Carter's Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran

Pahlavi and after (1925 AD - present)

Moderator: Club Operations

Carter's Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran

Postby Liberator » Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:02 am

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exclusive:

Role of US Former Pres. Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran

Exclusive. Analysis. 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 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. 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 proved this.

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 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 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.

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.



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.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Liberator
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

Postby Liberator » Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:03 am

Carter Sold out Iran 1977-1978


As if a light were switched off, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, portrayed for 20 years as a progressive modern ruler by Islamic standards, was suddenly, in 1977-1978, turned into this foaming at the mouth monster by the international left media. Soon after becoming President in 1977, Jimmy Carter launched a deliberate campaign to undermine the Shah. The Soviets and their left-wing apparatchiks would coordinate with Carter by smearing the Shah in a campaign of lies meant to topple his throne. The result would be the establishment of a Marxist/Islamic state in Iran headed by the tyrannical Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The Iranian revolution, besides enthroning one of the 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 disadvantage 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.


Chuck Morse

Is the author of :
Why Im a Right-Wing Extremist
http://www.chuckmorse.com
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Liberator
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

Postby Liberator » Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:04 am

Re: Carter Sold Out Iran 1977-1978
Sunday, February 16 @ 22:48:52 CST

Some other History to go along with your Carter allegations. It was about OIL then as well.

by Dr. Norman Livergood


(excerpted from The New British Oil Imperialism)

" At the end of World War II, the British-Persian Oil Company controlled the vast oil fields in Iran. The Persians had declared their alignment with Adolf Hitler's Nazi "Aryan Race" movement and were fully expecting German General Rommel to come rushing across Africa and "free" them from the British. They had even proclaimed their alignment with Hitler by changing the name of their country from Persia to "Aryan," (or "Iran" in the Farsi language), but the Germans failed to save them.
To take control of Persian Gulf oil from the British, in 1954 Kermit Roosevelt, nephew of Franklin, led an American CIA coup to take control of Iran and place in power the American-backed Shah of Iran. The Shah expelled the British, and Rockefeller's Standard Oil now had control of the British-Persian petroleum fields.

In the early 1950s, Occidental Petroleum's Armand Hammer, a satrap of the Rockefellers, negotiated a deal with Russian dictator Joseph Stalin to buy his oil--thus effectively stealing it from the Russian people. Russian oil was then sold on the world market at a much higher price than Stalin could get by marketing it himself, because few countries were willing to buy oil from Stalin.

Occidental Petroleum and Russia built two large pipelines, from the Russian oil fields down along both sides of the Caspian Sea, terminating in the old British-Persian--now Standard Oil--oil fields in Iran. For the next 45 years, Russia secretly sent its oil out through those pipelines and Standard Oil sold the oil on the world market at the "West Texas Crude" price by calling it Iranian oil. For almost fifty yeas most Americans have been using Russian oil in their cars.

Standard Oil refineries, which produce gasoline from crude oil, are located at large sea ports like San Francisco, Houston or Los Angeles, not near any of the large American oil fields. Most oil from the Persian Gulf is shipped in oil tankers to those large American refinery-ports.

In 1979, the Standard Oil-backed Shah of Iran was thrown out by a British-backed coup and the long-time British asset, Ayatollah Khomeni, put into power. The flow of Russian oil through Iran suddenly stopped. Other oil pipelines were constructed through Iraq and Turkey. The Russian oil was now called OPEC Arabian-Middle Eastern oil and marketed at the even higher "spot market" price. So in 1979, in America and Europe, we suddenly experienced gasoline shortages and huge increases in the price of gasoline. Also in 1979 Standard Oil-Russian oil interests tried to secure an alternate, short, safe oil pipeline route from Russia through neighboring Afghanistan, but this only resulted in a prolonged war and the project was abandoned.

