|CLICK HERE TO SEND CARE PACKAGES TO OUR TROOPS
A recent article has provided some provocative information regarding former President Jimmy Carter and the Shah. While
I had heard or read short articles regarding what is revealed here, the new piece by Alan Peters was an eye opener, and explained
so much that I had suspected.
I must admit, I used to be a Jimmy Carter supporter. I voted for him to be re-elected. I cringe when people always refer
to the Hostage Rescue Attempt as "Ill Fated", "Catastrophic", "Jimmy Carter's Diaster", when Carter is to be commended for
at least actually going through with the attempt, while someone like Bill Clinton allowed the US to be attacked numerous times,
only to respond when Monica appeared on television.
I disagree with his timing, I wish heauthorized the rescue earlier, but some accounts tell us that an individual escaped
Iran with information as to the exact whereabouts of the Hostages only a week or two before the official date of the Rescue.
Jimmy Carter did what he had to do, and so did the men.
The mission did not fail due to the actions of the men or Jimmy Carter, it failed because God did not want us to win
that day. 8 Good men died trying to rescue our people in a bold, daring move that our country had no previous reason to prepare
for, nor did they anticipate the incidents beforehand.
But, since I have grown up a little, and learned a few things regarding politics, I have learned that Jimmy Carter was
one of the worst Presidents the United States ever had. Maybe THE worst. Carter's failure to order us into actual combat with
Iran in 1979-1980 over the Hostage incident allowed the rise of radical Islam to begin. The snowball effect of that radical
Islam was shown on September 11, 2001.
While I have personal feelings regarding whether we should have gone to war against Iran for the taking of our embassy
back in 1979, I at least regarded the man as a decent man, a well meaning man.
Events in the last 10 years, however, and knowlege of events of the 1980's have shown Jimmy Carter to be a dishonorable
man. In fact, if the accounts are corect, Jimmy Carter is a traitor.
It is reported that Jimmy Carer contacted the Soviet KGB in asking for help in defeating Ronald Reagan.
Jimmy Carter is the man Bill Clinton sent to North Korea to supposedly cause North Korea to give up their desire
for nuclear weapons, only to have them re-start their program immediately after he left.
Jimmy Carter has also made disparaging comments about our present President, George Bush for Bush's efforts to stop terrorism.
Jimmy Carter must make such statements, because if the truth be told, the origin of terrorism worldwide was the fall
of Iran, and that fall was hastened due to Jimmy Carter's direct actions and lack of action.
May 28, 2009
Exclusive: Carter Administration’s Dilemma: Iran’s Theocracy
“I did not know it then – perhaps I did
not want to know – but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights
advocates in the State Department wanted … What was I to make of the Administration’s sudden decision to call
former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? Ball was among those Americans who wanted
to abandon me and ultimately my country.” – Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran
These were the words uttered by the distraught Shah of Iran
when, grieving, he reflected on his downfall just before his demise in exile. The tormented former “King of Kings”
ardently nurtured a deep-rooted conviction that the Carter Administration, in cooperation with the British Secret Intelligence,
ordered and ensured his fall.
During World War II, England and the Soviet Union jointly
invaded Iran, dividing the nation into two zones of occupation as the English and Russians had previously done in 1907. In
the North, the Soviets secured a viable supply route and in the south the British placed their oil interests under their direct
protection. Reza Shah, father of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and the Nation of Iran were humiliated by the subjugation of
Iran’s domestic and foreign affairs to their conduct by foreign powers. King Reza Shah, who had implemented numerous
progressive social and economic reforms, was ousted by British and Soviet forces and replaced by Mohammad Reza Shah, his 20-year-old,
inexperienced son. The British and Soviets, yielding little sympathy for the mass populace, occupied Iran.
the North, the Soviets promptly and forcefully revived Iran’s Communist Party with the objective of undermining the
royal regime and installing a centralized Communist government. With Soviet assistance, the Tudeh party constituted itself
as a pro-Soviet Communist party with its central management in Soviet Union. Meanwhile in the South, the British set
monarchists against religious fundamentalists, fundamentalists against nationalists, nationalists against monarchists, faction
against faction, and tribe against tribe with a “divide and conquer” agenda. Accordingly, Iran sank into social
disorder, political disarray and economic hardship. Under foreign domination by both the Communists and the British, the Iranian
people welcomed an increasing role of the United States. By 1946, the Iranian government crushed the pro-Soviet Tudeh party
that had been infiltrating the nation and threatening to divide Iran.
Increasingly, Iran became dependent on the United States
as a counter-influence to the Soviets and British. As early as December 1954 the Shah noted,
“the potentialities of friendly and close relations
between the people of Iran and the United States are immense. There is a deep and fundamental identity of national interests
which overshadows everything else. We both believe that the individual is the central figure in society, and that freedom
is the supreme blessing. . . Iran has a great deal in common, in convictions with the Western world regarding freedom and
He branded his regime’s politics as “positive
In January 1963, the Shah announced democratic reforms as
part of a six-point program called the White Revolution, a program of reforms to divide landholdings such as those owned by
religious foundations, grant women the right to vote and equality in marriage, and allow religious minorities a greater share
in governmental offices. Ruhollah Ayatollah Khomeini led a movement among radical fundamentalists to oppose equal rights for
women and minorities and the reform policies of the Shah. On January 22, 1963, Khomeini dictated a vigorously worded declaration
denouncing the Westernization of Iran and economic reforms and human rights as anti-Islamic.
However, the Shah did not per se attempt
to “Westernize Iran.” Iran was since its inception a Monarchy. Instead, the Shah sought a pro-Western policy to
counter the Communist Soviet Union. Iran’s socio-economic and foreign policy objectives were closely tied to the capitalist
world, in direct conflict with the communist ideology of Soviet Union and fundamentalism of surrounding nations.
