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.

Compared to other Middle Eastern rulers the Shah was moderate. He & his family were mostly incompetent (Some members of his family spoke better French then Farsi, and somewhat corrupt BUT again compared to the other ME rulers ..its not even close. In fact I think if the Shah was truly the tyrant you think it was then he would probably still be in power. Rememebr he merely jailed Khomeni then exiled him(What would Saddam, Assad or Nasser have done ?) and of course let Carter talk him into letting Khomeni return. His military advisors asked him to crack down HARD but he didn't he lost his nerve. He thought Uncle Sam wouldn't let him down...but we did !
The Shah's greatest failing was not that he was a stong ruthless despot, his greatest failing was he was a weak, vacillating despot. He ended up not be feard but held in contempt.
Now I am no fan of tyranny BUT compared to REAL tyrants of that time period the Shah was nothing in the tyrant department.
He should have read Machivelli and taken to heart the maxims about what a prince should do who was not of a ancient lineage. (Aside: The Shah's grandfather was the one who seized the state from a weak prince. He adopted the Pavlavi surname to give his essentially nothing family instant respectabilty. The Pavlavi are an ancient familiy name.) Machivelli says,' A prince who is not of an ancient lineage will have trouble maintaining his rule. Since the people are not in the habit of obeying him & his family. prince must be harsh but fair until the people acquire the habit of obeying him & his family. (Meaning crack down HARD when challenged BUT deal fairly with the people) He proved to weak to do either! He relied too much on a outside power (the USA) to keep him safe. According to Machivelli always a foolish thing to do !

Merry Christmas.....

I am very well read on the history of modern Iran. The shah was out of power and out of the country until Ike decided to put him back in. We orchestrated a coup against a legally elected government. It was communist in its leanings but the real sin it committed was to win in the Haague against GB in the case regarding who owns iran's oil.

A CIA AAR on this coup has been declassified (google operation Ajax or just Iran-coup-1953). It states in very clear language that the shah was an unwilling player who was "pathologically afraid". He was so reluctant that his sister was enlisted to shame him into action. When the first days of the coup went bad he fled to Italy and had to be dragged back. That is the unadulterated fact.

You suggest that the shah was soft compared to Saddam, Assad or Nasser, but what does that have to do with anything? These three pale in comparison to Hitler, Stalin, Amin or Pol Pot. I certainly don't imagine the SAVAK's victims and their families saying "well, let's put up with the torture and killings - it could always be worse."

The inescapable truths are that the shah was a coward and a puppet, and that his own people risked death (a gamble many of them lost) to throw him out. Carter might have made it easier after the fact but no content, respected, safe from their own government populace ever revolted because some foreign leader wanted them to do so.

The efforts here by a small cadre of iranians in safe exile to change history and elicit through lies freeper support for "our beloved shah", as one of them states frequently, pisses me off. Too many freepers know nothing about the true history and swallow this propaganda without a thought. The last thing I will ever endorse would be to risk even one American life to re-instate some cartoon dynasty.

The iranians threw out one despot. When they (not us - they) have had enough of the mullahs they'll do it again. I hope they do but I don't see any honest evidence that they are close to that day.

Did I say Merry Christmas?