When the new British-controlled regime in Iran came into power, the Rockefeller-influenced U.S. government immediately threatened to seize $7.9 billion of Iranian assets located in the U.S. On November 4, 1979 Iranian "terrorists" captured and held hostage 65 Americans. Essentially, Standard Oil was being blackmailed by the hostage strategy. After lengthy negotiations, the Rockefeller-created President Jimmy Carter approved the electronic transfer of 7.9 billion dollars from U.S. accounts to the Iranian regime on January 20, 1981.

On Wednesday January 27, 1988, as announced in the Wall Street Journal, Standard Oil merged with British Petroleum. This actually represents Standard Oil's buyout of British Petroleum, the name of the newly merged company being BP-America. The Wall Street Journal did not see fit to mention worries about the world-wide predatory marketing practices of a deceptively titled Standard Oil regime.

During the last 13 years, BP-America has merged with, or controls, all of the old Standard Oil "mini-companies" which existed before the original breakup by the U.S. government in 1911. The new Standard Oil regime is now known as BP-AMOCO, and few people in the world realize what has happened. It's now possible to understand why British Prime Minister Blair has become the spokesman for the new wars against terrorism (actually the war for Caspian Sea oil)."
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Liberator
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

Postby Liberator » Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:04 am

Withdrawal of support for the Shah of Iran

Jimmy Carter's Nobel Legacy
Edward Daley, 03/10/03



In 1977, Jimmy Carter withdrew U.S. support for the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. The Shah's regime engaged in the torture of it's (Communist) enemies, a practice which Carter vehemently opposed. However, that regime was the strongest ally of both the U.S. and Israel in the region, and although brutal, was certainly no more so than any number of far more fanatical, anti-American and anti-Semitic governments in the Middle East.

Carter also ordered the CIA to cease funding to Iran's Mullahs, who had basically been accepting money in exchange for inhibiting anti-western sentiment in the region.

Shortly afterward, the Shah was overthrown. The new regime, under the direction of the Islamic extremist Ayatollah Khomeini, then set to work reversing every pro-western policy of the Shah's government, such as women's rights and the citizenry's access to western media.

The torture and/or execution of political prisoners continued, only the targets of the new government were no longer mostly Soviet agents, as was the case under the Shah's rule, but rather, any pro-western Iranian who could be found, along with thousands of other individuals who were not considered a part of the Ayatollah's plan for the future of Iran.

In 1979, the fanatical followers of the once exiled (to France no less) Ayatollah swarmed the U.S. embassy in that country, taking fifty-four Americans hostage for what would prove to be 444 days. Carter was ineffective in securing the release of these hostages, either by diplomatic or military means.

In 1980, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who viewed the return of Khomeini and the Islamic revolution in Iran as threatening to his own more secular agenda, and unrestrained by any American participation in Iranian affairs, began the eight year Iran-Iraq war.

That same year, the Soviets, emboldened by the fall of their primary opponent in the region, invaded Afghanistan. Carter's response was to withdraw the U.S. from the Olympic games of that year.

Secret political dealings with the Soviet Union

According to Peter Schweizer, the author of the best-selling book 'Reagan's War', Jimmy Carter sought the assistance of the Soviet Union to undermine the 1976 reelection bid of Gerald Ford, as well as Ronald Reagan's 1980 Presidential campaign. These allegations are based upon accounts provided by former Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin and former First Deputy Foreign Minister Georgii Kornienko.

It is reported that former Soviet Ambassador Averell Harriman met with Kornienko in September of 1976 on behalf of (then candidate) Carter and "gave assurances that if elected president, he (Carter) would take steps toward the rapid conclusion and signing of the SALT II Treaty, and would be ready to continue negotiations on an agreement on substantial reductions in strategic weapons".

Schweizer describes how Carter, during his 1980 reelection campaign, "dispatched [pro-Soviet industrialist] Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy for a secret meeting with Ambassador Dobrynin to ask for Soviet help" with issues which would assist him in being reelected, such as Jewish emigration, and promised the Soviets that their help would not be forgotten.

In 1984, (former President) Carter is said to have visited Dobrynin personally, seeking assistance in improving the election prospects of his former Vice President Walter Mondale, and warning the Ambassador that if Reagan was reelected, no arms agreements would ever be reached between the U.S. and the USSR.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Liberator
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

Postby Liberator » Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:05 am

Jimmy Carter and the 40 Ayatollahs

Diane Alden
Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2002


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/29/170201.shtml


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.

