-nuclear weapons in the American arsenal.
In accord with the pleasant US-Iran relations then-existing, President Carter spent New Year's Eve in 1977 with the Shah and toasted Iran as "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world". Nonetheless, between 1975 and 1978, the Shah's popularity fell due to the Carter administration's misguided implementation of human rights policies.
The election of Mr. Carter as president of the United States in 1976, with his vocal emphasis on the importance of human rights in international affairs, was a turning point in US-Iran relations. The Shah of Iran was accused of torturing over 3000 prisoners. Under the banner of promoting human rights, Carter made excessive demands of the Shah, threatening to withhold military and social aid. Carter pressured the Shah to release "political prisoners", whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists. Many of these individuals are now among the opponents we face in our "war on terrorism".
The Carter Administration insisted that the Shah disband military tribunals, demanding they be replaced by civil courts. The effect was to allow trials to serve as platforms for anti-government propaganda. Carter pressured Iran to permit "free assembly", which encouraged and fostered fundamentalist anti-government rallies. The British government and its MI6 intelligence agency also heightened the Shah's precariousness. The government-controlled BBC presented Iranians with a dossier of twenty hour newscasts detailing the location of all anti-Shah demonstrations and consistent interviews with the exiled outcast Ayatollah Khomeini, making a religious scholar few Iranians knew about into an overnight sensation.
When the Shah was unable to meet the Carter Administration and British demands, the Carter Administration reportedly ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to stop $4 million per year in funding to religious Mullahs who then became outspoken and vehement opponents of the Shah. Unfortunately, the Shah's efforts to defuse the volatile situation in Iran failed, despite the grant even of free and democratic elections. Confronted with lack of US support and unleashed Mullah fury, the Shah of Iran fled the country.
Subsequent to the Carter Administration's ill-conceived foreign policy initiative, Iran is now a dungeon. Ayatollah Khomeini's dictatorship executed the Shah's prisoners, predominantly communist militants, along with more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians. Women were sent back into servitude. Citizens were arrested merely for owning satellite dishes that could tune to Western programs. American diplomats were taken hostage, and the Soviet Union invaded Iran's eastern neighbor Afghanistan as a result of this chaos, allowing it to secure greater influence in Iran and Pakistan. The struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the defeat of this invading Superpower with help from the United States under President Reagan gave rise to the radicalization and emergence of Muslim zealots like Osama bin Laden. Moreover, within a year of the Shah's ouster, Iran on its western flank was locked into the Iran-Iraq War, in which the U.S. sided with secular Iraq and its military dictator Saddam Hussein.
In retrospect, the Iran-Iraq War would never have occurred had Jimmy Carter not weakened the Shah's regime. This conflict cost the two nations more than 500,000 lives, including thousands of Iranians killed by Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons. The Iran-Iraq war triggered the rise of Saddam Hussein as a major power whose invasion of Kuwait was repelled by Desert Storm. The United States refrained from deposing Saddam Hussein in a continuation of the Desert Storm operation out of concern that the resulting "power vacuum" would be filled by Iran's Ayatollahs.
Thus Jimmy Carter's misguided implementation of human rights policies not only indirectly led to overthrow of the Shah of Iran, but also paved the way for loss of more than 600,000 lives, Iran's rule by Ayatollahs, the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the mass murder of Americans and destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.
Ah, but Jimmy’s heart was in the right place with his stress on human rights in international affairs.
It’s really something, that the actions of Jimmy helped lead to where the world is today. Yet he’s never criticized for what happened when he was pres. Instead, the world loves him as an elder stateman, and gave him the Nobel Peace Prize.
I am glad somebody connects the crimes to the WORST former president, especially at a time that the radical left blames Bush for what Muslims butcher Muslims about 100 on a weekly basis [Iraq].
Thanks to this stupid peanut farmer we now have this Iran to deal with.
“Jimmy Carter’s Human Rights Disaster in Iran”
Heck, Mr. Carter himself was a disaster. Period.
But, but, but, he builds houses for poor people.
I know, its because of the peanut farmer from Georgia; who is the worst president this country has had, we are in the situation we are in
But that can’t be! He is a Democrat and they have...a...plan...just like Vietnam.
>>Heck, Mr. Carter himself was a disaster. Period.<<
Doesn’t that makes us all eligible for FEMA handouts??
The war in Iraq is directly caused by President Goober. Saddamn would have never gained power if the Shah had stayed in power.
As many times as the Democrats have been Wrong, why do we even take them seriously??