In contrast, the Iranian fundamentalists
sought to eradicate pre-600 A.D. Iranian culture and history and supersede it with an exclusive focus on post-600 A.D. This
is in line with Khomeini’s decrees, such as one issued on March 21, 1963 in which he declared that Persian New Year
(“Norooz”) celebrations be cancelled and that references to pre-Islamic Iran be eliminated. In 1964 Khomeini
was arrested and exiled to Turkey. On September 5, 1965 he left Turkey for Najaf, Iraq, where he spent 13 years as an exile,
out of touch with the Iranian people and culture. On October 3, 1978 he left Iraq for Kuwait, but was refused entry at the
border. After a period of hesitation in which Algeria, Lebanon and Syria were considered as possible destinations, Ayatollah
Khomeini embarked for Paris. Once arrived in Paris, Khomeini took up residence in the suburb of Neauphle-le-Chateau in a house
that had been rented for him by Iranian exiles in France. Subsequently, journalists from across the world visited the
cleric, and the image and the words of Ayatollah Khomeini soon became a daily feature in Iran and across the world. The
BBC and other agencies broadcast nightly interviews with Khomeini beamed into Iran, which incited the people against the Shah.
In November 1978 then President Carter nominated George Ball
as a member of the Trilateral Commission. The commission acted under the direct control of the National
Security Council’s Zbigniew Brzezinski, an ardent opponent of the Shah of Iran. This commission cultivated a clandestine
Iran task force. While serving on this commission, George Ball championed cessation of United States support for the
Shah and clandestine support for Rubhullah Ayatollah Khomeini who, albeit in exile, led a proletariat Islamic opposition. Pursuant
to this agenda George Ball sought to garner the support of Robert Bowie, who was at that time the Deputy Director of the United
States Central Intelligence Agency.
Meanwhile, Iran and British Petroleum commenced negotiations
in Tehran, Iran concerning the renewal of a 25-year-old extraction agreement. These talks collapsed because
the British demanded exclusive rights in Iran’s future oil output and refused to guarantee purchase of the commodity.
The disintegration of these negotiations was domestically branded as a step towards nationalization of Iran’s oil for
the first time since 1953. Subsequently, the Shah turned to prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere. The
Shah had increased Iran’s control over its oil resources, implemented progressive economic and social initiatives, undertook
speedy process of capitalist reforms that focused on industrialization, increased Iran’s military capabilities and sought
to build a strong, prosperous and independent Iran; however, his goals and policies became the bases for his eventual downfall.
In mid-January 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini returned and the
monarchy collapsed on February 11, 1979. Subsequently, Iranians, many of whom believed in Ayatollah Khomeini’s promises
of freedom and democracy, voted by a national referendum to become an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979. They also approved
a new constitution, and Khomeini became Supreme Leader of Iran. But Khomeini did not fulfill his pre-revolution
promises to the people of Iran. Instead, he started to marginalize and crush the opposition groups and those who opposed the
clerical rules. He ordered establishment of many institutions to consolidate power and safeguard the cleric leadership. During
his early years in power he launched the Cultural Revolution in order to Islamize the whole country. Many people lost employment,
and books were revised or burnt according to the new Islamic values. A newly established Islamic judicial system sentenced
many Iranians to death and long-term imprisonment, as they were in opposition to those radical changes. The current
regime continues many of the policies of the regime of the now-deceased Ayatollah Khomeini, including revising and eradicating
Iranian history, culture and identity.
Perhaps the revolution and subsequent consequences would
have never occurred if the Carter Administration had not taken the helm. No doubt, neither President Richard M. Nixon nor
President Ronald Reagan would have paved the way for the arrival of the current theocracy. Criticizing
the Carter Administration’s handling of the crises in Iran, President Reagan said “I did criticize the President
because of his undermining of our stalwart ally, the Shah, I do not believe that he was that far out of line with his people.”
Former United States President Richard Nixon was the sole United States representative to attend the Shah’s funeral
Many Iranians believe that the Carter Administration and
the British intervened in 1979 and paved the path for the Shah’s demise. Sympathetic remarks about the revolution by
high-level American Democrat officials, such as Bill Clinton, who dubbed Iran a “democracy,” and several former
members of the Carter Administration, indicate the pretentious attitude of these officials. These officials should be reminded
that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, erroneously labeled by foreign journalists as the “Leader of Iran,” exerts
minimal control in Iran. Rather, pursuant to the Iranian Constitution virtually absolute power is in the
unelected “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Khamenei.
Iran is an absolute theocracy and lacks the basic foundations of even a limited form of democracy.
Perhaps, if the Carter Administration had not undermined the Shah of Iran, the regime itself would have implemented the proper
foundations for a modern democratic republic or constitutional monarchy. Modern Iran could have been an “island
of stability” in the Middle East. Without the Carter Administration’s misguided foreign policy initiatives, Iran,
similar to Japan, Denmark, Spain or England, could today be a close U.S. ally with a hereditary monarch and a democratically
elected President or Prime Minister.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Slater Bakhtavar is president and founder of Republican Youth of America, a frequent commentator and respected
analyst on foreign policy issues, an attorney with a post-doctoral
degree in International law, General Counsel of a national corporation and Attorney at Bakhtavar & Associates, PLLC.
Iran and the Shah: What Really Happened
Written by James Perloff
May 2009 00:56 http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/european/1111
Americans have been hearing for several years about potential war with Iran.
For instance, on September 17, 2006, Time magazine reported, “The U.S. would have to consider military action long before
Iran had an actual bomb.” On October 10, under the heading “A Chilling Preview of War,” Time warned: “As
Iran continues to enrich uranium, the U.S. military has issued a ‘Prepare to Deploy’ order.”
In September 2007, US News & World Report stated: “Amid deepening frustration with Iran, calls for shifting
Bush administration policy toward military strikes or other stronger actions are intensifying.” And in June 2008,
President-to-be Barack Obama declared: “The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate
However, suppose a progressive, pro-Western regime ruled Iran, representing no threat? War discussions would be unnecessary.
Yet many forget that, until 30 years ago, exactly such a regime led Iran, until it was toppled with the help of the same U.S.
foreign policy establishment recently beating war drums.
Meet the Shah
From 1941 until 1979, Iran was ruled by a constitutional monarchy under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran’s Shah (king).