These days, Jimmy Carter has selective blindness toward the Middle East and Israel. He emphasizes the evils of Israel when it takes self-protective actions against Palestinians, while turning a blind eye to what the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat are doing.

The fact that Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize because he signed one of Carter's paper peace agreements with Israel is one reason Carter hangs on to his illusions about Arafat and the Palestinians. He and the foreign policy elite of his era have too much invested in that failure to admit it IS a failure.

Even while Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad target any and every Israeli who lives in the Middle East, Carter remains the typical one-world-fits-all leftist – in extreme denial. No one wants to admit that their good intentions and efforts created hell on earth for millions of people. No one wants to admit that the fruit of their utopian dreams for a peaceful world will NOT be accomplished through accommodations with terrorists, utopian leftists, madmen with nukes, or those who are fanatically anti-U.S.

The Only Time Ayatollah Khomeini Ever Smiled

Iranian writer Farhad Mafie offers a telling picture of the international terrorist connection between Iran and the rest of the bomb-throwing Islamist world and Yasser Arafat.

In a 2002 essay Mafie reports: "The first and only time that Ayatollah Khomeini smiled was when he sat next to Mr. Arafat in Tehran in 1979. Mr. Arafat was the first foreign dignitary – actually the first official terrorist – who came to Iran after Iranian generals were summarily executed by order of criminals such as Dr. Ibrahim Yazdi [now a 'reformist' in Iran's current system]. After Naji, Rahimi, Khosrowdad, and Nasiri were brutally executed [Feb. 15, 1979], Arafat and Khomeini hugged each other and smiled."

The mullahs welcomed Yasser Arafat warmly indeed. Not surprising considering the fact that the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) helped the Shah's opponents by training terrorists, supplying weapons to the mullahs and their leftist supporters, and participating in killing Iranian demonstrators in Tehran. The PLO provided aid and comfort to the mullahs and forces to bring down the Shah, thus destabilizing the entire Middle East.

It is not a stretch to insist that if Jimmy Carter and the policy wonks in his administration had formulated foreign policy according to American self-interest, the world would be a better place. When the ayatollahs came to power in Iran, that circumstance gave immense encouragement to the Islamist fundamentalist madmen in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and everywhere else.

These same Islamist militarists eventually murdered Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, another Nobel Peace Prize recipient, because he signed Carter's first Camp David Peace Treaty with Israel. Carter does not have the ability to connect the dots, and that makes him a dangerous man rather than a peacemaker.

Carter's vision remains myopic, to say the least. These days he blames Israel for the failure of peace in the Middle East. He continues to refuse to take responsibility for his part in promoting the rise of militant Islam.

Carter fails to recognize that the greater evil was the Shah's replacement. For that reason, Islamist militancy received a colossal push up the geopolitical ladder.

Carter and the Democrats, along with the policy wonks in the D.C.-New York corridor, harbor the misguided notion that there is no evil in the world. They never get it through their dreamy heads that the root cause of many wars and calamities is, in fact, evil.

They prefer to believe that every international problem has a diplomatic answer. They believe that anyone can be talked into being peaceful if they just push the right buttons long enough. History, unfortunately, indicates that is not how things work. As a matter of fact, dialogue with evil legitimizes evil.

Evil is murderous, resentful, envious, hostile, bitter and unforgiving, creating conflict for no legitimate reason. Mostly it is fatal to one and all.

Dialogue only works when countries or people have decided that their agenda, or at the very least a peaceful compromise, cannot be accomplished through terror or intimidation. The other alternative is that they must be totally and completely defeated in battle, as Germany and Japan were defeated.

Carter never understood that some mindsets or systems can't be accommodated, regardless of good intentions or how much talking and fine tuning and compromise take place. Yasser Arafat and those like him, as well as his evil brand of politics, are a case in point. So are North Korea, Cuba, Saddam Hussein and the government of the Iranian Islamist militant clerics.

