================================================
Carter didn't throw the Shah out. The leftist press didn't throw the shah out. The iranians who were tired of his gestapo threw him out and it didn't happen in one day or without some of them being tortured and killed.
If the shah was beloved by iranians nothing Carter or anybody else said or did could have forced them to take to the streets in the face of his SAVAK. Unless of course the iranians are witless, spineless people who can't think for themselves. I don't think they are but is that what you're suggesting? What other possible explanation could there be for them to risk death to rid themselves of your beloved?
who cares what you say?!
Hey, Troll, there have dozens and dozens of articles posted discussing Carter's betrayal of the Shah.
Why don't you give us all the links to the Middle East experts and historians who think that Carter WASN'T involved in ousting the Shah. And NO, Carter himself doesn't count
We'll wait..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
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 !