I actually know FAR more about it then you think I do !
However I am not defending the Shah's actions to the extent you think I am. I actually agree he was a coward (He proved that by not cracking down when he had the chances!)and a puppet (BUT not quite as much a puppet as the word implies! He managed to manipulate Nixon. Puppets usually don't pull the strings of their puppeteers!) Another old ally that we ( and the west again !!) let fall during that time period was Haile Salassie. I think you can find plenty of Etrieans (and other tribal groups!)who could make similar statements about Salassie despotism, also Salassie's government completely fumbled the famine and wouldn't admit how bad it was. (Of course Salassie was in his mid-80s) But was Mehgistsu an improvement ? (of course he had Soviet Special Forces help !)
Again the Shah was the best choice of all bad choices both for the USA and for Iran. The current mad mullah leadership in Iran is at least equally oppressive as the Shah plus they are now worse off economically !
Also Khomeni didn't become the Shah's enemy until the Shah grabbed religiously owned/controlled land ! Then there was the Shah's promotion of the Iran's non-Islamic Persian past !
The Shah's grandfather(now I can't remember if it is father or grandfather!)who seized the throne was the one that changed the name of Persia to Iran. He wanted to emphasize the Aryan nature of Persia (Iran~ Land of the Aryans). This he did this to show the West that he was 'hip' to Fascism. Since Fascism & Socialism were the two new upcoming 'all-the-beautiful-people-are-doing-it' western philosophies that were going to sweep the world and put that tired old boring middle class oriented western-style representative government & capitalism to shame. (Read some representative political philosophy works of the 1920s[even 1900!] & 1930s. I find it amazing how popular Fascism was among the intellectual elite!)
Also the Shah's grandfather(or father) has been described to me as a 'hard-as-nails' commander of Persian Cossacks. He commanded a Persian Cossack regiment or squadron which I believe was the palace guard (I never had time to explore the term 'Persian Cossack', to me the term Cossack refers to Russian/Slavic horsemen of the steppes!)
Also the original Shah slept on a army cot all his life and was not the lover of luxury his descendants were !
Of course this old guy jumped on the Hitler bandwagon early 1941 when things looked bleak for the West. He revolted against British control, of course the Brits crushed the revolt exiled him to London and kept son & grandson in their hip pockets for later.(With UK approval the USSR invaded the north & the British the south. The Brits had to make a deal with the USSR devil because they simply didn't have the man-power!) Also I guarantee this 'Shah' was no more cruel then what he replaced. (He was more open to western ideas, always a step in the right direction...with the exception of the side-step toward fascism...but it was the intellectual rage of the 20's & 30's !) I also guarantee that the Brits 'direct rule' after the revolt was considerably milder then Soviet rule in the north. I also guarantee it wouldn't meet 2005 human rights standards. (Brits needed Persian oil for the Royal Navy hence the interest in Persia ! Thats where BP started ! Also as the Royal Navy waned so did British interest in Persia and the Middle East in general!)

Also " CIA AAR on this coup has been declassified (google operation Ajax or just Iran-coup-1953). It states in very clear language that the shah was an unwilling player who was "pathologically afraid". He was so reluctant that his sister was enlisted to shame him into action. When the first days of the coup went bad he fled to Italy and had to be dragged back. That is the unadulterated fact.
"
I don't deny any of this. All this proves was he was very poor material to be an absolute monarch. (BUT he was the only obviously pro-western material available. Also remember obvious at the time don't let 50 years of hindsight color your thinking !) Much like Nicholas II was too weak to be a traditional autocrat so was the Shah. In fact I find the story of the Shah & his family very similar to that of the last days of the Romanovs.
I view the Shah vs Iran in the same light as Franco vs Spain. Franco was definitely a SOB BUT he saved Spain ! Do you honestly think that a communist victory in Spain would have shed less blood then a Phalange victory. (By the way Franco was never a member of the Phalange(Fascist)party he was an old time monarchist through-and-through! Also Hitler would have invaded Spain if there had been a communist victory.) Franco played Hitler and the Allies and later the USSR for all they were worth and rebuilt Spain. It's now a thriving constitutional monarchy which Franco nurtured(I call 'politically adopting' Juan Carlos de Bourbon and making him the 'heir' nurturing!) and allowed to take power, in spite of all the SNL jokes! If only the Shah had Franco's talent & guts, he didn't and here we are with what we got! I guarantee you can find people today who compare Franco to Hitler and have nothing good to say about him! Also consider Pinochet !

I always remember what one old Latvian emigre told me about Nazi vs Soviet rule and which was worse. With Nazi rule all you had to to was obey & work yes it was horrible and oppressive BUT with Soviet rule you had to believe it was good for you !

Merry Christmas to youse both.

In media stat virtus. The Great Game really never changes. The Czars wanted to control Iran, The British wanted to control Iran, the Soviets (oddly enough) came close to fulfilling the Czar's wishes, but we and the British thwarted them (we're rather new at the game, but not bad players!) installing our puppet and kicking out the Kremlin's.

In general, peoples around the world seem to fare somewhat better under our homies, than they have under the Soviets' stooges. Look no farther than Cuba, or VietNam for that matter to illustrate that point ... not to mention Chile, which like it or not, was at least temporarily saved from being another Cuba by Pinochet.

The British, by the way, also wanted Saudi oil, arranging for the House of Saud to take over the whole Arabian peninsula. But our team was aided and abetted by English arabist, St.John Philby, father of the notorious Kim, who worked against British interests. Our oil people also went 50-50 with the Saudis, whereas BP went 90-10, their way, with the Iranians ... which was Mossadegh's excuse for wishing to turn the place into a COMBLOC satellite, which of course would have eventually netted them "0"!

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.