JImmy Carter says US tortures

[GaryC 7]

Aren't you rather playing with the terms now? The fact is, he didn't approve of it or he would have been fine about it spreading into Northern States as well. Regardless, his legacy is that he was responsible for the end of slavery, or are you going to argue that is was infact nothing to do with Lincoln at all?

It's not very likely that Bush will be remembered for anything. The chances are that even the Iraq debacle will have faded into historical nothingness in 100 years time. So, what are you suggesting the Bush legacy will be anyway?

I am saying that the very things Bush will be remembered as the worst president by some here are the very things Lincoln, who is regarded as one of the best, also did.

Lincoln claimed there were WMD? I had no idea Lincoln invaded (2) countries either, cheated in elections, wiretapped (on the telegraph, perhaps?) or wanted to give amnesty to illegal immigrants. Hmph, learn something new in VJ-written history^TM every day!

That makes no sense at all. The southern states had a constitutional right to leave. Lincoln started a war to prevent that. The issue of slavery didn't even come up when he started the war, he only brought it up when he was running for re-election. He did spy on his own people and I have no idea what illegal aliens has to do with this, Carter or Bush. You don't debate very well Dev.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again - the why becomes more or less irrelevant when you're looking at a historical legacy.

Regardless of the reasons he did it - he still did what is considered 'the right thing', albeit it for the wrong reasons. In much the same way people laud King John for the Magna Carta regardless of the fact that he was forced to sign it by his barons. Aside from that though - John's legacy was defined more by his blunders than his successes. The reverse is true of Lincoln IMO.

[GaryC 7]

Do some reading Steven. Facts are the facts. Carter could have stopped the Shah from being deposed and the Islamic Revolution would not have happened.

Again without reference to the political climate at the time. Gary you were around in 1979. Was the country as a whole really willing to engage in a unilateral war in the years after Vietnam. I have to say - I'm highly sceptical of that...

I was in the navy at the time. I was willing to go over there to free the hostages and so were the other people I was in the service with. But if Carter had supported the Shah we wouldn't have had to even think about that. We had good relations with Iran at the time. But Carter turned his back on them and allowed the radicals to take over. If you think the world is better off with the current administration over the way it was when the Shah was there please enlighten me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do some reading Steven. Facts are the facts. Carter could have stopped the Shah from being deposed and the Islamic Revolution would not have happened.

Again without reference to the political climate at the time. Gary you were around in 1979. Was the country as a whole really willing to engage in a unilateral war in the years after Vietnam. I have to say - I'm highly sceptical of that...

I was in the navy at the time. I was willing to go over there to free the hostages and so were the other people I was in the service with. But if Carter had supported the Shah we wouldn't have had to even think about that. We had good relations with Iran at the time. But Carter turned his back on them and allowed the radicals to take over. If you think the world is better off with the current administration over the way it was when the Shah was there please enlighten me.

Clearly I don't - but again I think the world would have been better off if we hadn't gotten involved in that country in the first place (i.e. in 1953) and set their democratic process back decades. That is where the radicalism and anti-americanism started. By the time revolution came along - it was too late IMO.

The events of 1979 dovetail onto the back of a disastrous decision made in the 50's for short term, petty gain.

[MrsAmera 41]

The Islamic Revolution had absolutely nothing to do with Carter - who ever came up with that is just blowing smoke. The Islamic Revolution began with the occupation of Palestine, and could even have occured before that. Try reading some Middle Eastern history from the other side of the spectrum, compare notes and then make your conclusion, I think you'll be surprised.

[GaryC 7]

Do some reading Steven. Facts are the facts. Carter could have stopped the Shah from being deposed and the Islamic Revolution would not have happened.

Again without reference to the political climate at the time. Gary you were around in 1979. Was the country as a whole really willing to engage in a unilateral war in the years after Vietnam. I have to say - I'm highly sceptical of that...

I was in the navy at the time. I was willing to go over there to free the hostages and so were the other people I was in the service with. But if Carter had supported the Shah we wouldn't have had to even think about that. We had good relations with Iran at the time. But Carter turned his back on them and allowed the radicals to take over. If you think the world is better off with the current administration over the way it was when the Shah was there please enlighten me.

Clearly I don't - but again I think the world would have been better off if we hadn't gotten involved in that country in the first place (i.e. in 1953) and set their democratic process back decades. That is where the radicalism and anti-Americanism started. By the time revolution came along - it was too late IMO.

The events of 1979 dovetail onto the back of a disastrous decision made in the 50's for short term, petty gain.