Although Iran, also called Persia, was the world’s oldest empire, dating back 2,500 years, by 1900 it was floundering.
Bandits dominated the land; literacy was one percent; and women, under archaic Islamic dictates, had no rights.
The Shah changed all this. Primarily by using oil-generated wealth, he modernized the nation. He built rural roads,
postal services, libraries, and electrical installations. He constructed dams to irrigate Iran’s arid land, making the
country 90-percent self-sufficient in food production. He established colleges and universities, and at his own expense, set
up an educational foundation to train students for Iran’s future.
To encourage independent cultivation, the Shah donated 500,000 Crown acres to 25,000 farmers. In 1978, his last full
year in power, the average Iranian earned $2,540, compared to $160 25 years earlier. Iran had full employment, requiring foreign
workers. The national currency was stable for 15 years, inspiring French economist André Piettre to call Iran a country of
“growth without inflation.” Although Iran was the world’s second largest oil exporter, the Shah planned
construction of 18 nuclear power plants. He built an Olympic sports complex and applied to host the 1988 Olympics (an honor
eventually assigned Seoul), an achievement unthinkable for other Middle East nations.
Long regarded as a U.S. ally, the Shah was pro-Western and anti-communist, and he was aware that he posed the main
barrier to Soviet ambitions in the Middle East. As distinguished foreign-affairs analyst Hilaire du Berrier noted: “He
determined to make Iran … capable of blocking a Russian advance until the West should realize to what extent her own
interests were threatened and come to his aid.... It necessitated an army of 250,000 men.” The Shah’s air force
ranked among the world’s five best. A voice for stability within the Middle East itself, he favored peace with Israel
and supplied the beleaguered state with oil.
On the home front, the Shah protected minorities and permitted non-Muslims to practice their faiths. “All faith,”
he wrote, “imposes respect upon the beholder.” The Shah also brought Iran into the 20th century by granting women
equal rights. This was not to accommodate feminism, but to end archaic brutalization.
Yet, at the height of Iran’s prosperity, the Shah suddenly became the target of an ignoble campaign led by
U.S. and British foreign policy makers. Bolstered by slander in the Western press, these forces, along with Soviet-inspired
communist insurgents, and mullahs opposing the Shah’s progressiveness, combined to face him with overwhelming opposition.
In three years he went from vibrant monarch to exile (on January 16, 1979), and ultimately death, while Iran fell to Ayatollah
Houchang Nahavandi, one of the Shah’s ministers and closest advisers, reveals in his book The Last Shah of
Iran: “We now know that the idea of deposing the Shah was broached continually, from the mid-seventies on, in the National
Security Council in Washington, by Henry Kissinger, whom the Shah thought of as a firm friend.”
Kissinger virtually epitomized the American establishment: before acting as Secretary of State under Republicans
Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, he had been chief foreign-affairs adviser to Nelson Rockefeller, whom he called “the
single most influential person in my life.” Jimmy Carter defeated Ford in the 1976 presidential election, but the switch
to a Democratic administration did not change the new foreign policy tilt against the Shah. Every presidential administration
since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s has been dominated by members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most visible
manifestation of the establishment that dictates U.S. foreign policy along internationalist lines. The Carter administration
was no exception.
The alternation of parties does not change the diplomatic orientation of the United States that much. The process
of toppling the Shah had been envisaged and initiated in 1974, under a certain Republican administration.... Numerous, published
documents and studies bear witness to the fact, even if it was not until the beginning of the Carter administration that the
decision was made to take concerted action by evoking problems related to human rights.
The Shah’s destruction required assembling a team of diplomatic “hit men.” Du Berrier commented:
When the situation was deemed ripe, U.S. Ambassador William Sullivan — the man reputed to have toppled the
pro-American government of General Phoumi Nosavan in Laos — was sent to urge the Shah to get out. In December Mr. George
Ball, an instant “authority on Iran,” was sent as a follow-up with the same message.
Sullivan (CFR), a career diplomat with no Middle East experience, became our ambassador to Iran in 1977. The Shah
Whenever I met Sullivan and asked him to confirm these official statements [of American support], he promised he
would. But a day or two later he would return, gravely shake his head, and say that he had received “no instructions”
and therefore could not comment.... His answer was always the same: I have received no instructions.... This rote answer had
been given me since early September  and I would continue to hear it until the day I left the country.
The other key player du Berrier named, George Ball, was a quintessential establishment man: CFR member, Bilderberger,
and banker with Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb. The Shah commented: “What was I to make, for example, of the Administration’s
sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an advisor on Iran? I knew that
Ball was no friend.”
George Ball — that guru of American diplomacy and prominento of certain think-tanks and pressure groups —
once paid a long visit to Teheran, where, interestingly, the National Broadcasting Authority placed an office at his disposal.
Once installed there, he played host to all the best-known dissidents and gave them encouragement. After he returned to Washington,
he made public statements, hostile and insulting to the Sovereign.
Joining the smear was U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, whose role Nahavandi recalled in a 1981 interview:
But we must not forget the venom with which Teddy Kennedy ranted against the Shah, nor that on December 7, 1977,
the Kennedy family financed a so-called committee for the defense of liberties and rights of man in Teheran, which was nothing
but a headquarters for revolution.
Suddenly, the Shah noted, the U.S. media found him “a despot, an oppressor, a tyrant.” Kennedy denounced
him for running “one of the most violent regimes in the history of mankind.”
At the center of the “human rights” complaints was the Shah’s security force, SAVAK. Comparable
in its mission to America’s FBI, SAVAK was engaged in a deadly struggle against terrorism, most of which was fueled
by the bordering USSR, which linked to Iran’s internal communist party, the Tudeh. SAVAK, which had only 4,000 employees
in 1978, saved many lives by averting several bombing attempts. Its prisons were open for Red Cross inspections, and though
unsuccessful attempts were made on the Shah’s life, he always pardoned the would-be assassins. Nevertheless, a massive
campaign was deployed against him. Within Iran, Islamic fundamentalists, who resented the Shah’s progressive pro-Western
views, combined with Soviet-sponsored communists to overthrow the Shah. This tandem was “odd” because communism
is committed to destroying all religion, which Marx called “the opiate of the masses.” The Shah understood that
“Islamic Marxism” was an oxymoron, commenting: “Of course the two concepts are irreconcilable — unless
those who profess Islam do not understand their own religion or pervert it for their own political ends.”
