Replies

OK, refill the coffee cups folks, here we go...

Believe me, I'm no fan of Jimmy Carter, but what do you think he could have done - and if there was something to do, don't you think Reagan would have done it when he took over shortly thereafter? Iran was ripe for a revolution - and now that they have the Ayatollahs in charge - they don't like it. I'm just curious what you think we should have done when they took over the Embassy -

What is amazing me more and more is the lack of awareness of what Jimmy Carter did to completely destabilize the Middle East during his four abysmal years in power. (that is not a slam at you M. Peach)

The fact is, Carter was sworn into office at a time (1977) when the Shah was faced with growing subversive activity by Islamic radicals within Iran, and encouraged by the continuous agitation and calls for the overthrow of the Shah by noneother than Ayatollah Khomeini, who was at the time in exile in (where else?) France. Khomeini, whom Carter referred to as a 'godly man', advocated the establishment of an Islamic regime strictly under the control of religious zealots. Carter began to work to undermine the Shah by demanding the release of what Carter called 'political prisoners' arrested by the Iranian security service, SAVAK. While SAVAK was in fact an agency not known for being devout defenders of human rights, it was no worse than the equivalent security services of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc., with whom Carter had no problem.

Carter pressured the Shah to allow such "political prisoners" to assemble freely to protest and demonstrate, and as one might predict, the result was an increase in the number of opposition groups holding public rallies and agitating the population to overthrow the government of the Shah. This is exactly what Carter had in mind.

By late 1977, Iranian radical students working in partnership with Shiite radical clergy, were holding massive demonstrations throughout Iran, many of which became violent. This added to the local perception that the Shah was beginning to lose his grip on power.

In an ironic twist of the knife, Carter actually invited the Shah and his wife, the Empress of Iran to the White House in November 1977, and lo and behold, there was a surprise crowd of several thousand mask-wearing Iranian students who showed up to condemn the Shah visiting Washington, waving clubs, huge banners with the names of Iranian terrorist organizations, and bullhorns, all shouting the default slogan: "Shah Is U.S. Puppet! Shah Is U.S. Puppet!" I know, because I was THERE.

The Carter Administration allowed them all to come within 100 feet of the White House and the protest (of course) turned violent with the radicals attacking pro-Shah Iranians and American citizens who were quietly exercising their rights to welcome the Shah to America. But out of the 4000+ protesters, only 15 were arrested for assault, property damage, etc., and they were released pronto.

Meanwhile, Carter was twisting the arm of the Shah with demands to initiate even more radical "reforms", with the threat of cutting off all U.S. aid to Iran as the club needed to obtain the Shah's acquiesence.

It wasn't long after Carter's ham handed attempt at political intrique that the Shah was forced to abdicate after appointing a Prime Minister (Shapour Bakhtiar) to try and keep order, but the arrival of the Assahollah Khomeini meant that Bakhtiar's government would be a short one. (Bakhtiar would later be assassinated by Iranian radicals in 1991)

When you ask "what Carter could have done?", the answer is obvious: he could have kept his peanut-picking hands off of the Middle East, continued to support the Shah of Iran (a solid U.S. ally for 20+ years), and most importantly, Carter could have pulled his head out of his ass and looked around at the reality of the world we live in before he began his preaching and whining about human rights in NON-Communist countries (especially if they were ruled by authoritarian pro-U.S. regimes), while totally ignoring human rights in places like Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and the Soviet bloc. Oh yes indeedy, there was plenty that Carter could have done. He could have NOT done 99 percent of what he DID. (the other 1 percent was showing up in the Oval Office each morning to answer the telephone)

Now as for Reagan "doing something", by the time Reagan was sworn in, the hostages had been released because the mad mullahs truly feared Reagan and what he might do if they persisted in their illegal occupation and kidnapping of our embassy personnel. Iran remained persona non grata for many years during the Reagan Administration, which by the way, was forced to give support to Saddam's Iraq, in order to prevent the Iranians from taking over the entire region. (remember that Iran, pre-Ayatollah, had the best U.S. built and trained military that money could buy, the Shah was in fact the U.S. bulldog keeping order in the Persian Gulf)