A president can only deal with what he has when he is president. Carter had the opportunity to stop the radicals from taking over and didn't. That decision caused this to escalate to it's current state. The '53 was to restore the rightful leader after a coup. Whether that was right or not is anyones guess. But it did result in 25+ years of a friendly, stable government that did have a rightful claim on power.

[GaryC 7]

The Islamic Revolution had absolutely nothing to do with Carter - who ever came up with that is just blowing smoke. The Islamic Revolution began with the occupation of Palestine, and could even have occured before that. Try reading some Middle Eastern history from the other side of the spectrum, compare notes and then make your conclusion, I think you'll be surprised.

The Iranian Revolution (also known as the Islamic Revolution,) was the revolution that transformed Iran from a monarchy under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to an Islamic republic under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution and founder of the Islamic Republic.[7] It has been called "the third great revolution in history," following the French and Bolshevik revolutions.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The Islamic Revolution had absolutely nothing to do with Carter - who ever came up with that is just blowing smoke. The Islamic Revolution began with the occupation of Palestine, and could even have occured before that. Try reading some Middle Eastern history from the other side of the spectrum, compare notes and then make your conclusion, I think you'll be surprised.

It happened when he was in office - but I'm wondering what exactly he could have or should have done to prevent it. Given the fallout from Vietnam it seems unlikely that the US would have touched that country with a 10 foot pole.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do some reading Steven. Facts are the facts. Carter could have stopped the Shah from being deposed and the Islamic Revolution would not have happened.

Again without reference to the political climate at the time. Gary you were around in 1979. Was the country as a whole really willing to engage in a unilateral war in the years after Vietnam. I have to say - I'm highly sceptical of that...

I was in the navy at the time. I was willing to go over there to free the hostages and so were the other people I was in the service with. But if Carter had supported the Shah we wouldn't have had to even think about that. We had good relations with Iran at the time. But Carter turned his back on them and allowed the radicals to take over. If you think the world is better off with the current administration over the way it was when the Shah was there please enlighten me.

Clearly I don't - but again I think the world would have been better off if we hadn't gotten involved in that country in the first place (i.e. in 1953) and set their democratic process back decades. That is where the radicalism and anti-Americanism started. By the time revolution came along - it was too late IMO.

The events of 1979 dovetail onto the back of a disastrous decision made in the 50's for short term, petty gain.

A president can only deal with what he has when he is president. Carter had the opportunity to stop the radicals from taking over and didn't. That decision caused this to escalate to it's current state. The '53 was to restore the rightful leader after a coup. Whether that was right or not is anyones guess. But it did result in 25+ years of a friendly, stable government that did have a rightful claim on power.

Gary - just because he was the king doesn't make him the 'rightful' leader. Leaders only operate through the sufferance of the people they represent.

The '53 coup was primarily about oil - The prime minister wanted to nationalise the country's oil interests. BP and the British and American Govts didn't want that - because it interfered with their economic interests. Spin it however you want - blaming Carter for something that was started 25 years before is rather myopic however you look at it.

BTW - what was friendly and stable to the US was not necessarily so to the people of that country. What you are essentially saying is the welfare of the people forced to live under an autocratic puppet government should come second to our economic interests. That's makes the comments about how much we 'care' about the Iraqi people rather jingoistic in my view.

[GaryC 7]

The Islamic Revolution had absolutely nothing to do with Carter - who ever came up with that is just blowing smoke. The Islamic Revolution began with the occupation of Palestine, and could even have occured before that. Try reading some Middle Eastern history from the other side of the spectrum, compare notes and then make your conclusion, I think you'll be surprised.

It happened when he was in office - but I'm wondering what exactly he could have or should have done to prevent it. Given the fallout from Vietnam it seems unlikely that the US would have touched that country with a 10 foot pole.

Jimmy Carter's Illegal Demands on Shah

Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carter’s resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office. 1 GIS.

The linkage between the destruction of the Shah’s Government — directly attributable to Carter’s actions — and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.

Pres. Carter’s anti-Shah feelings appeared to have ignited after he sent a group of several of his friends from his home state, Georgia, to Tehran with an audience arranged with His Majesty directly by the Oval Office and in Carter’s name. At this meeting, as reported by Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda to some confidantes, these businessmen told the Shah that Pres. Carter wanted a contract. previously awarded to Brown & Root to build a huge port complex at Bandar Mahshahr, to be cancelled and as a personal favor to him to be awarded to the visiting group at 10 percent above the cost quoted by Brown & Root.