PRay for W and Our Troops
Yea, if it hadn't been for that, Iranians would have been peaceful. It was that darned freedom of assembly that screwed it up. The problem with Iran, it seems to me, is that it's full of Iranians. Stock it full of, say, Kentuckians, and freedom of assembly would be totally managable.
Riiiiight. If it hadn't been for lack of funding, the mullahs would have been peaceful, responsible members of civilized society. It was only after their bake sales and lemonade stands failed to raise adequate funding that as a last resort they turned to extremism. What a crock.
I absolutely refuse to refer to the peanut farmer from Georgia as president
What do you call him? Goober?
It’s good to read something about the positive aspects concerning America’s relation to the Shah of Iran.
Mostly what I see is anti-America tirades about how this country supported a terrible dictator.
Simply amazing. If he isn't the worst president in history, who can be?
Yep. Sanctimony is its own reward. Too bad about the blowback though.
In a perfect world, Carter would end up in the gallows for his crimes against humanity.
And instigating the Islamic jihad the West is now facing, combined with the hundreds of thousands of people who died in the Iran/Iraq War that Carter instigated, certainly qualifies.
If those are not crimes against humanity, what is?
Thus Jimmy Carter's misguided implementation of human rights policies not only indirectly led to overthrow of the Shah of Iran, but also paved the way for loss of more than 600,000 lives, Iran's rule by Ayatollahs, the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the mass murder of Americans and destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.
One reason the Shah was a successful leader was that he was able to play the mullahs off against each other with favors and payments for services to the regime. When the money dried up so did the mullahs’ cooperation. These guys after all are basically local/regional thugs and power brokers—don’t let the “religious leader” crap fool you. They are analogous to “Rev” Al Sharpton, only with guns.
Deja vu all over again.
Too bad he has no head.
I've told it before:
RE: Haitian Boat People I recall that, not long after the Hatian Boat People came, there were several interviews with them because they were dying of some mysterious, body-wasting disease. They whined--through an interpreter--that they fought so hard to get here, only to die of some unknown disease. It was as though it was our fault.
As soon as AIDS was given an identity, the connection to the Boat People vanished.
THIS is why we have had health checks when people entered our Nation.
hands down best connect the dots article today!
Jimmuh KGB Carter, posterboy for today’s “Liberalism, bringing death to a home near you” theme song! sKerry’s hero!
From small acorns.........
Um, I think it was more than a misguided human rights policy. I seem to recall Carter attempting to blackmail the Shah to strike sweet heart deals for interests associated with Carter.
The Carter Administration insisted that the Shah disband military tribunals, demanding they be replaced by civil courts. The effect was to allow trials to serve as platforms for anti-government propaganda. Carter pressured Iran to permit "free assembly", which encouraged and fostered fundamentalist anti-government rallies. The British government and its MI6 intelligence agency also heightened the Shah's precariousness. The government-controlled BBC presented Iranians with a dossier of twenty hour newscasts detailing the location of all anti-Shah demonstrations and consistent interviews with the exiled outcast Ayatollah Khomeini, making a religious scholar few Iranians knew about into an overnight sensation.
There is no shame in supporting freedom of assembly and a transparent judiciary. Carter's mistake wasn't holding the Shah of Iran responsable for his heavy handed governance. The Shah of Iran was a dictator and our support for him did not come without consequences. Carter's mistake was to believe that U.S. power is best demonstrated by withdrawal. The U.S. should have starting working with the Shah's dissidents, encouraging them to pursue responsable governance in responsable ways. I've written it before and I'll write it again, why were we supporting suppression without supporting democracy. The genius of America's founding fathers should have been on the shelves of every Iranian dissident and every American ally.
Many Americans and Iranians who failed back then are still around to proselytize their same ignorant ways. They do not debate because that's not their style. They would prefer to torture and murder their way to stability in foreign lands. If this piece were genuinely honest about history, it wouldn't be so forgiving to a man so hated by his people that a popular revolution swept him out of power. Carter didn't do that... the Iranian people did.
ass clown
Thus Jimmy Carter's misguided implementation of human rights policies not only indirectly led to overthrow of the Shah of Iran, but also paved the way for loss of more than 600,000 lives, Iran's rule by Ayatollahs, the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the mass murder of Americans and destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.
Those are pretty good numbers Jimmy. Certainly good enough to win a Nobel Peace Prize.
