Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The U.S. should have sided with the Shah
FSM ^ | 7/3/2016 | Slater Bakhtavar

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 ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 1976election; 1979; 1980election; carter; cyrusthegreat; deathtoamerica; election1976; election1980; iran; irantimeline; jimmuh; jimmycarter; khomeini; nuclear; pahlavi; persia; persianempire; propaganda; religionofpeace; rop; shah; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

1 posted on 07/03/2016 1:07:47 PM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freedom44

Is there anything at all that Carter didn’t screw up when he was in office?


2 posted on 07/03/2016 1:09:01 PM PDT by SamAdams76 (Delegates So Far: Trump (1,542); Cruz (559); Rubio (165); Kasich (161)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

And even Cancer can’t get rid of the SOB!


3 posted on 07/03/2016 1:09:46 PM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

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.


4 posted on 07/03/2016 1:10:18 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

I remember that time when the media narrative was that the Ayatolla was some kind of “holy man” instead of a sick demented pervert.


5 posted on 07/03/2016 1:12:04 PM PDT by Zuse (I am disrupted! I am offended! I am insulted! I am outraged!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

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.


6 posted on 07/03/2016 1:14:37 PM PDT by Bryanw92 (If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

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.


7 posted on 07/03/2016 1:15:41 PM PDT by Zuse (I am disrupted! I am offended! I am insulted! I am outraged!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

Just asking who you mean by “we”. Carter did not side with the Shah.


8 posted on 07/03/2016 1:16:38 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

> 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.


9 posted on 07/03/2016 1:17:05 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Wisdom is doing due diligence before forming an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44

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.


10 posted on 07/03/2016 1:20:58 PM PDT by Timpanagos1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vette6387

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.


11 posted on 07/03/2016 1:22:17 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

Yes, Mosaddegh tried to be a usurper indeed.

The Shah held his position from 1941 until he was deposed by that disgusting “revolution”.


12 posted on 07/03/2016 1:22:21 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

“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?


13 posted on 07/03/2016 1:24:06 PM PDT by Timpanagos1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

>>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.


14 posted on 07/03/2016 1:26:35 PM PDT by Bryanw92 (If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

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.


15 posted on 07/03/2016 1:29:05 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

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.


16 posted on 07/03/2016 1:29:52 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

I heard the White House toilets were always backed up because he was so full of ***


17 posted on 07/03/2016 1:30:10 PM PDT by dp0622 (The only thing an upper crust conservative hates more than a liberal is a middle class conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Timpanagos1

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.


18 posted on 07/03/2016 1:31:18 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

>>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.


19 posted on 07/03/2016 1:31:27 PM PDT by Bryanw92 (If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

No.


20 posted on 07/03/2016 1:31:31 PM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson