Carter Sold Out Iran 1977-1978

As if a light were switched off, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, portrayed for 20 years as a progressive modern ruler by Islamic standards, was suddenly, in 1977-1978, turned into this foaming at the mouth monster by the international left media. Soon after becoming President in 1977, Jimmy Carter launched a deliberate campaign to undermine the Shah. The Soviets and their left-wing apparatchiks would coordinate with Carter by smearing the Shah in a campaign of lies meant to topple his throne. The result would be the establishment of a Marxist/Islamic state in Iran headed by the tyrannical Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The Iranian revolution, besides enthroning one of the world's most oppressive regimes, would greatly contribute to the creation of the Marxist/Islamic terror network challenging the free world today.

At the time, a senior Iranian diplomat in Washington observed, "President Carter betrayed the Shah and helped create the vacuum that will soon be filled by Soviet-trained agents and religious fanatics who hate America." Under the guise of promoting" human rights," Carter made demands on the Shah while blackmailing him with the threat that if the demands weren't fulfilled, vital military aid and training would be withheld. This strange policy, carried out against a staunch, 20 year Middle East ally, was a repeat of similar policies applied in the past by US governments to other allies such as pre Mao China and pre Castro Cuba.

Carter started by pressuring the Shah to release "political prisoners" including known terrorists and to put an end to military tribunals. The newly released terrorists would be tried under civil jurisdiction with the Marxist/Islamists using these trials as a platform for agitation and propaganda. This is a standard tactic of the left then and now. The free world operates at a distinct dis-advantage to Marxist and Islamic nations in this regard as in those countries, trials are staged to "show" the political faith of the ruling elite. Fair trials, an independent judiciary, and a search for justice is considered to be a western bourgeois prejudice.

Carter pressured Iran to allow for "free assembly" which meant that groups would be able to meet and agitate for the overthrow of the government. It goes without saying that such rights didn't exist in any Marxist or Islamic nation. The planned and predictable result of these policies was an escalation of opposition to the Shah, which would be viewed by his enemies as a weakness. A well-situated internal apparatus in Iran receiving its marching orders from the Kremlin egged on this growing opposition.

By the fall of 1977, university students, working in tandem with a Shi'ite clergy that had long opposed the Shah's modernizing policies, began a well coordinated and financed series of street demonstrations supported by a media campaign reminiscent of the 1947-1948 campaign against China's Chiang Ki Shek in favor of the "agrarian reformer" Mao tse Tung. At this point the Shah was unable to check the demonstrators, who were instigating violence as a means of inflaming the situation and providing their media stooges with atrocity propaganda. Rumors were circulating amongst Iranians that the CIA under the orders of President Carter organized these demonstrations.

In November 1977, the Shah and his Empress, Farah Diba, visited the White House where they were met with hostility. They were greeted by nearly 4,000 Marxist-led Iranian students, many wearing masks, waving clubs, and carrying banners festooned with the names of Iranian terrorist organizations. The rioters were allowed within 100 feet of the White House where they attacked other Iranians and Americans gathered to welcome the Shah. Only 15 were arrested and quickly released. Inside the White House, Carter pressured the Shah to implement even more radical changes. Meanwhile, the Soviets were mobilizing a campaign of propaganda, espionage, sabotage, and terror in Iran. The Shah was being squeezed on two sides.

In April 1978, Moscow would instigate a bloody coup in Afghanistan and install the communist puppet Nur Mohammad Taraki. Taraki would proceed to call for a "jihad" against the "Ikhwanu Shayateen" which translates into "brothers of devils," a label applied to opponents of the new red regime in Kabul and to the Iranian government. Subversives and Soviet-trained agents swarmed across the long Afghanistan/Iran border to infiltrate Shi'ite mosques and other Iranian institutions. By November 1978, there was an estimated 500,000 Soviet backed Afghanis in Iran where, among other activities, they set up training camps for terrorists.

