Jimmy Carter Sold out Iran

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.

Here is a synopsis of U.S.-PRC-Taiwan relations:

Taiwan Relations Act Imperatives

By Christopher DeMuth, Edwin Feulner
Posted: Tuesday, April 13, 1999

Washington Times
Publication Date: April 13, 1999

China's deployment of more than 100 additional ballistic missiles in its eastern provinces, facing Taiwan, is a sobering reminder that the 20-year-old Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) has a very serious purpose that is just as valid today as when the TRA was signed into law.

Of course, much has changed since 1979, when Congress passed the TRA following President Carter's recognition of the People's Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal government of China. At that time, the Cold War was at its height and containing communism was a major objective of U.S. foreign policy. Today, the Cold War is over and our foreign policy seems to have little, if any, focus.

One thing that hasn't changed, however, is the United States' goals in its relations with Taiwan, as set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act. The Act declares that the United States will:

* Preserve and promote extensive, close and friendly commercial and cultural relations between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan.

* View any effort to determine Taiwan's future by aggressive means, including boycotts or embargoes, as a threat to regional peace and security.

* Provide Taiwan with defensive arms, based on what the president and Congress judge to be Taiwan's needs.

* Maintain the ability to resist any military force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social and economic systems, of the people of Taiwan.

* Preserve and protect the human rights of the people of Taiwan.

* Oppose the exclusion or expulsion of Taiwan from membership in any international organization.

It's important to remember why Congress drafted the TRA in the first place - because of understandable concerns that Taiwan would otherwise be abandoned. When President Carter announced that the United States would break diplomatic relations with Taipei and recognize Beijing as the lone seat of China's government effective Jan. 1, 1979, he barely acknowledged the need to maintain relations with Taiwan. The TRA was designed to fill that void. It was approved with broad bipartisan support; its strongest advocates included liberals like Sen. Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and conservatives like Sen. Jesse Helms, North Carolina Republican. The TRA was signed by President Carter on April 10, 1979.

Speaking as a presidential candidate in August 1980, Ronald Reagan affirmed the need for the TRA: "It was the timely action of the Congress, reflecting the strong support of the American people for Taiwan, that forced the changes in the inadequate bill which Mr. Carter proposed. Clearly, the Congress was unwilling to buy the Carter plan, which it believed would have jeopardized Taiwan's security."

In the ensuing 20 years, the TRA has weathered several diplomatic challenges. In 1982, for example, the Reagan administration agreed through a diplomatic communique to gradually reduce the quantity and quality of arms sold to Taiwan if Beijing used peaceful means to deal with the island republic. When asked if this move contradicted U.S. obligations under the TRA, President Reagan responded, "We are not going to abandon our longtime friends and allies on Taiwan. And I'm going to carry out the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act . . .. It is a moral obligation that we'll keep."

And he did. Prior to signing the 1982 communique, President Reagan offered what became known as the "Six Assurances," in which he promised the government of Taiwan that the United States remained committed to the TRA.

Unfortunately, recent actions by the Clinton administration have implicitly called these commitments into question. The most egregious example of this shift occurred last June, when President Clinton, while in Shanghai, endorsed a key element of Beijing's Taiwan policy - the "Three Noes": No U.S. support for "one China, one Taiwan"; no U.S. support for Taiwanese independence; and no U.S. support for Taiwanese membership in various international organizations. While this last point clearly violates the letter and intent of the TRA, the entire statement represents a sharp departure from longstanding U.S. policy toward Taiwan. As in 1979, it may be necessary for Congress to affirm America's commitment to Taiwan to ensure America stands by its pledges.

The reason for Taiwan's concern that U.S. policy is tilting too far toward Beijing is clear enough given the Clinton administration's policies. The president continues to pursue a "constructive strategic partnership" with the PRC. At the same time, he does nothing to recognize and reward Taiwan, which should be our real partner in the region. What has the administration gained by accommodating Beijing, other than the deployment of more PRC missiles to threaten Taiwan?

The TRA works. To abandon it -in principle, if not in fact - would be a grave mistake. By consistently supporting Taiwan over the last two decades, the United States has promoted a dramatic transformation in that country. Freedom has spread from the marketplace to the ballot box, making Taiwan one of Asia's best and proudest examples of a free-market democracy. The 21 million people on Taiwan buy nearly twice as many American goods as the 1.2 billion people on the mainland. Its economic success alone is a lesson for all of us. Its political transformation could not have happened without the security guarantees of the TRA.

As an important first step toward giving Taiwan its due recognition, the U.S. government should receive Taiwan's democratically elected leaders in the United States. If the Clinton administration can deal publicly with Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat, how can it continue to turn its back on the democratically chosen officials of Taiwan?

It is now up to Congress to keep the simple goals of the Taiwan Relations Act alive. Consistent with the "moral obligation" described by President Reagan, the United States must do all it can to guarantee Taiwan's ability to live in peace and prosperity. In short, it's time to replace the "Three Noes" with a resounding "Yes."

~~~

Not only did traitorrapist42 utter the Three Noes in Tiananmen like a good little Beijing butt boy, he proceeded to bash Taiwan in international fora, receiving 300K at the Australian meeting of the annual Taiwan roast hosted by PRC.

As for Stansfield Turner, his Halloween prank is dealt with by Bill Gertz in Breakdown: How America's Intelligence Failures Led to September 11, Regnery, 2002, page 63:

Turner, who had no professioal experience with intelligence, decided to cut 820 positions within the CIA Operations Directorate. The cuts were announced in impersonal notices sent out on Halloween--October 31, 1977. "It has been decided that your services are no longer needed," the termination notes stated. For the Clandestine Service, the cuts were a blow from which it never recovered. Every director of Central Intelligence since then has tried in vain to "rebuild" the operational capability of the CIA.

I submit there is a persistent malignancy in the "naive bunglings" of comrade Carter.

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.