The group would then charge the 10 percent as a management fee and supervise the project for Iran, passing the actual construction work back to Brown & Root for implementation, as previously awarded. They insisted that without their management the project would face untold difficulties at the US end and that Pres. Carter was “trying to be helpful”. They told the Shah that in these perilous political times, he should appreciate the favor which Pres. Carter was doing him.

According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, the Georgia visitors left a stunned monarch and his bewildered Prime Minister speechless, other than to later comment among close confidantes about the hypocrisy of the US President, who talked glibly of God and religion but practiced blackmail and extortion through his emissaries.

The multi-billion dollar Bandar Mahshahr project would have made 10 percent “management fee” a huge sum to give away to Pres. Carter’s friends as a favor for unnecessary services. The Shah politely declined the “personal” management request which had been passed on to him. The refusal appeared to earn the Shah the determination of Carter to remove him from office.

Carter subsequently refused to allow tear gas and rubber bullets to be exported to Iran when anti-Shah rioting broke out, nor to allow water cannon vehicles to reach Iran to control such outbreaks, generally instigated out of the Soviet Embassy in Tehran. There was speculation in some Iranian quarters — as well as in some US minds — at the time and later that Carter’s actions were the result of either close ties to, or empathy for, the Soviet Union, which was anxious to break out of the longstanding US-led strategic containment of the USSR, which had prevented the Soviets from reaching the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.

Sensing that Iran’s exports could be blocked by a couple of ships sunk in the Persian Gulf shipping lanes, the Shah planned a port which would have the capacity to handle virtually all of Iran’s sea exports unimpeded.

Contrary to accusations leveled at him about the huge, “megalomaniac” projects like Bandar Mahshahr, these served as a means to provide jobs for a million graduating high school students every year for whom there were no university slots available. Guest workers, mostly from Pakistan and Afghanistan were used to start and expand the projects and Iranians replaced the foreigners as job demand required, while essential infrastructure for Iran was built ahead of schedule.

In late February 2004, Islamic Iran’s Deputy Minister of Economy stated that the country needed $18-billion a year to create one-million jobs and achieve economic prosperity. And at the first job creation conference held in Tehran’s Amir Kabir University, Iran’s Student News Agency estimated the jobless at some three-million. Or a budget figure of $54-billion to deal with the problem.

Thirty years earlier, the Shah had already taken steps to resolve the same challenges, which were lost in the revolution which had been so resolutely supported by Jimmy Carter.

A quarter-century after the toppling of the Shah and his Government by the widespread unrest which had been largely initiated by groups with Soviet funding — but which was, ironically, to bring the mullahs rather than the radical-left to power — Ayatollah Shariatmadari’s warning that the clerics were not equipped to run the country was echoed by the Head of Islamic Iran’s Investment Organization, who said: “We are hardly familiar with the required knowledge concerning the proper use of foreign resources both in State and private sectors, nor how to make the best use of domestic resources.” Not even after 25 years.

Historians and observers still debate Carter’s reasons for his actions during his tenure at the White House, where almost everything, including shutting down satellite surveillance over Cuba at an inappropriate time for the US, seemed to benefit Soviet aims and policies. Some claim he was inept and ignorant, others that he was allowing his liberal leanings to overshadow US national interests.

The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office had enough doubts in this respect, even to the extent of questioning whether Carter was a Russian mole, that they sent around 200 observers to monitor Carter’s 1980 presidential campaign against Ronald Reagan to see if the Soviets would try to “buy” the presidency for Carter.

In the narrow aspect of Carter setting aside international common sense to remove the US’ most powerful ally in the Middle East, this focused change was definitely contrary to US interests and events over the next 25 years proved this.

According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, Jimmy Carter’s next attack on the Shah was a formal country to country demand that the Shah sign a 50-year oil agreement with the US to supply oil at a fixed price of $8 a barrel. No longer couched as a personal request, the Shah was told he should heed the contract proposal if he wished to enjoy continued support from the US. In these perilous, political times which, could become much worse.

Faced with this growing pressure and threat, the monarch still could not believe that Iran, the staunchest US ally in the region, other than Israel, would be discarded or maimed so readily by Carter, expecting he would be prevailed upon by more experienced minds to avoid destabilizing the regional power structure and tried to explain his position. Firstly, Iran did not have 50-years of proven oil reserves that could be covered by a contract. Secondly, when the petrochemical complex in Bandar Abbas, in the South, was completed a few years later, each barrel of oil would produce $1,000 worth of petrochemicals so it would be treasonous for the Shah to give oil away for only $8.

Apologists, while acknowledging that Carter had caused the destabilization of the monarchy in Iran, claim he was only trying to salvage what he could from a rapidly deteriorating political situation to obtain maximum benefits for the US. But, after the Shah was forced from the throne, Carter’s focused effort to get re-elected via the Iran hostage situation points to less high minded motives.

Rumor has always had it that Carter had tried to negotiate to have the US hostages, held for 444 days by the Islamic Republic which he had helped establish in Iran, released just before the November 1980 election date, but that opposition (Republican) candidate Ronald Reagan had subverted, taken over and blocked the plan. An eye-witness account of the seizure by “students” of the US Embassy on November 4, 1979, in Tehran confirms a different scenario.

The mostly “rent-a-crowd” group of “students” organized to climb the US Embassy walls was spearheaded by a mullah on top of a Volkswagen van, who with a two-way radio in one hand and a bullhorn in the other, controlled the speed of the march on the Embassy according to instructions he received over the radio. He would slow it down, hurry it up and slow it down again in spurts and starts, triggering the curiosity of an educated pro-Khomeini vigilante, who later told the story to a friend in London.

When asked by the vigilante for the reason of this irregular movement, the stressed cleric replied that he had instructions to provide the US Embassy staff with enough time to destroy their most sensitive documents and to give the three most senior US diplomats adequate opportunity to then take refuge at the Islamic Republic Foreign Ministry rather than be taken with the other hostages. Someone at the Embassy was informing the Foreign Ministry as to progress over the telephone and the cleric was being told what to do over his radio.

The vigilante then asked why the Islamic Government would bother to be so accommodating to the Great Satan and was told that the whole operation was planned in advance by Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan’s revolutionary Government with Pres. Carter in return for Carter having helped depose the Shah and that this was being done to ensure Carter got re-elected. “He helped us, now we help him” was the matter-of-fact comment from the cleric.

In 1978 while the West was deciding to remove His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi from the throne, Shariatmadari was telling anyone who would listen not to allow “Ayatollah” Ruhollah Khomeini and his velayat faghih (Islamic jurist) version of Islam to be allowed to govern Iran. Ayatollah Shariatmadari noted: “We mullahs will behave like bickering whores in a brothel if we come to power ... and we have no experience on how to run a modern nation so we will destroy Iran and lose all that has been achieved at such great cost and effort.” 2.

Pres. Carter reportedly responded that Khomeini was a religious man — as he himself claimed to be — and that he knew how to talk to a man of God, who would live in the holy city of Qom like an Iranian “pope” and act only as an advisor to the secular, popular revolutionary Government of Mehdi Bazargan and his group of anti-Shah executives, some of whom were US-educated and expected to show preferences for US interests.

Carter’s mistaken assessment of Khomeini was encouraged by advisors with a desire to form an Islamic “green belt” to contain atheist Soviet expansion with the religious fervor of Islam. Eventually all 30 of the scenarios on Iran presented to Carter by his intelligence agencies proved wrong, and totally misjudged Khomeini as a person and as a political entity.

Today, Iranian-born, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the dominant Shia leader in Iraq faces Shariatmadari’s dilemma and shares the same “quietist” Islamic philosophy of sharia (religious law) guidance rather than direct governing by the clerics themselves. Sistani’s “Khomeini” equivalent, militant Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was gunned down in 1999 by then-Iraqi Pres. Saddam Hussein’s forces. Sadr’s son, 30-year-old Muqtada al-Sadr, lacks enough followers or religious seniority/clout to immediately oppose Sistani but has a hard core of violent followers biding their time.

According to all estimates, the young Sadr waits for the June 2004 scheduled handover of power in Iraq, opening the way for serious, militant intervention on his side by Iranian clerics. The Iranian clerical leaders, the successors to Khomeini, see, far more clearly than US leaders and observers, the parallels between 1979-80 and 2004: as a result, they have put far more effort into activities designed to ensure that “Reagan’s successor”, US Pres. George W. Bush, does not win power.

Footnotes:

1. © 2004 Alan Peters. The name “Alan Peters” is a nom de plume for a writer who was for many years involved in intelligence and security matters in Iran. He had significant access inside Iran at the highest levels during the rule of the Shah, until early 1979.

2. See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, March 2, 2004: Credibility and Legitimacy of Ruling Iranian Clerics Unraveling as Pressures Mount Against Them; The Source of Clerical Ruling Authority Now Being Questioned. This report, also by Alan Peters, details the background of “Ayatollah” Khomeini, the fact that his qualifications for his religious title were not in place, and the fact that he was not of Iranian origin.

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2004/03/jimmy-ca...ds-on-shah.html

Do some reading Steven. Facts are the facts. Carter could have stopped the Shah from being deposed and the Islamic Revolution would not have happened.

Again without reference to the political climate at the time. Gary you were around in 1979. Was the country as a whole really willing to engage in a unilateral war in the years after Vietnam. I have to say - I'm highly sceptical of that...

I was in the navy at the time. I was willing to go over there to free the hostages and so were the other people I was in the service with. But if Carter had supported the Shah we wouldn't have had to even think about that. We had good relations with Iran at the time. But Carter turned his back on them and allowed the radicals to take over. If you think the world is better off with the current administration over the way it was when the Shah was there please enlighten me.

Clearly I don't - but again I think the world would have been better off if we hadn't gotten involved in that country in the first place (i.e. in 1953) and set their democratic process back decades. That is where the radicalism and anti-Americanism started. By the time revolution came along - it was too late IMO.

The events of 1979 dovetail onto the back of a disastrous decision made in the 50's for short term, petty gain.

A president can only deal with what he has when he is president. Carter had the opportunity to stop the radicals from taking over and didn't. That decision caused this to escalate to it's current state. The '53 was to restore the rightful leader after a coup. Whether that was right or not is anyones guess. But it did result in 25+ years of a friendly, stable government that did have a rightful claim on power.

Gary - just because he was the king doesn't make him the 'rightful' leader. Leaders only operate through the sufferance of the people they represent.

The '53 coup was primarily about oil - The prime minister wanted to nationalise the country's oil interests. BP and the British and American Govts didn't want that - because it interfered with their economic interests. Spin it however you want - blaming Carter for something that was started 25 years before is rather myopic however you look at it.

BTW - what was friendly and stable to the US was not necessarily so to the people of that country. What you are essentially saying is the welfare of the people forced to live under an autocratic puppet government should come second to our economic interests. That's makes the comments about how much we 'care' about the Iraqi people rather jingoistic in my view.

Do you think the Iranian people are better off now or when the Shah was there?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The Islamic Revolution had absolutely nothing to do with Carter - who ever came up with that is just blowing smoke. The Islamic Revolution began with the occupation of Palestine, and could even have occured before that. Try reading some Middle Eastern history from the other side of the spectrum, compare notes and then make your conclusion, I think you'll be surprised.

It happened when he was in office - but I'm wondering what exactly he could have or should have done to prevent it. Given the fallout from Vietnam it seems unlikely that the US would have touched that country with a 10 foot pole.

Jimmy Carter's Illegal Demands on Shah

Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carter’s resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office. 1 GIS.

The linkage between the destruction of the Shah’s Government — directly attributable to Carter’s actions — and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.

Pres. Carter’s anti-Shah feelings appeared to have ignited after he sent a group of several of his friends from his home state, Georgia, to Tehran with an audience arranged with His Majesty directly by the Oval Office and in Carter’s name. At this meeting, as reported by Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda to some confidantes, these businessmen told the Shah that Pres. Carter wanted a contract. previously awarded to Brown & Root to build a huge port complex at Bandar Mahshahr, to be cancelled and as a personal favor to him to be awarded to the visiting group at 10 percent above the cost quoted by Brown & Root.

The group would then charge the 10 percent as a management fee and supervise the project for Iran, passing the actual construction work back to Brown & Root for implementation, as previously awarded. They insisted that without their management the project would face untold difficulties at the US end and that Pres. Carter was “trying to be helpful”. They told the Shah that in these perilous political times, he should appreciate the favor which Pres. Carter was doing him.

According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, the Georgia visitors left a stunned monarch and his bewildered Prime Minister speechless, other than to later comment among close confidantes about the hypocrisy of the US President, who talked glibly of God and religion but practiced blackmail and extortion through his emissaries.

The multi-billion dollar Bandar Mahshahr project would have made 10 percent “management fee” a huge sum to give away to Pres. Carter’s friends as a favor for unnecessary services. The Shah politely declined the “personal” management request which had been passed on to him. The refusal appeared to earn the Shah the determination of Carter to remove him from office.