For Western TV cameras, protestors in Teheran carried empty coffins, or coffins seized from genuine funerals, proclaiming
these were “victims of SAVAK.” This deception — later admitted by the revolutionaries — was necessary
because they had no actual martyrs to parade. Another tactic: demonstrators splashed themselves with mercurochrome, claiming
SAVAK had bloodied them.
The Western media cooperated. When Carter visited Iran at the end of 1977, the press reported that his departure
to Teheran International Airport had been through empty streets, because the city was “all locked up and emptied of
people, by order of the SAVAK.” What the media didn’t mention: Carter chose to depart at 6 a.m., when the streets
were naturally empty.
An equally vicious campaign occurred when the Shah and his wife, Empress Farah, came for a state visit to America
in November 1977. While touring Williamsburg, Virginia, about 500 Iranian students showed up, enthusiastically applauding.
However, about 50 protestors waved hammer-and-sickle red flags. These unlikely Iranians were masked, unable to speak Persian,
and some were blonde. The U.S. media focused exclusively on the protesters. Wrote the Shah: “Imagine my amazement the
next day when I saw the press had reversed the numbers and wrote that the fifty Shah supporters were lost in a hostile crowd.”
On November 16, the Shah and Empress were due to visit Carter. Several thousand Iranian patriots surrounded the White
House bearing a huge banner saying “Welcome Shah.” However, as Nahavandi reports:
The police kept them as far away as possible, but allowed a small number of opponents [again, masked] to approach
the railings … close to where the Sovereign’s helicopter was going to land for the official welcome. At the exact
moment, when courtesies were being exchanged on the White House lawn, these people produced sticks and bicycle chains and
set upon the others.... Thus, the whole world was allowed to see riotous scenes, on television, as an accompaniment to the
arrival of the Imperial Couple.
Terror at Home
Two major events propelled the revolution in Iran. On the afternoon of August 19, 1978, a deliberate fire gutted the
Rex Cinema in Abadan, killing 477 people, including many children with their mothers. Blocked exits prevented escape. The
police learned that the fire was caused by Ruhollah Khomeini supporters, who fled to Iraq, where the ayatollah was in exile.
But the international press blamed the fire on the Shah and his “dreaded SAVAK.” Furthermore, the mass murder
had been timed to coincide with the Shah’s planned celebration of his mother’s birthday; it could thus be reported
that the royal family danced while Iran wept. Communist-inspired rioting swept Iran.
Foreigners, including Palestinians, appeared in the crowds. Although the media depicted demonstrations as “spontaneous
uprisings,” professional revolutionaries organized them. Some Iranian students were caught up in it. Here the Shah’s
generosity backfired. As du Berrier pointed out:
In his desperate need of men capable of handling the sophisticated equipment he was bringing in, the Shah had sent
over a hundred thousand students abroad.... Those educated in France and America return indoctrinated by leftist professors
and eager to serve as links between comrades abroad and the Communist Party at home.
When the demonstrations turned violent, the government reluctantly invoked martial law. The second dark day was September
8. Thousands of demonstrators gathered in Teheran were ordered to disperse by an army unit. Gunmen — many on rooftops
— fired on the soldiers. The Shah’s army fired back. The rooftop snipers then sprayed the crowd. When the tragedy
was over, 121 demonstrators and 70 soldiers and police lay dead. Autopsies revealed that most in the crowd had been killed
by ammo non-regulation for the army. Nevertheless, the Western press claimed the Shah had massacred his own people.
The Shah, extremely grieved by this incident, and wanting no further bloodshed, gave orders tightly restricting the
military. This proved a mistake. Until now, the sight of his elite troops had quieted mobs. The new restraints emboldened
revolutionaries, who brazenly insulted soldiers, knowing they could fire only as a last resort.
Khomeini and the Media Cabal
Meanwhile, internationalist forces rallied around a new figure they had chosen to lead Iran: Ruhollah Khomeini. A minor
cleric of Indian extraction, Khomeini had denounced the Shah’s reforms during the 1960s — especially women’s
rights and land reform for Muslim clerics, many of whom were large landholders. Because his incendiary remarks had contributed
to violence and rioting then, he was exiled, living mostly in Iraq, where Iranians largely forgot him until 1978.
A shadowy past followed Khomeini. The 1960s rioting linked to him was financed, in part, by Eastern Bloc intelligence
services. He was in the circle of the cleric Kachani Sayed Abolghassem, who had ties to East German intelligence. Furthermore,
in 1960, Colonel Michael Goliniewski, second-in-command of Soviet counter-intelligence in Poland, defected to the West. His
debriefings exposed so many communist agents that he was honored by a resolution of the U.S. House of Representatives. One
report, declassified in 2000, revealed, “Ayatollah Khomeini was one of Moscow’s five sources of intelligence at
the heart of the Shiite hierarchy.”
Nevertheless, as French journalist Dominique Lorenz reported, the Americans, “having picked Khomeini to overthrow
the Shah, had to get him out of Iraq, clothe him with respectability and set him up in Paris, a succession of events, which
could not have occurred, if the leadership in France had been against it.”
In 1978, Khomeini, in Iraq since 1965, was permitted to reside at Neauphle-le-Château in France. Two French police
squads, along with Algerians and Palestinians, protected him. Nahavandi notes:
Around the small villa occupied by Khomeini, the agents of many of the world’s secret services were gathered
as thickly as the autumn leaves. The CIA, the MI6, the KGB and the SDECE were all there. The CIA had even rented the house
next door. According to most of the published witness-statements, the East Germans were in charge of most of the radio-transmissions;
and, on at least one occasion, eight thousand cassettes of the Ayatollah’s speeches were sent, directly to Teheran,
by diplomatic bag.