Way back when a green card Iranian friend of mine fully supported the over throw of the Shah. A decade or so later our paths crossed again and, he pines for the Shah. I am beginning to believe that republicanism/democracy in the middle east is not presently possible. And not because the vast majority of the people there aren't capable of adhering to democratic values, rather a sizable minority of violent and powerful people will not allow it. I heard this morning that the brits turned over a police station to the Iraqis yesterday. Today Sadar's malia is in control. That means that Iran is in control. This seems to be what the people, at least in that area, really want. And we know that the Islamic theocracy in Iran is such a bastion of democratic values. Indeed, the only Muslim nation that has been democratic for any significant period of time is Turkey. And they are now well on their way to embracing Islamic tyranny. I cannot buy your analysis as the empirical data is contrary.
You sir are so wrong about Carter it is pathetic. He was a bumbling idiot. His Sec of Energys cure for the odd even gas lines were ,”Everyone should go to work on a bike”. Yea a real genius your hero. He banned the wearing of Military Uniforms in the Washington DC area. He closed more military bases than any Pres in the history of the USA.
Oh yea a real genius just like your other 3 dummys Kerry,Kennedy,Dodd. Ah yes the other back stabber he took all the funding from South Vietnam and then told them sorry I goofed that goof caused 500,000 people to be murdered by po pot and allowed N Vietnam to reinvade S Vietnam and overthrow a govt we signed a treaty with that we would help. But being democrats we lied and left!!!!!!!!!!
Even though your question is mockingly rhetorical, it's a good one. If we had an honestly objective media, Democrats could be laughed at and ignored as they deserve to be. I doubt they could get 25% of the vote.
Sadly, these idiots and their willing accomplices in the media and academia are able to spoonfeed their mythology to some 50 million reality-ignorant voters each cycle. That's why we are forced to take them seriously.
The man was a buffoon.
We're not looking at the same data. The pursuit of responsable governance is the right path in every case. Carter fomented irresponsible government by buying into the Shah's illusions. When those illusions finally were exposed, as all illusions eventually are, he withdrew American council. Carter withdrew his support for the Shah while simultaneously putting faith in a group of Iranians Americans had no significant leverage over and could not trust. We are talking about a series of failed relationships that are the responsibility of all parties involved. Most of what you say, I agree with, however it's what we do about it that matters. Working with dissidents and allies alike to pursue basic human freedoms, including speech, press, religion - is the right approach. Any other approach pushes the dysfunction underground making it harder to confront. You can't solve the problem by calling our support for dysfunctional dictatorship a healthy international relationship. This is not as one sided an affair as this article, and presumably your data, would make us believe.
What I think this article implies is that we cannot afford to encourage democracy in the Middle East because we might not get the policies we want there. On the contrary, we are guaranteed to fail in the Middle East if we do not pursue a policy consistent with our own national identity. There are plenty of ways to deal with the minority of spoilers you refer to democratically, with responsable governance. The data I'm referring to relates to the march of freedom around the world. The Middle East is a particularly difficult place to pursue democracies because of it's unique significance to the global economy. Yes, it's hard. But that is no reason to quit.
Jimmy Carter’s entire foreign policy was a disaster.
He might be among the giants of humanitarianism had he not pretended to play the role of a world political and military leader, at which he was worse than a failure. He made matters worse.
I will go to my grave convinced that the current level of terrorism success is founded solidly on the Iran Hostage Fiasco, without which a whole avalanche of things good for humanity might have been possible, instead of spending trillions of $ for defence and protection.
"Good intentions", in some areas are, in terms of results, often infinitely worse than the effects of unashamed evil.
Just saying.
Well it seems to me I recall a candidate for President saying the Shah was bad and it was our fault that Iran is the way it is or words to that effect. RP is the candidate’s initials and I hear he has a thing for shrimp.
The Shah was a true and faithful ally of ours who provided oil during the 1974 oil embargo.
Sorry for the necessary editing. I couldn't help myself.
Great comparison, I might add; power and self agrandizement is the basic primitive motivation.
The only reason Jessy Jackass and Al Sharpie can't evolve similarly is that even stupid people, in a free society, immune to religious fanaticism would never tolerate it.
He was a human rights disaster for the US, too.
1973-74 Arab oil embargo?
As mentioned, the Arab-Israeli conflict triggered a crisis already in the making. The West could not continue to increase its energy use 5% annually, pay low oil prices, yet sell inflation-priced goods to the petroleum producers in the Third World. This was stressed by the Shah of Iran, whose nation was the world's second-largest exporter of oil and the closest ally of the United States in the Middle East at the time. "Of course [the world price of oil] is going to rise," the Shah told the New York Times in 1973. "Certainly! And how...; You [Western nations] increased the price of wheat you sell us by 300%, and the same for sugar and cement...; You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid to us...; It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say ten times more."[2]1973, Oct. 16 - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, and Qatar unilaterally raise posted prices by 17% to $3.65 a barrel and announce production cuts.