Carter subsequently refused to allow tear gas and rubber bullets to be exported to Iran when anti-Shah rioting broke out, nor to allow water cannon vehicles to reach Iran to control such outbreaks, generally instigated out of the Soviet Embassy in Tehran. There was speculation in some Iranian quarters — as well as in some US minds — at the time and later that Carter’s actions were the result of either close ties to, or empathy for, the Soviet Union, which was anxious to break out of the longstanding US-led strategic containment of the USSR, which had prevented the Soviets from reaching the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.

Sensing that Iran’s exports could be blocked by a couple of ships sunk in the Persian Gulf shipping lanes, the Shah planned a port which would have the capacity to handle virtually all of Iran’s sea exports unimpeded.

Contrary to accusations leveled at him about the huge, “megalomaniac” projects like Bandar Mahshahr, these served as a means to provide jobs for a million graduating high school students every year for whom there were no university slots available. Guest workers, mostly from Pakistan and Afghanistan were used to start and expand the projects and Iranians replaced the foreigners as job demand required, while essential infrastructure for Iran was built ahead of schedule.

In late February 2004, Islamic Iran’s Deputy Minister of Economy stated that the country needed $18-billion a year to create one-million jobs and achieve economic prosperity. And at the first job creation conference held in Tehran’s Amir Kabir University, Iran’s Student News Agency estimated the jobless at some three-million. Or a budget figure of $54-billion to deal with the problem.

Thirty years earlier, the Shah had already taken steps to resolve the same challenges, which were lost in the revolution which had been so resolutely supported by Jimmy Carter.

A quarter-century after the toppling of the Shah and his Government by the widespread unrest which had been largely initiated by groups with Soviet funding — but which was, ironically, to bring the mullahs rather than the radical-left to power — Ayatollah Shariatmadari’s warning that the clerics were not equipped to run the country was echoed by the Head of Islamic Iran’s Investment Organization, who said: “We are hardly familiar with the required knowledge concerning the proper use of foreign resources both in State and private sectors, nor how to make the best use of domestic resources.” Not even after 25 years.

Historians and observers still debate Carter’s reasons for his actions during his tenure at the White House, where almost everything, including shutting down satellite surveillance over Cuba at an inappropriate time for the US, seemed to benefit Soviet aims and policies. Some claim he was inept and ignorant, others that he was allowing his liberal leanings to overshadow US national interests.

The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office had enough doubts in this respect, even to the extent of questioning whether Carter was a Russian mole, that they sent around 200 observers to monitor Carter’s 1980 presidential campaign against Ronald Reagan to see if the Soviets would try to “buy” the presidency for Carter.

In the narrow aspect of Carter setting aside international common sense to remove the US’ most powerful ally in the Middle East, this focused change was definitely contrary to US interests and events over the next 25 years proved this.

According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, Jimmy Carter’s next attack on the Shah was a formal country to country demand that the Shah sign a 50-year oil agreement with the US to supply oil at a fixed price of $8 a barrel. No longer couched as a personal request, the Shah was told he should heed the contract proposal if he wished to enjoy continued support from the US. In these perilous, political times which, could become much worse.

Faced with this growing pressure and threat, the monarch still could not believe that Iran, the staunchest US ally in the region, other than Israel, would be discarded or maimed so readily by Carter, expecting he would be prevailed upon by more experienced minds to avoid destabilizing the regional power structure and tried to explain his position. Firstly, Iran did not have 50-years of proven oil reserves that could be covered by a contract. Secondly, when the petrochemical complex in Bandar Abbas, in the South, was completed a few years later, each barrel of oil would produce $1,000 worth of petrochemicals so it would be treasonous for the Shah to give oil away for only $8.

Apologists, while acknowledging that Carter had caused the destabilization of the monarchy in Iran, claim he was only trying to salvage what he could from a rapidly deteriorating political situation to obtain maximum benefits for the US. But, after the Shah was forced from the throne, Carter’s focused effort to get re-elected via the Iran hostage situation points to less high minded motives.

Rumor has always had it that Carter had tried to negotiate to have the US hostages, held for 444 days by the Islamic Republic which he had helped establish in Iran, released just before the November 1980 election date, but that opposition (Republican) candidate Ronald Reagan had subverted, taken over and blocked the plan. An eye-witness account of the seizure by “students” of the US Embassy on November 4, 1979, in Tehran confirms a different scenario.

The mostly “rent-a-crowd” group of “students” organized to climb the US Embassy walls was spearheaded by a mullah on top of a Volkswagen van, who with a two-way radio in one hand and a bullhorn in the other, controlled the speed of the march on the Embassy according to instructions he received over the radio. He would slow it down, hurry it up and slow it down again in spurts and starts, triggering the curiosity of an educated pro-Khomeini vigilante, who later told the story to a friend in London.