Foreign-affairs analyst du Berrier reported:
French services quickly verified that Libya, Iraq and Russia were providing money. Young Iranians, members of the
Tudeh (communist) Party, made up Khomeini’s secretariat in France. Working in cooperation with the French Communist
Party they provided couriers to pass his orders and tapes into Iran. Their sympathizers in Britain turned the BBC (British
Broadcasting Corporation) into a propaganda organ.
Journalists descended in droves on Neauphle-le-Château; Khomeini gave 132 interviews in 112 days, receiving easy
questions as their media organs became his sounding board. Nahavandi affirms that, within Iran “the Voice of America,
the Voice of Israel and, especially, the BBC virtually became the voice of the revolution, moving from criticism, to overt
incitement of revolt, and from biased reporting, to outright disinformation.”
Khomeini’s inflammatory speeches were broadcast; revolutionary songs aired on Iranian radio. One journalist,
however, stunned Khomeini by bucking the trend: intelligence expert Pierre de Villemarest, hero of the French Resistance in
World War II, anti-communist, and critic of the CFR. Interviewing Khomeini, de Villemarest asked:
How are you going to solve the economic crisis into which you have plunged the country through your agitation of
these past few weeks?... And aren’t you afraid that when the present regime is destroyed you will be outpaced by a party
as tightly-knit and well organized as the [communist] Tudeh?
Khomeini didn’t reply. The interpreter stood, saying, “The Ayatollah is tired.” De Villemarest
registered his concern with the French Ministry of the Interior, but reported, “They told me to occupy myself with something
Ending the Shah’s Rule
Iran’s situation deteriorated. As Western media spurred revolutionaries, riots and strikes paralyzed Iran. The
At about this time, a new CIA chief was stationed in Teheran. He had been transferred to Iran from a post in Tokyo
with no previous experience in Iranian affairs. Why did the U.S. install a man totally ignorant of my country in the midst
of such a crisis? I was astonished by the insignificance of the reports he gave me. At one point we spoke of liberalization
and I saw a smile spread across his face.
The Carter administration’s continuous demand upon the Shah: liberalize. On October 26, 1978, he freed 1,500
prisoners, but increased rioting followed. The Shah commented that “the more I liberalized, the worse the situation
in Iran became. Every initiative I took was seen as proof of my own weakness and that of my government.” Revolutionaries
equated liberalization with appeasement. “My greatest mistake,” the Shah recalled, “was in listening to
the Americans on matters concerning the internal affairs of my kingdom.”
Iran’s last hope: its well-trained military could still restore order. The Carter administration realized this.
Du Berrier noted: “Air Force General Robert Huyser, deputy commander of U.S. forces in Europe, was sent to pressure
Iran’s generals into giving in without a fight.” “Huyser directly threatened the military with a break in
diplomatic relations and a cutoff of arms if they moved to support their monarch.”
“It was therefore necessary,” the Shah wrote, “to neutralize the Iranian army. It was clearly for
this reason that General Huyser had come to Teheran.”
Huyser only paid the Shah a cursory visit, but had three meetings with Iran’s revolutionary leaders —
one lasting 10 hours. Huyser, of course, had no authority to interfere with a foreign nation’s sovereign affairs.
Prior to execution later by Khomeini, General Amir Hossein Rabbi, commander-in-chief of the Iranian Air Force, stated:
“General Huyser threw the Shah out of the country like a dead mouse.”
U.S. officials pressed the Shah to leave Iran. He reflected:
You cannot imagine the pressure the Americans were putting on me, and in the end it became an order.... How could
I stay when the Americans had sent a general, Huyser, to force me out? How could I stand alone against Henry Precht [the State
Department Director for Iran] and the entire State Department?
He finally accepted exile, clinging to the belief that America was still Iran’s ally, and that leaving would
avert greater bloodshed. These hopes proved illusions.
A factor in the Shah’s decision to depart was that — unknown to most people — he had cancer. U.S.
Ambassador William Sullivan (CFR) assured the Shah that, if he exited Iran, America would welcome him. Despite the pleadings
of myriad Iranians to stay, he reluctantly left. However, shortly after reaching Cairo, the U.S. ambassador to Egypt effectively
informed him that “the government of the United States regrets that it cannot welcome the Shah to American territory.”
The betrayed ruler now became “a man without a country.”
Iran’s Chaotic Descent
On February 1, 1979, with U.S. officials joining the welcoming committee, Ayatollah Khomeini arrived in Iran amid media
fanfare. Although counter-demonstrations, some numbering up to 300,000 people, erupted in Iran, the Western press barely mentioned
Khomeini had taken power, not by a constitutional process, but violent revolution that ultimately claimed hundreds
of thousands of lives. Numerous of his opponents were executed, usually without due process, and often after brutal torture.
Teheran’s police officers — loyal to the Shah — were slaughtered. At least 1,200 Imperial Army officers,
who had been instructed by General Huyser not to resist the revolution, were put to death. Before dying, many exclaimed, “God
save the King!” “On February 17,” reported du Berrier, “General Huyser faced the first photos of the
murdered leaders whose hands he had tied and read the descriptions of their mutilations.” At the year’s end, the
military emasculated and no longer a threat, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. More Iranians were killed during Khomeini’s
first month in power than in the Shah’s 37-year reign. Yet Carter, Ted Kennedy, and the Western media, who had brayed
so long about the Shah’s alleged “human rights” violations, said nothing. Mass executions and torture elicited
no protests. Seeing his country thus destroyed, the exiled Shah raged to an adviser: “Where are the defenders of human
rights and democracy now?” Later, the Shah wrote that there was
not a word of protest from American human rights advocates who had been so vocal in denouncing my “tyrannical”
regime! It was a sad commentary, I reflected, that the United States, and indeed most Western countries, had adopted a double
standard for international morality: anything Marxist, no matter how bloody and base, is acceptable.
The Shah’s personal tragedy wasn’t over. He stayed briefly in Egypt and Morocco, but did not wish to impose
risks on his hosts from Muslim extremists. Eventually he welcomed Mexican President Lopes Portillo’s hospitality.