Evil is evil, and George Bush was correct when he called Iran and North Korea and Iraq the "axis of evil."

The Iranian-Arafat Connection

The victorious mullahs and their leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, greeted Mr. Arafat as a hero – as well he should have been greeted, given the valuable assistance that the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) had provided. The PLO helped the Shah's opponents by training terrorists, supplying weapons to the mullahs and their leftist supporters, and participating in killing Iranian demonstrators in the streets of Tehran. By doing so, the PLO further inflamed anti-Shah sentiments and helped further destroy the Shah's political image.

Ayatollah Khomeini, as a sign of appreciation, closed the Israeli Embassy in Tehran and turned it into the PLO's official headquarters and embassy, complete with Palestinian flag.

Later, Fahdie relates, Arafat "allowed the PLO to have a branch office in Iran's most important and richest province, Khozestan. … Since 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran [IRI] has been working directly with all the terrorist elements within the PLO. It has even created several new terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah ['Party of God'], which was designed and developed by Mr. Mohtashami [also an IRI reformist] to further enhance the IRI's terrorist bases in the region. These organizations are supported both militarily with Iranian Revolutionary Guards and financially with millions of dollars [of the Iranian people's money, of course]."

Fun and Games With the Ayatollahs

For some reason Islamist religious clerics have a fascination with dogs, killing them or their owners. Not so long ago in Afghanistan, videos of experiments on a puppy being gassed were conducted by al-Qaeda and the Taliban. It was certainly big news on CNN. Before the U.S. incursion into Afghanistan, videos of another pitiful pooch appeared. The dog had a sign painted on its head that read "Bush." The Taliban and Islamists torched the dog in their usual sick kind of statement against the civilized world.

In his most recent column, historian, scholar and writer Michael Ledeen affirms that on Oct. 13 of this year, religious leader Ali Khamenei's followers "demanded that all dogs and their owners be arrested. This follows a June decree banning the sale of dogs, along with public dog walking, which was branded an immoral act and an offense to the sensitivities of all good Muslims. ..."

Ledeen asserts: "As it turns out, Iran's officials made the mistake of reporting the results of an official survey which showed that three quarters of the Iranian people 'want good relations with the United ("Great Satan") States, and that Khamenei is the most unpopular public figure in the country.' So the head of the polling institution was accused of disseminating false information and thrown into the nearest torture chamber, and the editor of the newspaper that published the story was hauled before some beturbaned and bearded fanatics practicing 'Islamic justice,' and similarly locked away. ..."



Unfortunately, for the Iranians there is no great leader on the horizon. Most opposition leadership has been murdered or tortured into silence or live in exile. Public hangings and stoning are rampant in Iran. Street fighting has led to the deaths of hundreds of people.

Reports that I saw indicated that after the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the United States, Iranian students and citizens held candlelight vigils in various Iranian towns to show solidarity with the American people. You would be hard pressed to find any of this related extensively in the Western or U.S. press or State Department press releases.

In his essay Ledeen also discusses the monster demonstrations in Tehran last year – demonstrations that the dim bulb mainstream Western press deemed to be "soccer riots."

Recent intelligence reports indicate that al-Qaeda operatives in northern Italy have been in regular contact with Iran. Ledeen adds that German officials say that al-Qaeda operatives are in northern Italy "[and] that leading terrorists may be found in Iran."

Furthermore, he continues: "Just in case you were wondering about Bali, my information is that the bombs were delivered by Hezbollah operatives, having been trained by experts from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The people who gave me this information, the day after the event, also predicted, spot on, that the next assault would be in the Philippines."

(The entire article may be found at http://www.nationalreview.com.)

What Does President Bush Know About Iran?

President Bush understands what is going on in Iran. His State of the Union speech gave heart to many people in Iran's struggling opposition parties. That opposition hungered to hear a strong statement about the "axis of evil." Iran's present government, led by clerical bully-boys, is part of that axis.