Khomeini, a 78-year-old Shi'ite cleric whose brother had been imprisoned as a result of activities relating to his Iranian Communist party affiliations, and who had spent 15 years in exile in Ba'th Socialist Iraq, was poised to return. In exile, Khomeini spoke of the creation of a revolutionary Islamic republic, which would be anti-Western, socialist, and with total power in the hands of an ayatollah. In his efforts to violently overthrow the government of Iran, Khomeini received the full support of the Soviets.

Nureddin Klanuri, head of the Iranian Communist Tudeh Party, in exile in East Berlin, stated, "The Tudeh Party approves Ayatollah Khomeini's initiative in creating the Islamic Revolutionary Council. The ayatollah's program coincides with that of the Tudeh Party." Khomeini's closest advisor, Sadegh Ghothzadeh, was well known as a revolutionary with close links to communist intelligence. In January 1998, Pravda, the official Soviet organ, officially endorsed the Khomeini revolution.

American leaders were also supporting Khomeini. After the Pravda endorsement, Ramsey Clark, who served as Attorney General under President Lyndon B. Johnson, held a press conference where he reported on a trip to Iran and a Paris visit with Khomeini. He urged the US government to take no action to help the Shah so that Iran "could determine it's own fate." Clark played a behind the scenes role influencing members of Congress to not get involved in the crisis. Perhaps UN Ambassador Andrew Young best expressed the thinking of the left at the time when he stated that, if successful, Khomeini would "eventually be hailed as a saint."

Khomeini was allowed to seize power in Iran and, as a result, we are now reaping the harvest of anti-American fanaticism and extremism. Khomeini unleashed the hybrid of Islam and Marxism that has spawned suicide bombers and hijackers. President Jimmy Carter, and the extremists in his administration are to blame and should be held accountable.

I always had the impression that the Shah, whom I always considered about a 'half-sandwich short of a picnic,' never fully knew what SAVAK was up to.

Which, of course, is to the man's credit, I guess. I do know he had very ambitious plans for his country's sad-sack infrastructure, but that the people who surrounded him siphoned off the funds that should have been spent on very well planned projects. As a result they, in large part, never happened.

Oddly enough, one of the things that his government or regime was accomplishing was redistributing the massive land-holdings of the mullahs and religious institutions to the peasants. Even though he was paying for the properties, this really put the ayatollahs' knickers (if indeed they wear them) in knots and helped seal the Shah's doom. He was, of course, leaving the huge holdings of his family and their corrupt cronies largely intact.

Of course, these are the very people, in exile, who now peddle the "our beloved Shah" codswallop. Jimmy Carter abandoned a "dunce sitting on a volcano."

My point is leaders in places where there is NO tradition of self-government, the 'warts' on that leader shouldn't be magnified to the point that obscure the whole picture of the leaders rule. (Thats why I brought Franco & Pinochet)
The Shah was the best choice availiable for the interests of the west(USA & UK) at the time. He continued to be the best choice right until Jimmy Carter pulled the rug out from underneath him. Also at the time their were 10s of thousands Americans in Iran(someone told me 50000 but that seems too high!) Whatever the true numbers were, it meant our 'footprint' was large and irritating !
Would it have been best for US interests if the US had made the effort to keep the Shah in power. I would say yes ! Khomeni's revolution gave islamic fundametalism its first taste of victory. It emboldened other likewise thinking though not necessairyly allied fundamemtalist groups, e.g. Islamic Brotherhood (they killed Sadat!)etc. Also Hizbollah might not exist! Kicking the Soviet out of Afghanistan would not have required deals with the 'devil' meaning the Sunni fundamentalists ,e,g, Wahabbist etc. We could have worked out of Iran instead of Pakistan (still maybe both!) but maybe with a little better 'control' not so many 'third parties' to deal with. Lots of interesting speculation here but it didn't happen so talking about it is nothing more then a beer & pretzels grad school talkathon !

Fristly, I have found the comments on this site and subject fascinating - especially the degree of interest in the unfortunate events of some 28 years ago that led to the current climate of terror worldwide.

