Posted on 05/28/2009 3:30:32 PM PDT by freedom44
“I did not know it then – perhaps I did not want to know – but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted … What was I to make of the Administration’s sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.” – Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran
These were the words uttered by the distraught Shah of Iran when, grieving, he reflected on his downfall just before his demise in exile. The tormented former “King of Kings” ardently nurtured a deep-rooted conviction that the Carter Administration, in cooperation with the British Secret Intelligence, ordered and ensured his fall.
During World War II, England and the Soviet Union jointly invaded Iran, dividing the nation into two zones of occupation as the English and Russians had previously done in 1907. In the North, the Soviets secured a viable supply route and in the south the British placed their oil interests under their direct protection. Reza Shah, father of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and the Nation of Iran were humiliated by the subjugation of Iran’s domestic and foreign affairs to their conduct by foreign powers. King Reza Shah, who had implemented numerous progressive social and economic reforms, was ousted by British and Soviet forces and replaced by Mohammad Reza Shah, his 20-year-old, inexperienced son. The British and Soviets, yielding little sympathy for the mass populace, occupied Iran.
In the North, the Soviets promptly and forcefully revived Iran’s Communist Party with the objective of undermining the royal regime and installing a centralized Communist government. With Soviet assistance, the Tudeh party constituted itself as a pro-Soviet Communist party with its central management in Soviet Union. Meanwhile in the South, the British set monarchists against religious fundamentalists, fundamentalists against nationalists, nationalists against monarchists, faction against faction, and tribe against tribe with a “divide and conquer” agenda. Accordingly, Iran sank into social disorder, political disarray and economic hardship. Under foreign domination by both the Communists and the British, the Iranian people welcomed an increasing role of the United States. By 1946, the Iranian government crushed the pro-Soviet Tudeh party that had been infiltrating the nation and threatening to divide Iran.
Increasingly, Iran became dependent on the United States as a counter-influence to the Soviets and British. As early as December 1954 the Shah noted,
“the potentialities of friendly and close relations between the people of Iran and the United States are immense. There is a deep and fundamental identity of national interests which overshadows everything else. We both believe that the individual is the central figure in society, and that freedom is the supreme blessing. . . Iran has a great deal in common, in convictions with the Western world regarding freedom and democracy.”
He branded his regime’s politics as “positive nationalism.”
In January 1963, the Shah announced democratic reforms as part of a six-point program called the White Revolution, a program of reforms to divide landholdings such as those owned by religious foundations, grant women the right to vote and equality in marriage, and allow religious minorities a greater share in governmental offices. Ruhollah Ayatollah Khomeini led a movement among radical fundamentalists to oppose equal rights for women and minorities and the reform policies of the Shah. On January 22, 1963, Khomeini dictated a vigorously worded declaration denouncing the Westernization of Iran and economic reforms and human rights as anti-Islamic.
However, the Shah did not per se attempt to “Westernize Iran.” Iran was since its inception a Monarchy. Instead, the Shah sought a pro-Western policy to counter the Communist Soviet Union. Iran’s socio-economic and foreign policy objectives were closely tied to the capitalist world, in direct conflict with the communist ideology of Soviet Union and fundamentalism of surrounding nations.
In contrast, the Iranian fundamentalists sought to eradicate pre-600 A.D. Iranian culture and history and supersede it with an exclusive focus on post-600 A.D. This is in line with Khomeini’s decrees, such as one issued on March 21, 1963 in which he declared that Persian New Year (“Norooz”) celebrations be cancelled and that references to pre-Islamic Iran be eliminated. In 1964 Khomeini was arrested and exiled to Turkey. On September 5, 1965 he left Turkey for Najaf, Iraq, where he spent 13 years as an exile, out of touch with the Iranian people and culture. On October 3, 1978 he left Iraq for Kuwait, but was refused entry at the border. After a period of hesitation in which Algeria, Lebanon and Syria were considered as possible destinations, Ayatollah Khomeini embarked for Paris. Once arrived in Paris, Khomeini took up residence in the suburb of Neauphle-le-Chateau in a house that had been rented for him by Iranian exiles in France. Subsequently, journalists from across the world visited the cleric, and the image and the words of Ayatollah Khomeini soon became a daily feature in Iran and across the world. The BBC and other agencies broadcast nightly interviews with Khomeini beamed into Iran, which incited the people against the Shah.