However, in Mexico the Shah received an invitation from CFR Chairman David Rockefeller, who used influence to secure
permission for the Shah to come to America for medical treatment. Rockefeller sent a trendy Park Avenue MD to examine the
Shah, who agreed — against his better judgment — to abandon his personal physicians and fly to New York for treatment.
In October 1979, he was received at the Rockefeller-founded Sloan-Kettering Memorial Hospital for cancer treatment. Here the
Shah experienced a fateful delay in spleen surgery that some believe accelerated his death.
The Shah’s admission to the United States had another outcome. Partly in retribution, on November 4, 1979,
Iranians took 52 hostages from the U.S. embassy in Teheran. (According to Nahavandi, Soviet special services assisted them.)
This embarrassed Jimmy Carter, who had done so much to destroy the Shah and support Khomeini. The seizure made the Shah a
While in New York, Mexico inexplicably reversed its welcome, informing the Shah that his return would contravene
Mexico’s “vital interests.” One can only guess at the hidden hands possibly influencing this decision.
Carter faced a dilemma. Iran wanted the Shah’s return — for a degrading execution — in exchange
for the American hostages. However, a direct trade might humiliate the United States.
Therefore, Panama was selected as intermediary. Following treatment in New York, the Shah was informed he could no
longer remain in America, but Panama would welcome him. In Panama, however, the Shah and Empress were under virtual house
arrest; it was apparent that it would only be a matter of time before the Shah would be sent to Iran in exchange for the hostages.
A special cage was erected in Teheran. Khomeini’s followers envisioned parading him in the streets before final torture
and bloody execution.
However, Anwar Sadat, the Egyptian president and the Shah’s friend, discerned the scheme, and sent a jet to
Panama, which escorted the Shah and Empress safely to Egypt.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi died on July 27, 1980. His last words: “I wait upon Fate, never ceasing to pray for Iran,
and for my people. I think only of their suffering.” In Cairo, a grand funeral honored him. Three million Egyptians
followed the procession.
Anwar Sadat who, like the Shah, advocated a peaceful Middle East, and defied the American establishment by saving
the Shah from infamous death, did not survive much longer himself. The following year, Muslim extremists assassinated him
under circumstances remaining controversial.
Why did the American establishment, defying logic and morality, betray our ally the Shah? Only the perpetrators can answer
the question, but a few possibilities should be considered.
Iran ranks second in the world in oil and natural-gas reserves. Energy is critical to world domination, and major
oil companies, such as Exxon and British Petroleum, have long exerted behind-the-scenes influence on national policies.
The major oil companies had for years dictated Iranian oil commerce, but the Shah explained:
In 1973 we succeeded in putting a stop, irrevocably, to sixty years of foreign exploitation of Iranian oil-resources....
In 1974, Iran at last took over the management of the entire oil-industry, including the refineries at Abadan and so on....
I am quite convinced that it was from this moment that some very powerful, international interests identified, within Iran,
the collusive elements, which they could use to encompass my downfall.
Does this explain the sudden attitude change toward Iran expressed by Henry Kissinger, beginning in the mid-seventies?
Kissinger’s links to the Rockefellers, whose fortune derived primarily from oil, bolsters the Shah’s view on the
situation. However, other factors should be considered.
Although the Shah maintained a neutral stance toward Israel, during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, he allowed critical
supplies to reach Egypt, enabling it to achieve a balance of success, and earning Sadat’s undying gratitude, but wrath
from influential Zionists. Did this impact the West’s attitude change in the mid-seventies?
We should not overlook that the Shah opposed the powerful opium trade, now flourishing in the Middle East.
Finally, the Shah was a nationalist who brought his country to the brink of greatness and encouraged Middle East
peace. These qualities are anathema to those seeking global governance, for strong nations resist membership in world bodies,
and war has long been a destabilizing catalyst essential to what globalists call “the new world order.”
What is the solution to modern Iran? Before listening to war drums, let us remember:
It was the CFR clique — the same establishment entrenched in the Bush and Obama administrations — that
ousted the Shah, resulting in today’s Iran. That establishment also chanted for the six-year-old Iraq War over alleged
weapons of mass destruction never found. Therefore, instead of contemplating war with Iran, a nation four times Iraq’s
size, let us demand that America shed its CFR hierarchy and their interventionist policy that has wrought decades of misery,
and adopt a policy of avoiding foreign entanglements, and of minding our own business in international affairs.
Iran: Carter's Habitat For Inhumanity
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY (with AntiMullah
Leadership: In the name of human rights, Jimmy Carter gave rise to one of the worst
rights violators in history — the Ayatollah Khomeini. And now Khomeini's successor is preparing for nuclear war with
Israel and the West.
Profile In Incompetence: Fourth In A Series
More on this series
When President Carter took office in 1977, the Iran of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a staunch American ally, a bulwark
in our standoff with the Soviet Union, thwarting the dream held since the time of the czars of pushing south toward the warm
waters of the appropriately named Persian Gulf.
Being an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War, Iran was a target for Soviet
subversion and espionage. Like the U.S. in today's war on terror, Iran arrested and incarcerated many who threatened its sovereignty
and existence, mainly Soviet agents and their collaborators.
This did not sit well with the former peanut farmer, who,
on taking office, declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. The Shah was one of his first targets.
he's done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 "political" prisoners.
(Alan Note: Actual figure from Amnesty International was closer to 2,400 - mostly Tudeh Communists
and Soviet supporting Marxist-Islamists).
He chastised the Shah for his human rights record and engineered
the withdrawal of American support.
The irony here is that when
Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the Shah in February 1979, many of these
3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians.
According to "The
Real Jimmy Carter," a book by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: "Kho-meini's regime executed
more people in its first year in power than the Shah's Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years."
mullahs hated the Shah not because he was an oppressive dictator. They
hated him because he was a secular, pro-Western leader who, in addition to other initiatives, was expanding the rights and
roles of women in Iran society.
Alan Note: recently one of the pro-Mossadegh and
Tudeh (Communist) party Iranian leaders openly stated: "we were not attacking the Shah for freedoms for
the people but for freedom for us to import and install our foreign (Soviet) philosophies without fear and impediment).