What happened in Iran in the late 70's and the so-called revolution is a complex issue. It is a culmination of many variables including social, political, cultural, religious, economic and strategic, both domestically (Iran) and internationally(USA and European).

The Shah was NOT a tyrant, depending on your point of reference. He was NOT an edi Amin, Saddam, Pinochet or Khomeini and his thugs, as a few examples. He WAS a patriot and a true one at that. SAVAK was no worse than any other intelligence agency (including some current western ones) and corruption has never been unique to the Iran and the cronies of the Shah's court (these alone are no excuses for a revolution!). Yes, the Shah made mistakes and a few grave ones. Personally, I think that he could have been firmer and more resolute in handling the riots at their onset. In my opinion, he should have been more aware and in tune with the needs of his people rather than being so single minded in implementing his vision for a secular and modern Iran. I think, partly, it was a vision being implemented too quickly and not aligned with the cultural and social maturity/reality of most of the Iranian population. He once said that the single unifying point for Iran was "the King, the Monarch". I think that holds true but, equally, the other more unifying point, certainly at the time for Iran, was "RELIGION" i.e. Shite Islam. Perhaps, not among a few educated, westernized Iranians, but certainly for the majority of average people there. Progress is a great thing provided your average population mindset can keep up with it.

As for the role of Carter, personally I think he was a weak, ignorant man. His mistakes were graver than the Shah's. The main difference is that Carter's mistakes affected the world (as we witness now) more intensely than the Shah's. Carter's actions gave birth to what we call Islamic Fundamentalism. The alliance of reds (communists) and blacks (Islamists) contributed to the Shah's downfall -they used call themselves Islamic Marxists (a ridiculous term and in essence a contradiction). Since early 90's and decline of communism, religion has taken a more prominent role - Islam as preached by a few megalomaniacs has become the new communism and I think it is harder to defeat it. One can argue with a head of State decree but, for most who believe, one will find it very difficult to argue when words and actions are prompted on behalf of God!

Looking forward:

America often has played the big brother worldwide. I think it is a good thing at times provided America and the American government, in particular, fully understands the culture, history and nuances of a country and its people when it chooses to intervene. Since 9/11, I think the western world has become less insular and more aware of the Middle Eastern culture, its traditions and requirements. The same applies to European countries such as France and Britain. You can bet your bottom dollar that most Middle Easterns are very savvy about Western way of life and culture and it can work to the advantage of those who preach violence. What we view in the West as a tyrant, within limits, is often viewed as a strong leader in the Middle East, feared yes, but is respected. Democracy as we know it in the West is not something that can be exported. It is a lengthy process. It will take generations to be successfully implemented. Are we prepared to put the time and effort in for some self expediency or altruism? There are no fast solutions.

I firmly believe that the Shah was NOT a tyrant and F14 pilot: the Shah was not running a constitutional monarchy. He was ruling not reigning - he was an Absolute Monarch not a Constitutional Monarch. But I do believe, at the time, it was necessary. The Shah and his father only ruled for 50 years in total. That is a very short time to bring about ambitious changes for a country with 2500 years turbulent history and firmly embedded traditions. An analogy would be: when there is a massive fire in your house, do you take immediate action to put out the fire or do you start taking votes as who and what should be done to put out the fire? The Shah's father, who founded the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran, was a SOLDIER and held those values.

Finally, I am unsure if the Shah's son will be able to re-establish "Constitutional" Monarchy in Iran. But I do know that his people are absolutely fed up with the current thugs in Iran and are suffocating. As long as they are suffocating, the West will not be spared either - it has become a small world, very connected and dependent one at that.

Where is our friend Jimmy Carter now to promote human rights in Iran ? Has he had a waking dream ?

I believe, the best thing the West can do right now, is, at least, not to throw a continuous life line to the Mullahs and these charlatans who conduct atrocities in the name of God. If the Ayatollahs call America the Great Satan, I am so sure that they teach Satan a few tricks!

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.