This following bit of commentary is lifted from some chat by various ex-Navy Officers who have an interest in Jimmie Carter’s naval service AFTER his graduation from USNA..
________________________________________________________________________________
quote
I did a bit of research and discovered that Carter did not complete the Navy’s nuclear power school. His father died, and he resigned before completing the course. He later called himself a “nuclear engineer”, and that seems like a stretch to say the least.
I did some research of my own about Carter after I saw him on NBC’s “Today” Show a few years back. It was sort of a, “Jimmy Carter, this is your life” deal with the interviewer (whom I believe was Ann Curry) doing most of the talking.
It began with an “Opie” looking Jimmy in Plains, GA. That was followed by “You went to the Naval Academy and then married your sweetheart” accompanied by a wedding picture of Jimmy (in dress whites) and Rossalyn.
Then came the BS. “You went on to command a nuclear submarine ... “ which is where I became unglued, because Carter sat there with that goofy grin of his and let this obvious falsehood be told to the show’s audience on his behalf. “Ah will nevahlie-toyou (sic)” but ah’ll let othahs lie about me.”
Carter’s nuclear power training consisted of four months at Union College in Schenectady, NY studying nuclear physics as it was then known. He received NO degree. He was just there. That’s the grand total of his nuclear phyics curriculum vitae. I confirmed that with Union College. He’s no more a nuclear engineer/physicist than Britney Spears is a novitiate nun.
Carter then spent some time in DC where he was around Rickover although I seriously doubt Rick had much to do with him. Finally, he was assigned to the pre-construction detail of SEAWOLF. His biography’s claim that he was OinC of the pre-commissioning detail is a world-class exaggeration.
The widespread belief that he was a nuclear submariner is 100% FALSE. Carter’s resignation from the Navy became effective on 8 October 1953. the world’s first nuclear submarine, USS NAUTILUS (SSN-571), still hadn’t gotten her keel wet. That didn’t happen until 21 January 1954. SEAWOLF’s keel wasn’t laid until 15 September 1953, just 3 weeks before Jimmy was gone.
I don’t know when he and Rossalyn actually left New London, but it probably was before 8 October. Once he’d submitted his resignation Rick probably unceremoniously told Carter to shove off. If Rick had needed him; he’d have interceded and stopped the resignation. He didn’t.
Finally, I checked with the Carter Center to see if Carter had pursued further studies in nuclear physics and was told that he had not.
I speak only for myself in saying that I’m deeply disturbed that our Alumni Association named Jimmy Carter a Distinguished Alumnus.
Becoming president by falsely duping to a gullible public into believing that you’re a nuclear physicist and a nuclear submariner is hardly the stuff a distinguished alumnus of my Naval Academy does.
Being THE worst president in the history of the Republic is not something I’d honor simply because that president happened to be an alumnus of my alma mater.
Worst of all, becoming a publicly outspoken, self-righteous critic of every one of his successors in office (and winning a Nobel Prize for it) is not what distinguished alumni do.
Jimmy had his turn in the barrel. He failed miserably.
end quote
Oh, and exacerbate the problems in South America, import diseased Cuban criminals into Miami, and the enabler of so many other social, economic, and political disasters in the world.
That's not to mention his attempted treason, either.
If you read down towards the end of the following you will see that while Iran had differences with the USA about the price they was getting they wasn’t part of the embargo.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/918168/posts
To me he is nothing but the peanut farmer from Georgia
Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carter’s resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office. 1 GIS.
The linkage between the destruction of the Shah’s Government — directly attributable to Carter’s actions — and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.
Pres. Carter’s anti-Shah feelings appeared to have ignited after he sent a group of several of his friends from his home state, Georgia, to Tehran with an audience arranged with His Majesty directly by the Oval Office and in Carter’s name. At this meeting, as reported by Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda to some confidantes, these businessmen told the Shah that Pres. Carter wanted a contract. previously awarded to Brown & Root to build a huge port complex at Bandar Mahshahr, to be cancelled and as a personal favor to him to be awarded to the visiting group at 10 percent above the cost quoted by Brown & Root.