When asked by the vigilante for the reason of this irregular movement, the stressed cleric replied that he had instructions to provide the US Embassy staff with enough time to destroy their most sensitive documents and to give the three most senior US diplomats adequate opportunity to then take refuge at the Islamic Republic Foreign Ministry rather than be taken with the other hostages. Someone at the Embassy was informing the Foreign Ministry as to progress over the telephone and the cleric was being told what to do over his radio.

The vigilante then asked why the Islamic Government would bother to be so accommodating to the Great Satan and was told that the whole operation was planned in advance by Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan’s revolutionary Government with Pres. Carter in return for Carter having helped depose the Shah and that this was being done to ensure Carter got re-elected. “He helped us, now we help him” was the matter-of-fact comment from the cleric.

In 1978 while the West was deciding to remove His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi from the throne, Shariatmadari was telling anyone who would listen not to allow “Ayatollah” Ruhollah Khomeini and his velayat faghih (Islamic jurist) version of Islam to be allowed to govern Iran. Ayatollah Shariatmadari noted: “We mullahs will behave like bickering whores in a brothel if we come to power ... and we have no experience on how to run a modern nation so we will destroy Iran and lose all that has been achieved at such great cost and effort.” 2.

Pres. Carter reportedly responded that Khomeini was a religious man — as he himself claimed to be — and that he knew how to talk to a man of God, who would live in the holy city of Qom like an Iranian “pope” and act only as an advisor to the secular, popular revolutionary Government of Mehdi Bazargan and his group of anti-Shah executives, some of whom were US-educated and expected to show preferences for US interests.

Carter’s mistaken assessment of Khomeini was encouraged by advisors with a desire to form an Islamic “green belt” to contain atheist Soviet expansion with the religious fervor of Islam. Eventually all 30 of the scenarios on Iran presented to Carter by his intelligence agencies proved wrong, and totally misjudged Khomeini as a person and as a political entity.

Today, Iranian-born, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the dominant Shia leader in Iraq faces Shariatmadari’s dilemma and shares the same “quietist” Islamic philosophy of sharia (religious law) guidance rather than direct governing by the clerics themselves. Sistani’s “Khomeini” equivalent, militant Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was gunned down in 1999 by then-Iraqi Pres. Saddam Hussein’s forces. Sadr’s son, 30-year-old Muqtada al-Sadr, lacks enough followers or religious seniority/clout to immediately oppose Sistani but has a hard core of violent followers biding their time.

According to all estimates, the young Sadr waits for the June 2004 scheduled handover of power in Iraq, opening the way for serious, militant intervention on his side by Iranian clerics. The Iranian clerical leaders, the successors to Khomeini, see, far more clearly than US leaders and observers, the parallels between 1979-80 and 2004: as a result, they have put far more effort into activities designed to ensure that “Reagan’s successor”, US Pres. George W. Bush, does not win power.

Footnotes:

1. © 2004 Alan Peters. The name “Alan Peters” is a nom de plume for a writer who was for many years involved in intelligence and security matters in Iran. He had significant access inside Iran at the highest levels during the rule of the Shah, until early 1979.

2. See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, March 2, 2004: Credibility and Legitimacy of Ruling Iranian Clerics Unraveling as Pressures Mount Against Them; The Source of Clerical Ruling Authority Now Being Questioned. This report, also by Alan Peters, details the background of “Ayatollah” Khomeini, the fact that his qualifications for his religious title were not in place, and the fact that he was not of Iranian origin.

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2004/03/jimmy-ca...ds-on-shah.html

Do some reading Steven. Facts are the facts. Carter could have stopped the Shah from being deposed and the Islamic Revolution would not have happened.

Again without reference to the political climate at the time. Gary you were around in 1979. Was the country as a whole really willing to engage in a unilateral war in the years after Vietnam. I have to say - I'm highly sceptical of that...

I was in the navy at the time. I was willing to go over there to free the hostages and so were the other people I was in the service with. But if Carter had supported the Shah we wouldn't have had to even think about that. We had good relations with Iran at the time. But Carter turned his back on them and allowed the radicals to take over. If you think the world is better off with the current administration over the way it was when the Shah was there please enlighten me.