Contrary to what the snotty policy analysts at the New York Times OR what Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have to say, the Iranian people are on the verge of throwing the bastards out. They need hope. Where are Carter and Clinton in giving them any? At least Bush gave the Iranian opposition hope by calling evil by its right name. Nevertheless, it is also unfortunate that the Bush house is divided. Secretary of State Colin Powell either has no clue, or he is so enamored of the usual Foggy Bottom follies he can't see the forest for the trees. According to Ledeen, Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage oppose any assistance to the Iranian opposition.

It is possible George Bush realizes that the "reformist movement" and the "third force movement" in Iran are aliases created by the IRI to keep itself in power. One can hope.

Then there is Europe. It is futile to believe it will offer encouragement in an effort to bring freedom and democracy to Iran or anywhere in the Middle East. European oil companies Royal Dutch/Shell, TotalFinaElf and ENI have signed deals with the ayatollahs that are worth billions of dollars. Thus they have ignored the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. That act seeks to bar foreign firms from making major financial commitments in Iran.

What Does the Iranian Opposition Say?

Iranian supporters of the overthrow of the ayatollahs suggest that the "U.S. should funnel all IRI funds now available in the U.S. to the Iranian opposition forces."

Furthermore, "the U.S. should stop all the IRI propaganda activities in the U.S. by banning any organizations and individuals receiving IRI funds, whether directly from Iran or from IRI sources of income in the U.S."

The opposition also suggests that the U.S. support the Iranian opposition forces by "providing them with sufficient radio and TV capabilities to broadcast to the Iranian people inside Iran." (Perhaps from stations maintained in Afghanistan.)

The U.S. should publicly and actively "support a national referendum in Iran under international observation so that the Iranian people [inside and outside Iran] can freely vote for their desired form of government."

But if the Bush administration is as divided as Ledeen thinks it is, then Iran may go on killing its own people, suppressing their desire for greater freedom, while offering aid and comfort to terrorists worldwide. The end game is the creation of Islamist states worldwide.

An Empty Glory

Just recently, former President Clinton gave speeches in Australia and Britain that in effect supported turning over U.S. sovereignty to some hodgepodge unaccountable international cabal. Jimmy Carter is of the same mind.

Sadly, Carter and Bill Clinton promoted foreign policy with a ferocious mindlessness that seeks the praise and empty glory of the world. They excused cruelty and allowed truly murderous regimes to have a pass. The despotic and murderous rulers in Iran, as well as the rise of Islamic terrorists, are among the fruits of the good intentions of people like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Another case in point of good intentions run amok: Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright vetoed a U.N. effort to intervene in the bloodbath in Africa between the Hutus and Tutsis. Millions were butchered in that horror. Meanwhile, Team Clinton jumped in all the way into a far less devastating war between Christian Serbs and Muslims in the former Yugoslavia.

Since LBJ, Democratic administrations have had trouble with priorities. With the best of intentions, they go about wreaking havoc on the world while ignoring the worst of it.

Carter counsels against any strong U.S. or unilateral policy in the Middle East. Since he came on the political scene, good son Jimmy has given the nod to any geopolitical group who either works against U.S. interests or is left of Lenin, like the Sandinistas. That kind of philosophy might make the Nobel Peace Prize Committee happy, but it does nothing for peace in the world or for America's best interests. One member of the Nobel Committee openly admitted that Carter received the prize because he strongly opposed Bush's efforts in the Middle and Far East.

George Bush would be foolish to give Carter, Clinton, the foreign policy and academic left, and the pundits on CNN and MSNBC the time of day. He would be foolish to have his head turned by the European elite or the sorry bunch at the Nobel Committee. They have been wrong in the past and nothing has changed. That is dangerous for the U.S. and for world peace. Carter's record alone indicates how wrong and how dangerous they have been.

For instance, in the Far East in 1994, Carter helped negotiate a useless treaty-accord with North Korea. Reports point out that while visiting the dying despot Kim Il Sung, Carter proclaimed him to be "vigorous, alert, intelligent and surprisingly well informed about the technical issues." Carter actually believed that Sung also was "very friendly toward Christianity."