Khomeini, women returned to their second-class role, and citizens were arrested for merely owning satellite dishes that could
pick up Western television.
Khomeini established the first modern Islamic regime, a role model for the Taliban and jihadists to follow.
And when the U.S. Embassy was stormed
that November and 52 Americans taken hostage for 444 days, America's lack of resolve was confirmed in the jihadist mind.
Nov. 4, 1979, some 400 Khomeini followers broke down the door of the embassy in Tehran, seizing the compound and the Americans
inside. The hostage takers posed for the cameras next to a poster with a caricature of Carter and
the slogan: "America cannot do a damn thing."
(Alan Note: unpublicized intelligence
at the time indicated that the hostage taking was arranged by Jimmuh the idiot Carter with Khomeini aides, like Yazdi, Bani-Sadr
and Ghotbzadeh, who were U.S. aligned and attached to Khomeini by Carter, to ensure his re-election, when he (Carter) conveniently
arrangd their release just before voting took place. Ronald Reagan found out about it, blocked the plot and arranged the release
AFTER the election).
Indeed, America under Carter wouldn't do much. At least not until the 154th day
of the crisis, when Carter, finally awakening to the seizure of U.S. diplomats and citizens on what was legally American soil,
broke off diplomatic relations and began planning economic sanctions.
When Carter got around to hinting about the use
of military force, Khomeini offered this mocking response: "He is beating on an empty drum. Neither does Carter have the guts
for military action nor would anyone listen to him."
Carter did actually try a military response of sorts. But like
every other major policy action of his, he bungled it. The incompetence of his administration would be seen in the wreckage
in the Iranian desert, where a plan to rescue the hostages resulted in the loss of eight aircraft, five airmen and three Marines.
(Alan note: information obtained from post-Shah Iranian military and inteligence sources and more evidence
from Americans, who were involved or on scene, all point to the so-called hostage rescue in fact being a failed arms delivery
to Afghanistan, ("Green Belt" contain Soviets project) where the Soviets shot and disabled one of the C130's bringing in weapons.
Carter to either declare war on the Soviets for this act of war or pretend it was something else. Yes, a failed hostage rescue,
which was still not operational after something was cobbled together by a cabal of U.S. intelligence and military groups,
which all wanted a part in the operation. But whose witches brew was still not fully cooked).
the core group of hostage takers and planners of the attack on our embassy was 23-year-old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who learned
firsthand the weakness and incompetence of Carter's foreign policy, one that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority
Leader Reid are now attempting to resurrect.
According to then-Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, Ahmadinejad
was among the hostage takers and the liaison between them and prominent Tehran preacher Ali Khameini, later to become supreme
leader of the Islamic Republic.
The Shah was forced into exile and on the run from Morocco to Egypt, the Bahamas, Mexico
and finally Panama. In July 1979, Vice President Walter Mondale and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told Carter
they had changed their minds about offering the Shah permanent asylum. Carter's spiteful
response was: "F*** the Shah. I'm not going to welcome him here when he has other places to go where he'll be safe."
October 1979, the Shah, gravely ill with cancer, was granted a limited visa for treatment at the Cornell Medical Center in
New York. He would die in Cairo in July 1980, an abandoned American friend. Our enemies took notes.
If the Shah had
remained in power, it isn't likely the Iraq-Iran War, with upward of a million casualties
on both sides, a war that saw Saddam Hussein first use mass-murder weapons, would have taken place.
(Alan Note: Iraq had tried once before, in the time of the Shah, to invade Iran over the dispute of the Shatt-Al
Arab river between the two countries. This lasted all of four days before Saddam Hussein's forces were driven out with their
tails between their legs. Nothing like the eight years under Carter's Khomeini).
Nor is it likely there
would have been a Desert Storm, fought after Hussein invaded Kuwait to strengthen his strategic position. That led to bases
in Saudi Arabia that fueled Islamofascist resentment, one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden for striking at America,
the Great Satan.
Carter's Khomeini introduced the idea of suicide
bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families who would offer up their children as human
bombs to kill as many Israelis as possible.
It was Carter's Khomeini
who would give the world Hezbollah to make war on Israel and destroy the multicultural democracy that was Lebanon.
perhaps Jimmy has forgotten that Hezbollah, which he helped make possible, killed 241
U.S. troops in their Beirut barracks in 1983.
The Soviet Union, seeing us so willingly abandon a staunch ally, invaded
Afghanistan in December 1979, just six months after Carter and Russian leader Leonid Brezhnev embraced after signing a new
(Alan Note: the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office
sent some 200 observers to monitor the Carter-Reagan election to note whether the Soviets would try to spend enough money
to "buy" the election for their "mole" Jimmuh Carter).
And it was
the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban. As Hayward observes, the fall of Iran, hastened
by Jimmy Carter, "set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in Sept. 11."
Christopher Hitchens recalls a discussion he had with Eugene McCarthy. A Democrat and former candidate for that party's presidential
nomination, where McCarthy voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Carter
The reason? Carter had "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office.
He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and
abroad (including the Soviets). He was quite simply the worst president
we ever had."
Quite simply, we concur. Though he is the best SOVIET president America ever elected!
Note: And Carter's liberal, to the point of Communist/Socialist leanings, can be seen in his staunch ties and support of Cuba's
Castro, Venezuela's Chavez, other South American leftist governments and his anti-America diatribe attacks on anything that
confronts he terrorism he stupidly created.
He has a share in all the blood, still on his hands, of all innocents killed by those he actively helped
put in place).
Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily
Volume XXII, No. 46
Monday, March 15, 2004
Founded in 1972 Produced at least 200 times a year
© 2004, Global Information System, ISSA
Rôle of US Former Pres. Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
By Alan Peters,1 GIS. 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. Carters resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office.