Clearly I don't - but again I think the world would have been better off if we hadn't gotten involved in that country in the first place (i.e. in 1953) and set their democratic process back decades. That is where the radicalism and anti-Americanism started. By the time revolution came along - it was too late IMO.

The events of 1979 dovetail onto the back of a disastrous decision made in the 50's for short term, petty gain.

A president can only deal with what he has when he is president. Carter had the opportunity to stop the radicals from taking over and didn't. That decision caused this to escalate to it's current state. The '53 was to restore the rightful leader after a coup. Whether that was right or not is anyones guess. But it did result in 25+ years of a friendly, stable government that did have a rightful claim on power.

Gary - just because he was the king doesn't make him the 'rightful' leader. Leaders only operate through the sufferance of the people they represent.

The '53 coup was primarily about oil - The prime minister wanted to nationalise the country's oil interests. BP and the British and American Govts didn't want that - because it interfered with their economic interests. Spin it however you want - blaming Carter for something that was started 25 years before is rather myopic however you look at it.

BTW - what was friendly and stable to the US was not necessarily so to the people of that country. What you are essentially saying is the welfare of the people forced to live under an autocratic puppet government should come second to our economic interests. That's makes the comments about how much we 'care' about the Iraqi people rather jingoistic in my view.

Do you think the Iranian people are better off now or when the Shah was there?

Would they have been better off if we had left them alone in the first place?

[no name 1]

I am saying that the very things Bush will be remembered as the worst president by some here are the very things Lincoln, who is regarded as one of the best, also did.

Lincoln claimed there were WMD? I had no idea Lincoln invaded (2) countries either, cheated in elections, wiretapped (on the telegraph, perhaps?) or wanted to give amnesty to illegal immigrants. Hmph, learn something new in VJ-written history^TM every day!

That makes no sense at all. The southern states had a constitutional right to leave. Lincoln started a war to prevent that. The issue of slavery didn't even come up when he started the war, he only brought it up when he was running for re-election. He did spy on his own people and I have no idea what illegal aliens has to do with this, Carter or Bush. You don't debate very well Dev.

Your'e the one who compared Lincoln with GWB which is just ridiculous.

Edited October 11, 2007 by devilette

[GaryC 7]

Would they have been better off if we had left them alone in the first place?

Since we are talking about Carter and his stupid actions that isn't the point. Carter could have prevented the events of 79 and didn't.

With any world event you could go back in history and point to something that preceded it. You want to go back to when the British took Persia over and blame them? You want to go back to the area before Persia and blame that? It could go on forever. Lets keep it to the topic at hand.

[GaryC 7]

I am saying that the very things Bush will be remembered as the worst president by some here are the very things Lincoln, who is regarded as one of the best, also did.

Lincoln claimed there were WMD? I had no idea Lincoln invaded (2) countries either, cheated in elections, wiretapped (on the telegraph, perhaps?) or wanted to give amnesty to illegal immigrants. Hmph, learn something new in VJ-written history^TM every day!

That makes no sense at all. The southern states had a constitutional right to leave. Lincoln started a war to prevent that. The issue of slavery didn't even come up when he started the war, he only brought it up when he was running for re-election. He did spy on his own people and I have no idea what illegal aliens has to do with this, Carter or Bush. You don't debate very well Dev.

Your'e the one who compared Lincoln with GWB which is just ridiculous.

:lol:

If you don't understand a comparison that is your fault and not mine.

You really don't make much sense, which is why I should take the advice given by many and ignore anything you say. I will start following that advice now.

:lol:

Edited October 11, 2007 by GaryC

[no name 1]

I am saying that the very things Bush will be remembered as the worst president by some here are the very things Lincoln, who is regarded as one of the best, also did.

Lincoln claimed there were WMD? I had no idea Lincoln invaded (2) countries either, cheated in elections, wiretapped (on the telegraph, perhaps?) or wanted to give amnesty to illegal immigrants. Hmph, learn something new in VJ-written history^TM every day!

That makes no sense at all. The southern states had a constitutional right to leave. Lincoln started a war to prevent that. The issue of slavery didn't even come up when he started the war, he only brought it up when he was running for re-election. He did spy on his own people and I have no idea what illegal aliens has to do with this, Carter or Bush. You don't debate very well Dev.

Your'e the one who compared Lincoln with GWB which is just ridiculous.

If you don't understand a comparison that is your fault and not mine.

You really don't make much sense, which is why I should take the advice given by many and ignore anything you say. I will start following that advice now.

promises, promises.... I can only hope!

If you throw in 5 extra laughing faces, your 'point' is further weakened.