Later, Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, also went to North Korea. While there, she acted and spoke as if she had been selected prom queen by the brutal regime. This regime has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of North Koreans from starvation.

This is another case where a Democratic administration never sees evil when it comes from some approved homicidal political system with its accompanying madman. Clinton and Carter both believe, incorrectly, that they can manipulate people and states through treaties, accords or expensive parties for visiting dignitaries.

It is a safe bet that had Jimmy Carter won a second term, the downfall of communism in the Soviet Union would have been delayed by decades.

Jimmy and His Good Intentions

Jimmy Carter has done good things in his life. None of them, however, have to do with foreign policy. His efforts in that regard have merely led to more chaos in just about every place he has offered his help.

Carter is the quintessential kindergarten teacher who wants the kiddies to make nice. He is not a discerning realistic maker of peace, but rather a guy who wanted to be a "peacemaker" no matter how empty that peace was.

Carter never figured out that sometimes being a maker of peace means smacking the schoolyard bully till he quits beating up on everyone. He still thinks you can talk people to death with accords and compromises. For some reason he never realized that evil people exist and their hearts are far from peace. They lie, cheat, steal and murder to accomplish their ends.

I suspect Jimmy thinks being a Christian is always about "turning the other cheek." Well, there are times one must do that, often in fact. However, it is one thing to turn the other cheek when it is your own, it is a much different thing when the lives of others in your charge are at stake.

Carter's recent Nobel Prize should have been a prize for the person with the best intentions. Unfortunately, Iran, the United States and the world have paid the price in blood and heartache in order for Jimmy Carter to obtain that prize.

Read related articles:
Jimmy Carter's Trail of Disaster
Carter’s Arab Funding May Color Israel Stance

To comment, write alden@newsmax.com or visit my website at http://www.aldenchronicles.com.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Liberator
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

Postby Winston06 » Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:27 pm

Does any one know who this Alan Peters is?
Winston06
Private
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Liberator » Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:05 pm

What Really Happened to the Shah of Iran By Ernst Schroeder

My name is Ernst Schroeder, and since I have some Iranian friends from school and review your online magazine occasionally, I thought I'd pass on the following three page quote from a book I read a few months ago entitled, "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order", which was written by William Engdahl, a German historianm . This is a book about how oil and politics have been intertwined for the past 100 years.

I submit the below passage for direct publishing on your website, as I think the quote will prove to be significant for anyone of Persian descent.


Image

order from amazon

"In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.

Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.


The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt' Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.

During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere. In its lead editorial that September, Iran's Kayhan International stated:

In retrospect, the 25-year partnership with the [British Petroleum] consortium and the 50-year relationship with British Petroleum which preceded it, have not been satisfactory ones for Iran … Looking to the future, NIOC [National Iranian Oil Company] should plan to handle all operations by itself.

London was blackmailing and putting enormous economic pressure on the Shah's regime by refusing to buy Iranian oil production, taking only 3 million or so barrels daily of an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day. This imposed dramatic revenue pressures on Iran, which provided the context in which religious discontent against the Shah could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and U.S. intelligence. In addition, strikes among oil workers at this critical juncture crippled Iranian oil production.

As Iran's domestic economic troubles grew, American 'security' advisers to the Shah's Savak secret police implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time, the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of 'human rights' under the Shah.

British Petroleum reportedly began to organize capital flight out of Iran, through its strong influence in Iran's financial and banking community. The British Broadcasting Corporation's Persian-language broadcasts, with dozens of Persian-speaking BBC 'correspondents' sent into even the smallest village, drummed up hysteria against the Shah. The BBC gave Ayatollah Khomeini a full propaganda platform inside Iran during this time. The British government-owned broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah's government an equal chance to reply. Repeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result. Anglo-American intelligence was committed to toppling the Shah. The Shah fled in January, and by February 1979, Khomeini had been flown into Tehran to proclaim the establishment of his repressive theocratic state to replace the Shah's government.