The group would then charge the 10 percent as a management fee and supervise the project for Iran, passing the actual construction work back to Brown & Root for implementation, as previously awarded. They insisted that without their management the project would face untold difficulties at the US end and that Pres. Carter was “trying to be helpful”. They told the Shah that in these perilous political times, he should appreciate the favor which Pres. Carter was doing him.
According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, the Georgia visitors left a stunned monarch and his bewildered Prime Minister speechless, other than to later comment among close confidantes about the hypocrisy of the US President, who talked glibly of God and religion but practiced blackmail and extortion through his emissaries.
The multi-billion dollar Bandar Mahshahr project would have made 10 percent “management fee” a huge sum to give away to Pres. Carter’s friends as a favor for unnecessary services. The Shah politely declined the “personal” management request which had been passed on to him. The refusal appeared to earn the Shah the determination of Carter to remove him from office.
Carter subsequently refused to allow tear gas and rubber bullets to be exported to Iran when anti-Shah rioting broke out, nor to allow water cannon vehicles to reach Iran to control such outbreaks, generally instigated out of the Soviet Embassy in Tehran. There was speculation in some Iranian quarters — as well as in some US minds — at the time and later that Carter’s actions were the result of either close ties to, or empathy for, the Soviet Union, which was anxious to break out of the longstanding US-led strategic containment of the USSR, which had prevented the Soviets from reaching the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.
Sensing that Iran’s exports could be blocked by a couple of ships sunk in the Persian Gulf shipping lanes, the Shah planned a port which would have the capacity to handle virtually all of Iran’s sea exports unimpeded.
Contrary to accusations leveled at him about the huge, “megalomaniac” projects like Bandar Mahshahr, these served as a means to provide jobs for a million graduating high school students every year for whom there were no university slots available. Guest workers, mostly from Pakistan and Afghanistan were used to start and expand the projects and Iranians replaced the foreigners as job demand required, while essential infrastructure for Iran was built ahead of schedule.
In late February 2004, Islamic Iran’s Deputy Minister of Economy stated that the country needed $18-billion a year to create one-million jobs and achieve economic prosperity. And at the first job creation conference held in Tehran’s Amir Kabir University, Iran’s Student News Agency estimated the jobless at some three-million. Or a budget figure of $54-billion to deal with the problem.
Thirty years earlier, the Shah had already taken steps to resolve the same challenges, which were lost in the revolution which had been so resolutely supported by Jimmy Carter.
A quarter-century after the toppling of the Shah and his Government by the widespread unrest which had been largely initiated by groups with Soviet funding — but which was, ironically, to bring the mullahs rather than the radical-left to power — Ayatollah Shariatmadari’s warning that the clerics were not equipped to run the country was echoed by the Head of Islamic Iran’s Investment Organization, who said: “We are hardly familiar with the required knowledge concerning the proper use of foreign resources both in State and private sectors, nor how to make the best use of domestic resources.” Not even after 25 years.
Historians and observers still debate Carter’s reasons for his actions during his tenure at the White House, where almost everything, including shutting down satellite surveillance over Cuba at an inappropriate time for the US, seemed to benefit Soviet aims and policies. Some claim he was inept and ignorant, others that he was allowing his liberal leanings to overshadow US national interests.
The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office had enough doubts in this respect, even to the extent of questioning whether Carter was a Russian mole, that they sent around 200 observers to monitor Carter’s 1980 presidential campaign against Ronald Reagan to see if the Soviets would try to “buy” the presidency for Carter.
In the narrow aspect of Carter setting aside international common sense to remove the US’ most powerful ally in the Middle East, this focused change was definitely contrary to US interests and events over the next 25 years proved this.
According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, Jimmy Carter’s next attack on the Shah was a formal country to country demand that the Shah sign a 50-year oil agreement with the US to supply oil at a fixed price of $8 a barrel. No longer couched as a personal request, the Shah was told he should heed the contract proposal if he wished to enjoy continued support from the US. In these perilous, political times which, could become much worse.
Faced with this growing pressure and threat, the monarch still could not believe that Iran, the staunchest US ally in the region, other than Israel, would be discarded or maimed so readily by Carter, expecting he would be prevailed upon by more experienced minds to avoid destabilizing the regional power structure and tried to explain his position. Firstly, Iran did not have 50-years of proven oil reserves that could be covered by a contract. Secondly, when the petrochemical complex in Bandar Abbas, in the South, was completed a few years later, each barrel of oil would produce $1,000 worth of petrochemicals so it would be treasonous for the Shah to give oil away for only $8.