In November 1978 then President Carter nominated George Ball as a member of the Trilateral Commission. The commission acted under the direct control of the National Security Council’s Zbigniew Brzezinski, an ardent opponent of the Shah of Iran. This commission cultivated a clandestine Iran task force. While serving on this commission, George Ball championed cessation of United States support for the Shah and clandestine support for Rubhullah Ayatollah Khomeini who, albeit in exile, led a proletariat Islamic opposition. Pursuant to this agenda George Ball sought to garner the support of Robert Bowie, who was at that time the Deputy Director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency.
Meanwhile, Iran and British Petroleum commenced negotiations in Tehran, Iran concerning the renewal of a 25-year-old extraction agreement. These talks collapsed because the British demanded exclusive rights in Iran’s future oil output and refused to guarantee purchase of the commodity. The disintegration of these negotiations was domestically branded as a step towards nationalization of Iran’s oil for the first time since 1953. Subsequently, the Shah turned to prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere. The Shah had increased Iran’s control over its oil resources, implemented progressive economic and social initiatives, undertook speedy process of capitalist reforms that focused on industrialization, increased Iran’s military capabilities and sought to build a strong, prosperous and independent Iran; however, his goals and policies became the bases for his eventual downfall.
In mid-January 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini returned and the monarchy collapsed on February 11, 1979. Subsequently, Iranians, many of whom believed in Ayatollah Khomeini’s promises of freedom and democracy, voted by a national referendum to become an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979. They also approved a new constitution, and Khomeini became Supreme Leader of Iran. But Khomeini did not fulfill his pre-revolution promises to the people of Iran. Instead, he started to marginalize and crush the opposition groups and those who opposed the clerical rules. He ordered establishment of many institutions to consolidate power and safeguard the cleric leadership. During his early years in power he launched the Cultural Revolution in order to Islamize the whole country. Many people lost employment, and books were revised or burnt according to the new Islamic values. A newly established Islamic judicial system sentenced many Iranians to death and long-term imprisonment, as they were in opposition to those radical changes. The current regime continues many of the policies of the regime of the now-deceased Ayatollah Khomeini, including revising and eradicating Iranian history, culture and identity.
Perhaps the revolution and subsequent consequences would have never occurred if the Carter Administration had not taken the helm. No doubt, neither President Richard M. Nixon nor President Ronald Reagan would have paved the way for the arrival of the current theocracy. Criticizing the Carter Administration’s handling of the crises in Iran, President Reagan said “I did criticize the President because of his undermining of our stalwart ally, the Shah, I do not believe that he was that far out of line with his people.” Former United States President Richard Nixon was the sole United States representative to attend the Shah’s funeral in Egypt,
Many Iranians believe that the Carter Administration and the British intervened in 1979 and paved the path for the Shah’s demise. Sympathetic remarks about the revolution by high-level American Democrat officials, such as Bill Clinton, who dubbed Iran a “democracy,” and several former members of the Carter Administration, indicate the pretentious attitude of these officials. These officials should be reminded that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, erroneously labeled by foreign journalists as the “Leader of Iran,” exerts minimal control in Iran. Rather, pursuant to the Iranian Constitution virtually absolute power is in the unelected “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Khamenei.
Iran is an absolute theocracy and lacks the basic foundations of even a limited form of democracy. Perhaps, if the Carter Administration had not undermined the Shah of Iran, the regime itself would have implemented the proper foundations for a modern democratic republic or constitutional monarchy. Modern Iran could have been an “island of stability” in the Middle East. Without the Carter Administration’s misguided foreign policy initiatives, Iran, similar to Japan, Denmark, Spain or England, could today be a close U.S. ally with a hereditary monarch and a democratically elected President or Prime Minister.
Jimmy Carter: The gift that keeps on giving.
I remember how tragic the Carter actions were at the time. I have since met former Iranians who barely escaped the country with their lives. Carter could care less. He couldn't have a friend of the US and Israel in the middle east.
Of course, this emboldened radical Islam and when our embassy was taken, Jimmah didn't have the balls to do anything but sit in the White House and whine until the day Ronald Wilson Reagan was Inaugurated.
And Jimmah is still a great proponent of sitting down and talking to the Iranians. Did a lot of good when he tried it as President. Well good luck with emulating the great Cartah Presidency, Mr. Obama.
Carter had a very simple-minded approach to foreign policy. If his State Department told him somebody was a human rights violator (maybe waterboarded someone), he turned on them and worked to undermine them, damn the ramifications for American interests.
