Posted on 07/03/2016 1:07:47 PM PDT by freedom44
In 1979, after a long campaign of political pressure applied by the Carter administration in the United States, the Shah of Iran fell to the Islamic Revolution, ending a tradition of monarchic rule that had persisted in Iran for thousands of years since the rule of Cyrus the Great. The stage was set for the rise of the Ayatollah, and the establishment of a theocracy in Iran that, today, most Iranians do not even want. But what if none of that had ever happened? While a momentous departure from actual history, it is not nearly so far-fetched as it sounds. It isn't difficult to imagine that, beset by strife as the Shah was at the time, the opposition of a major world power like the United States was the final straw that brought the monarchy to an end, and it is not even clear why President Carter chose to engage in such opposition. While there were some human rights concerns taking place under the Shah, as Carter noted, these pale in comparison to the atrocities committed by the sorts of Islamic extremists that have since risen to power in Iran and found a more conducive environment in the Middle East generally. Let's see what else would have been different had Carter relented, and the Shah remained.
(Excerpt) Read more at familysecuritymatters.org ...
Is there anything at all that Carter didn’t screw up when he was in office?
And even Cancer can’t get rid of the SOB!
Well, I wonder if Jimmy has any regrets about his actions back then.
In the past few years, he’s made some statements which suggest he’s still bitter about losing the 1980 election.
But don’t recall him ever expressing regret about his actions relating to Iran and the Shah.
I remember that time when the media narrative was that the Ayatolla was some kind of “holy man” instead of a sick demented pervert.
We did side with the Shah. But for the years after Vietnam, Watergate, and the oil embargo, we were too scared as a nation to do bold things like defend him when the idiot college students and theocrats threatened him.
Peanuts sequestered himself in the White House to study the koran, trying to figure out what this moehammedan fervor was all about.
He still doesn’t get it.
Just asking who you mean by “we”. Carter did not side with the Shah.
> the Shah of Iran fell to the Islamic Revolution, ending a tradition of monarchic rule that had persisted in Iran for thousands of years since the rule of Cyrus the Great.
Mohammad Mosaddegh would have been very surprised to hear about that.
But I guess war propaganda doesn’t need to concern itself with measly easily-checked facts.
Carter could have done a lot of things different with Iran however, he could not have kept the Shah alive past July 27, 1980.
The Shah was dead man walking when he was deposed and his successor would not have stayed in power.
Carter is Satan incarnate. Shah was a peacemaker in the Middle East. He had good relations with Christian West, Jewish Israel, Sunni Saudi Arabia, and even atheist USSR.
Yes, Mosaddegh tried to be a usurper indeed.
The Shah held his position from 1941 until he was deposed by that disgusting “revolution”.
“But don’t recall him ever expressing regret about his actions relating to Iran and the Shah.”
Do you have any suggestion how Carter could have kept the Shah alive long enough to see the election of Reagan?
>>Just asking who you mean by “we”. Carter did not side with the Shah.
WE, the American people. Back in those days, our nation was not so divided that we couldn’t get behind the president, regardless of party, once the election was over. We’d campaign to get them out of office once the next election began (and not two years prior to the actual vote either), but we’d respect the office and go along with the Chief Executive while he was in the office.
My point was that Carter, and the USA, didn’t “side” with anyone because of the nation’s psychological state that I mentioned in the earlier post. We let foreign affairs work themselves out, and that’s a big reason why we became the World Police after Reagan took office.
Being Team America: World Police hasn’t been such a great idea either.
I’m afraid that we were so divided. It’s just that the media was more monolithic back then and did not report on it. If we were unified in that weakness referred to herein, then Reagan would not have attained the presidency.
Being “world police” brought “Pax Americana”. Handing off that role to others will result in tyranny and war, so be careful what you wish for.
I heard the White House toilets were always backed up because he was so full of ***
Certainly not by walking away from him. Carter gave tacit support to the Ayatollah, and we now stare possible death of the planet in the face due to that action.
>>I’m afraid that we were so divided. It’s just that the media was more monolithic back then and did not report on it. If we were unified in that weakness referred to herein, then Reagan would not have attained the presidency.
You make the common mistake of looking at history through contemporary goggles.
No.
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.