Apologists, while acknowledging that Carter had caused the destabilization of the monarchy in Iran, claim he was only trying to salvage what he could from a rapidly deteriorating political situation to obtain maximum benefits for the US. But, after the Shah was forced from the throne, Carter’s focused effort to get re-elected via the Iran hostage situation points to less high minded motives.
Rumor has always had it that Carter had tried to negotiate to have the US hostages, held for 444 days by the Islamic Republic which he had helped establish in Iran, released just before the November 1980 election date, but that opposition (Republican) candidate Ronald Reagan had subverted, taken over and blocked the plan. An eye-witness account of the seizure by “students” of the US Embassy on November 4, 1979, in Tehran confirms a different scenario.
The mostly “rent-a-crowd” group of “students” organized to climb the US Embassy walls was spearheaded by a mullah on top of a Volkswagen van, who with a two-way radio in one hand and a bullhorn in the other, controlled the speed of the march on the Embassy according to instructions he received over the radio. He would slow it down, hurry it up and slow it down again in spurts and starts, triggering the curiosity of an educated pro-Khomeini vigilante, who later told the story to a friend in London.
When asked by the vigilante for the reason of this irregular movement, the stressed cleric replied that he had instructions to provide the US Embassy staff with enough time to destroy their most sensitive documents and to give the three most senior US diplomats adequate opportunity to then take refuge at the Islamic Republic Foreign Ministry rather than be taken with the other hostages. Someone at the Embassy was informing the Foreign Ministry as to progress over the telephone and the cleric was being told what to do over his radio.
The vigilante then asked why the Islamic Government would bother to be so accommodating to the Great Satan and was told that the whole operation was planned in advance by Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan’s revolutionary Government with Pres. Carter in return for Carter having helped depose the Shah and that this was being done to ensure Carter got re-elected. “He helped us, now we help him” was the matter-of-fact comment from the cleric.
In 1978 while the West was deciding to remove His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi from the throne, Shariatmadari was telling anyone who would listen not to allow “Ayatollah” Ruhollah Khomeini and his velayat faghih (Islamic jurist) version of Islam to be allowed to govern Iran. Ayatollah Shariatmadari noted: “We mullahs will behave like bickering whores in a brothel if we come to power ... and we have no experience on how to run a modern nation so we will destroy Iran and lose all that has been achieved at such great cost and effort.” 2.
Pres. Carter reportedly responded that Khomeini was a religious man — as he himself claimed to be — and that he knew how to talk to a man of God, who would live in the holy city of Qom like an Iranian “pope” and act only as an advisor to the secular, popular revolutionary Government of Mehdi Bazargan and his group of anti-Shah executives, some of whom were US-educated and expected to show preferences for US interests.
Carter’s mistaken assessment of Khomeini was encouraged by advisors with a desire to form an Islamic “green belt” to contain atheist Soviet expansion with the religious fervor of Islam. Eventually all 30 of the scenarios on Iran presented to Carter by his intelligence agencies proved wrong, and totally misjudged Khomeini as a person and as a political entity.
Jimmy couldn’t have been too bad otherwise Republican politicians would have made tremedous political hay out of his short comings.
He is the worst president this country has had
Next thing you need to do is get a grip of the world as it is, not as its marxists and progressives assume it will be if we just throw the word "democracy" around, and wait until it is absorbed by osmosis.
The Shah, and even unsophisticated Sadam, had a first hand view of their culture and the limitations of "democracy" in a foreign universe.
There have been mistakes aplenty, but Carter's have been repeated ones, monumental and long lasting.
Your observations and suggestions would have been worse. Of course, we'll never know. I defer to reality as opposed to speculation. Ignoring reality, however, has never made it go away.
What "march of freedom around the world?" These nonsensical statements makes your entire argument suspect.
"The march of governance" around the world is entirely despotic with the two notable exceptions in Germany and Japan. Every other spasm of independence has degenerated into brutality, killings on a large and growing scale, small wars everywhere of neighbor against neighbor, and entirely the opposite of what you write.
Democracy is possible only when the entrenched culture has the collective genes to recognize its ultimate advantages.
Shari'a Law, in the final analysis, is terminally and permanently fatal to the very idea of "Democracy", even should they adapt the word; That is, as far as Western Society and Culture understand and practice it.
Many would claim success, if the name changed to the Democratic Republic of Iran, but nothing else. That's called delusion at best, historically useless sophistry at worst.
This statement is so ignorant and irrational and so transparently propaganda that I can't bring myself to respond to it right now; I should cool down first.
You wouldn't be a member of our State Department, would you?
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.