Posted on 07/03/2016 1:07:47 PM PDT by freedom44
We can thank another idiot dimocrat for placing us on the road to world destruction.
The lightbulbs?
It wasn’t just Carter. The Saudis and most of the Arab world were threatened by the Shah (too much power in the ME, that’s how they perceived the Shah at the time).
“The USSR falls the same way at the same time - maybe collapses even earlier due to cheap oil. “
The Saudis were largely responsible for the economic collapse of the USSR, saturating the market with their oil which resulted in cheap oil, hence, much less revenue for the USSR. That’s been an old Saudi trick.
Equally, the Saudis were a main participant in “educating” what ended up as the Taliban later in Afghanistan. The Saudis (and certain number of their Gulf states satellites) funded madrassas, which were doing the education en masse at the time in Pakistan.
To date, there is much more to that revolution and saga that meets the eye. One can only scratch the surface in a few posts. No wonder the mullahs are still in power.
With the USA giving the USSR free reign in Afghanistan there would no al-Qaeda or jihadists being organized and the cheap oil would make the USSR fall anyway. So no 9/11. The Middle East would now be at peace. No Iran/Iraq war either.
Islam could have been moderated by the USA ruling Iran? Possible. In any case all of these good results could have been possible if we had a better president than Carter.
“Well my what if scenario envisions the Shah’s son in power as a US protectorate over Iran. That means if it was done right there would be cheap oil.”
There are multiple layers or issues to what you propose.
First, the Shah’s son, based on what I’ve gathered over the recent yrs, is neither willing to be “a US protectorate over Iran”, nor can he be perceived to be. It’s politics and about perceptions, mostly peoples’ perception. Therefore, must choose the language carefully, if you want to sell that position to them.
To explain further: The general population in Iran alone (not counting expats, who are a different ballgame) has come a long way since 1979; it’s a different generation we are dealing with. So, they would still want a person “ruling or governing” them to be, first and foremost, for Iranians, not the U.S. or any other. Although the new generation is much more pro-West and pro-USA in outlook and aspirations. They’ve also had the opportunity to first-hand experience the Islamic mullahs, whereas the old generation in 1979 never had. The new generation by and large despises the mullahs regime.
“With the USA giving the USSR free reign in Afghanistan there would no al-Qaeda or jihadists being organized and the cheap oil would make the USSR fall anyway. So no 9/11. The Middle East would now be at peace. No Iran/Iraq war either.”
I tend to agree with this comment of yours. Not so much for giving USSR “free reign” but more not supporting Islamists.
“Islam could have been moderated by the USA ruling Iran? Possible.”
The Shah, as you may already know, was very secular, politically and socially. His son is equally so. So, there was no need for Islam in Iran to have been “moderated” by the U.S. But most definitely should not have been encouraged in the guise of a mullah and his supporters as Khomeini was. And, the Reformists of the same mullahs’ regime have been. They need to go in their entirety. No Political Reform is possible.
“In any case all of these good results could have been possible if we had a better president than Carter.”
Carter was and still is an idiot and at best naive. He certainly was naive to be pushing an ideal of democracy a la USA in Iran in 1979, when the majority of people were not ready for it.
Hope that makes sense. Of course the above is my understanding and views.
I am talking about a scenario in 1979. Not today. If Shah, Jr was not willing to be Shah, I would, as the hypothetical president other than Carter, find his first cousin and make him as my puppet Shah.
In 1979, yes, I definitely agree that much more determined and direct actions should have been taken against the mullahs et al by the Shah himself, and Carter/his administration.
Though I can’t imagine who else with reasonable clout & credibility could’ve taken over from the Shah. Anyhow, back then there would’ve been a bloodbath, but compared to what has happened since, much less so.
And, also, you would’ve had to manage the media; they scrutinized every single thing the Shah or his gov’t did, constantly accusing him of human rights violations. Yet, suddenly the same media went quiet when Khomeini started executing people left, right and center.
By the way, Shah Jr in 1979 was not of legal age per Iranian Constitution to take over the reins from his father.
Even better - you have an uncle as regent or some such. Raise the kid as an American.
My point is that the hostage crisis ignited genuine patriotism and whoever was president should have went to congress for a declaration of war (as a way to cure Vietnam opposition to undeclared wars) initiated a draft, invaded and occupied Iran. Plenty of Iranians would have been our right hands in Iran and a fresh guiltless boy Shah may have served as a reset for the Shah/Iranian people relationship.
Shah Jr’s mother (the Empress) was regent until he turned 20 and then could be sworn in.
I don’t doubt the hostage crisis ignited genuine patriotism in the U.S. and hostility towards Iran. Something that has continued to date.
But, the idea of invading Iran back then, if you lived through that time, is far-fetched and unrealistic for so many reasons. I think the best course of action, in hindsight, and even then, would’ve been to do what the mullahs’ regime did in 2009, when there was an uprising. It really could’ve worked in 1979 too.
Differences between 1979 and 2009: 1) The Shah himself was against killing his own people to retain the throne, he said so very clearly. 2) the U.S. president not only did not support even the idea of opening fire, but was also adamant that Khomeini was a “holy-man”. I can say more, but rather not. Suffice it to say the Iranian military at the heart of the uprising had certain directives from the U.S., directly. Enough said.
I think an invasion of 1979 Iran to restore a shah type rule would have been easy.
I understand what you mean.
Though, there was an invasion of Iran in 1979. Among many Iranians it’s known as the mullahs or the second Islamic invasion (another name for “Islamic/Khomeinist Revolution”). And they do have a “shah type” rule, with semblance of democracy. The mullahs in essence replaced the Shah with their rule!
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.