Another 'fun f--kin' fact' about Carter you can share with your friends and enemies is that in the spring of 1980, Carter sent Zbigniew Brezinski to Amman Jordan to convey to Saddam's representatives that the U.S. would not be adverse to Iraq invading and annexing Iranian territory. Again, Carter tries his hand at political intrique with disasterous results, in that case hundreds of thousands of Iranian and Iraqi deaths. (And you say "say WHAT?") Now get this: Carter instigated the eight year Iran/Iraq war, in order to pressure Tehran in the ongoing hostage crisis/standoff. After Brezinski's visit to the Middle East, Saddam launched the first attack on Iran, which quickly turned bad for Iraq. The rest of that sad story is history, chemical weapons and all.

Contrary to your assertion, Iran was NOT "ripe for a revolution" until Carter made it so with his betrayal of the Shah.

As for what should have been done when the Iranians took over our embassy in Tehran? Had Carter not screwed the pooch in the first place, it would never have happened, and good Americans would NOT have died due to his absurd micro managing of a failed rescue attempt which ended with smoking helicopters at "Desert One". I will continue to tell the story of Carter's Treason as long as I have breath in me. I may not be a John O'Neill, with the ability to organize an anti-Carter 527 group (God Bless those Swifties!) but my contempt and loathing for Jimmy Carter goes all the way to the depths of my soul. I lived close up and personal to the Carter Administration during those four shameful years of 1977 through 1980, and in a perfect world, Carter would have been indicted and hanged for treason post-9/11.

And that my fellow Freepers, is your morning rant from yours truly.

MM

Thanks for the post. I forgot how bad Carter really was. A second Carter term would have been a disaster.

See also #38, 39, and 40.

Nice compilation, thank you.

Carter was Rockefeller's butt boy. You can bet your last dime that creating turmoil in the Middle East was a strategic objective meant to induce higher oil prices. Those higher prices in turn funded the Russian military machine.

Communists, and yes, treason is the right word.

And that my fellow Freepers, is your morning rant from yours truly.

And a very interesting and educational rant it is. I thought some of Carter's worst years have been post presidential. I stand corrected.

Thanks for the rant. Carter was truly a disaster during his presidency and continuing to the present. Do you recite all this information from memory or do you have any sources we can reference?

"And that my fellow Freepers, is your morning rant from yours truly."
Thanks for POST #31. As I read through it, most of it surely started to ring bells long turned off. I sense everything you wrote was 100% on the nose.
Carter had no frigen foreign policy worth a damn. He truly turned out to be useless. A lot of folks do not appear to understand just how important it was to keep a secular government in power in Iran. As you indicated, it is one of the prime reasons the US had to deal with Saddam in the early days, to keep Iran offset once the mullahs got into power. Ron did exactly waht he had to do in this respects.
Iran under the Shah was our best hope at keeping the mideast on a somewhat docile plane. Once the radical Islamic element took over, the mideast started on the road to true de-stabiliaztion. Now we are paying the price. Iran has been behind much of the problems in the mideast we have seen come to be in the past some twenty years.

Completely correct. What many folks don't realise is that in the 70s, the Shah's Iran was one of the most progressive states in the world -- where Irani women would never have heard of anyone wearing a Burkha or a veil or even a scarf (and Irani women are gorgeous, so covering them up IS a crime!), where the beards were actually shunted aside.

And the same is happening now -- Khomeini's mausoleum is empty most of the time and 75% of the population want the beards OUT.

Damn - that was good! You seem well informed - at that time, I wasn't. I remember the failed desert attempt - and the Shah leaving - but not much more than that.

I liked Carter at the time, but of course, I didn't know any better. Now that I know how he gave away the Panama Canal (which now China controls) - and all of these other revelations - I'm apalled.

Thank you for taking the time for the education - I recall much of what you write - but at that time, I was still in college, getting an indoctrination, intoxication and all of those other college rituals.

Oh yeah - while we're at it, I now believe that I will be writing the same type of essay to others years from now when we have to deal with Communist China - and respond to how and why China got all of their nuclear technology.