Oh, by the way, that’s a very good history of what happened in Iran. Thanks for posting it.
Great Post!!!!
Read this carefully and READING BETWEEN THE LINES see how closely the Obama take over and detruction of America along lines adopted and implemented by non-Iranian Khomeini from he Soviet playbook can be seen in progress here in the USA.
Khomeini openly hated Iran (not his real country, nor is America Obama’s) and often stated he would kill as many Persians as there were hairs on the head of his son, killed in an auto accident which he called an “assassination”.
Even in this fairly brief reportage, you can see the similarities between British-Indo Khomeini who invaded Iran, then destroyed it and Marxist-Islamist Oba-Hussein-Khomeini in the USA.
Hard to believe Obama is hell bent on our destruction but watch how much - quite probably IRREVERSIBLE damage he has done and points out proudly, in his first 120-days. Then, when reviewed in this light, the truth hits you. He and his nefarious gang are not making mistakes, they are doing it on purpose.
see how closely the Obama take over and destruction of America along lines adopted and implemented by non-Iranian Khomeini from the Soviet playbook can be seen in progress here in the USA.
Ping to article and post #7.
Thanks FARS.
I don't find it "Hard to believe". I saw it long before he he was elected president. I heard others express what my gut was telling me. One lady told me just watching him sent chills up and down her spine.
Other than that minor point I agree with all you said.
Thank for the ping.
Thanks.
Anti-Mullah’s articles on Carter-Iran are infinitely more comprehensive:
Folks should be pinged to go there.
The “hard to believe” points to the millions still in denial. Similarly to you, both I and AntiMullah have been shouting this out since he was a potential candidate for usurper POTUS.
Easy to spot when you’ve seen it before and it becomes a replay with different actors.
I wonder when the rest of America will wake up.
AntiMullah came into being as opposition to the clerics in islamic iran. Recently it has become hard to distinguish between Obama and the Mullahs and just as frustrating to see how they each ruthlessly destroy those they “administer”.
For those who refute all this with the comment that the American Khomeini has not caused the bloodshed of his “iranian” counterpart (they are both islamic), just wait for a few months and see the blood that may well flow in Califoria streets when Welfare payments are stopped.
Numerous street riots will, apart from probable deaths when local law enforcement clashes with perhaps starving rioters, most probably escalating to martial law and the sending of some of the 80,000 troops being trained in Georgia in Martial Law enforcement.
Think carefully when you realize the stopping of welfare checks covers hundreds of thousands and perhaps several million recipients who cannot survive. Only those who have falsified their true needs will stay home.
They will flood into streets not on the basis of any legal rights but on emotional reaction to a need or “want” they have come to expect as a right. Whether legals or illegals.
Remember the fairly recent California marches with all those Mexican Flags? Now add genuine hunger or loss of money with which to buy drugs or alcohol to the mix. Or more genuinely their need for medical care and medication.
Short term result - ayatollah type blood shedding.
Let’s see Obama boast publicly about that, though he may gloat privately at the extent of his anti-American success rate.
As goes California so goes the nation.
And if the going gets too tough, so goes Obama back to his motherland Kenya to live happily ever after with his Cousin Odinga in charge there and perhaps running legitimately for President of Kenya.
On a personal level, under the circumstances and without a financial cushion, I have an almost zero survival prognosis/quotient which makes my frustration even sadder for those who could otherwise live a long and fruitful life without the Obamanation our naive voters have inflicted on us.
My pleasure. :’)
Tanking the economy ———intentional.
Seizing private industry ——intentional.
Limiting energy sources——intentional.
That's a pretty good article.
BTW speaking of the 1946 Liberation of Azerbaijan from Communist Occupation (the Commies called themselves "Democrats"... there you go), two interesting tidbits:
1) the Shah personally flew with a Hurricane fighter over Enemy Lines, making him the only 20th century head of State personally fighting on the front (is there another one?).
2) it was the first and only time Stalin withdrew from occupied territory after WW2.
Thanks for the ping!
Permalink to one article on Carter -
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2004/03/jimmy-carters-illegal-demands-on-shah.html
also connected:
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2004/03/who-is-ayatollah-khomeini.html
also LATEST article: (and VIDEO)
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2009/05/pretending-opposite-obama-shreds.html
Thanks for this additional info. He’s a red jihadist who will try and follow Khomeini’s pattern..
Exactly so. People “have eyes and see not, ears and hear not.” They are mesmerized like the mass adulation for a certain paperhanger and failed artist..
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.