The linkage between the destruction
of the Shahs Government directly attributable to Carters 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. Carters 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
Carters name. At this meeting, as reported by Prime Minister Amir
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. Carters 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 Carters 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 Irans 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 Irans 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
Irans 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 Tehrans Amir Kabir University, Irans 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 Shariatmadaris warning that the clerics were not equipped to run the country was
echoed by the Head of Islamic Irans 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 Carters 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 Carters 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
According to Prime Minister
Hoveyda, Jimmy Carters 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, Carters 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
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 Bazargans 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 was 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.
Carters 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 Shariatmadaris
dilemma and shares the same quietist Islamic philosophy of sharia
(religious law) guidance rather than direct governing by the clerics themselves. Sistanis Khomeini equivalent, militant Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was gunned down in 1999
by then-Iraqi Pres. Saddam Husseins forces. Sadrs 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 Reagans successor,
US Pres. George W. Bush, does not win power.
© 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.
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.
Some articles have appeared on the Internet concerning Jimmy Carter that the public should be aware of. Here are the
opening paragraphs with the links to the original articles:
Jimmy Carter Under Fire for Recruiting
Soviets Against Reagan
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2002
WASHINGTON Former President Jimmy Carter owes an explanation to the American people for his behavior during the Cold War,
says the author of a new book.
"Reagans War reveals new information that Carter, as president and later as a private citizen, sought the help of an avowed foreign enemy
of this country to undermine Reagans candidacy in 1980 and, even more shocking, tried to cripple President Reagans foreign
policy in 1984.
The former Democrat president, who had been ousted by voters four years earlier, wanted the Soviets to help him put a Democrat
back in the White House.
Speaking Tuesday at a seminar at the Institute of World Politics, the books author, Peter Schweizer, said Jimmy Carter
owes a full explanation, and then depending on his answer, a decision could be made as to whether the former president "stepped
over the line from pure dissent to giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
NewsMax.com CEO Christopher Ruddy has written that Carter "may well have committed treason by enlisting the help of the Soviet Union in the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections.
"Its a fair question for him [Carter] to give his account of what happened, and a response, which he has not done, the
author told NewsMax.com. "Then, you know, depending on his reaction and response, there needs to be further discussion. The
other thing potentially that perhaps ought to be asked [is] that Moscow release any files it has on the meetings.
"All we have right now, Schweizer added, "is based on these accounts by [former Soviet Ambassador] Dobrynin. And it begs
the question: Is there any more material based on his [Carters] dealings with Moscow?
'Carter Won't Forget' Soviet Assistance
Schweizers book, which is going straight to the top of the best-seller list, reveals that during the 1980 campaign when
Reagan was gaining in the polls, Carter "dispatched [pro-Soviet industrialist] Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy for a secret
meeting with Ambassador Dobrynin to ask for Soviet help with Jewish emigration and other potential vote-getting issues for
a sitting president. The Soviets were promised that "Carter wont forget that service if he is re-elected.
Schweizer reports that when Reagan was running for re-election in 1984, Carter himself visited Ambassador Dobrynin warning
there "would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan was in power.
Carter wanted the Soviet Union to help the Democrats regain the presidency. History shows his prophecy about no hope for
a nuclear arms agreement to be wrong. It was a part of Reagan's success in ending the Cold War on Americas terms.
Asking Carter to explain to Americans this part of his stewardship is most "reasonable, in Schweizers view. When he asked
the former president about this, all the author got was "No comment.
Peter Schweizer, a Hoover Institution research fellow, has just written a new book, "Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism."
This book may well force historians to revise the history of the Cold War.
Schweizer, after scouring once-classified KGB, East German Stasi and Soviet Communist Party files, discovered incontrovertible
evidence that the Soviets not only played footsie with high-ranking Democrats, they also worked behind the scenes to influence
In "Reagan's War," Schweizer shows how the Democrats worked with Moscow to try to undermine Reagan before and after he
Jimmy Carter's Dirty Tricks
Soviet diplomatic accounts and material from the archives show that in January 1984, former President Jimmy Carter dropped
by Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin's residence for a private meeting.
Carter expressed his concern about and opposition to Reagan's defense buildup. He boldly told Dobrynin that Moscow would
be better off with someone else in the White House. If Reagan won, he warned, "There would not be a single agreement on arms
control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power."
Using the Russians to influence the presidential election was nothing new for Carter.
Schweizer reveals Russian documents that show that in the waning days of the 1980 campaign, the Carter White House dispatched
businessman Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy.
Hammer was a longtime Soviet-phile, and he explained to the Soviet ambassador that Carter was "clearly alarmed" at the
prospect of losing to Reagan.
Hammer pleaded with the Russians for help. He asked if the Kremlin could expand Jewish emigration to bolster Carter's standing
in the polls.
'Carter Won't Forget That Service'
"Carter won't forget that service if he is elected," Hammer told Dobrynin.
Carter was not the only Democrat to make clear to the Russians where their loyalty lay. As the election neared in 1984,
Dobrynin recalls meetings with Speaker of the House Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill.
O'Neill told Dobrynin that no effort should be spared to prevent "that demagogue Reagan" from being re-elected.
Jimmy Carter and the 40 Ayatollahs
Oct. 30, 2002
By Middle East standards the Shah of Iran was a progressive democrat. In the eyes of President Jimmy Carter and certain
foreign policy factions in the State Department and various think tanks, the Shah represented the heart of darkness.
In an article in May 2002, NewsMax's Chris Ruddy pointed out:
"Remember Carter's human rights program, where he demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah
Khomeini? "No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders about
150 of them to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.
"The Shah's military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts.
"By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever."
[See: Jimmy Carter's Trail of Disaster.]
As has been reported in NewsMax previously, Carter still receives a great deal of money from the Arab world for his Carter Center in Atlanta.
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
worlds 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 werent 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 didnt
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 Shiite clergy that had long opposed the Shahs modernizing policies, began a well coordinated and financed series of street
demonstrations supported by a media campaign reminiscent of the 1947-1948 campaign against Chinas 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 Shiite 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 Shiite 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 Bath
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 Khomeinis initiative in creating the Islamic Revolutionary Council.
The ayatollahs program coincides with that of the Tudeh Party. Khomeinis 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 its 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.
Is the author of
Why Im a Right-Wing Extremist