Reflecting on his downfall months later, shortly before his death, the Shah noted from exile,

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.[1][1]

With the fall of the Shah and the coming to power of the fanatical Khomeini adherents in Iran, chaos was unleashed. By May 1979, the new Khomeini regime had singled out the country's nuclear power development plans and announced cancellation of the entire program for French and German nuclear reactor construction.

Iran's oil exports to the world were suddenly cut off, some 3 million barrels per day. Curiously, Saudi Arabian production in the critical days of January 1979 was also cut by some 2 million barrels per day. To add to the pressures on world oil supply, British Petroleum declared force majeure and cancelled major contracts for oil supply. Prices on the Rotterdam spot market, heavily influenced by BP and Royal Cutch Shell as the largest oil traders, soared in early 1979 as a result. The second oil shock of the 1970s was fully under way.

Indications are that the actual planners of the Iranian Khomeini coup in London and within the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment decided to keep President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives. The ensuing energy crisis in the United States was a major factor in bringing about Carter's defeat a year later.

There was never a real shortage in the world supply of petroleum. Existing Saudi and Kuwaiti production capacities could at any time have met the 5-6 million barrels per day temporary shortfall, as a U.S. congressional investigation by the General Accounting Office months later confirmed.

Unusually low reserve stocks of oil held by the Seven Sisters oil multinationals contributed to creating a devastating world oil price shock, with prices for crude oil soaring from a level of some $14 per barrel in 1978 towards the astronomical heights of $40 per barrel for some grades of crude on the spot market. Long gasoline lines across America contributed to a general sense of panic, and Carter energy secretary and former CIA director, James R. Schlesinger, did not help calm matters when he told Congress and the media in February 1979 that the Iranian oil shortfall was 'prospectively more serious' than the 1973 Arab oil embargo.[2][2]

The Carter administration's Trilateral Commission foreign policy further ensured that any European effort from Germany and France to develop more cooperative trade, economic and diplomatic relations with their Soviet neighbor, under the umbrella of détente and various Soviet-west European energy agreements, was also thrown into disarray.

Carter's security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, implemented their 'Arc of Crisis' policy, spreading the instability of the Iranian revolution throughout the perimeter around the Soviet Union. Throughout the Islamic perimeter from Pakistan to Iran, U.S. initiatives created instability or worse."

-- William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, © 1992, 2004. Pluto Press Ltd. Pages 171-174.





[1][1] In 1978, the Iranian Ettelaat published an article accusing Khomeini of being a British agent. The clerics organized violent demonstrations in response, which led to the flight of the Shah months later. See U.S. Library of Congress Country Studies, Iran. The Coming of the Revolution. December 1987. The role of BBC Persian broadcasts in the ousting of the Shah is detailed in Hossein Shahidi. 'BBC Persian Service 60 years on.' The Iranian. September 24, 2001. The BBC was so much identified with Khomeini that it won the name 'Ayatollah BBC.'


[2][2] Comptroller General of the United States. 'Iranian Oil Cutoff: Reduced Petroleum Supplies and Inadequate U.S. Government Response.' Report to Congress by General Accounting Office. 1979.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Liberator
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

Postby Liberator » Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:06 pm

Carter Sold Out Iran 1977-1978
by Chuck Morse

http://www.warcryer.com/guadalupe.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As if a light were switched off, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, portrayed for 20 years as a progressive modern ruler by Islamic standards, was suddenly, in 1977-1978, turned into this foaming at the mouth monster by the international left media. Soon after becoming President in 1977, Jimmy Carter launched a deliberate campaign to undermine the Shah. The Soviets and their left-wing apparatchiks would coordinate with Carter by smearing the Shah in a campaign of lies meant to topple his throne. The result would be the establishment of a Marxist/Islamic state in Iran headed by the tyrannical Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The Iranian revolution, besides enthroning one of the world's most oppressive regimes, would greatly contribute to the creation of the Marxist/Islamic terror network challenging the free world today.

At the time, a senior Iranian diplomat in Washington observed, "President Carter betrayed the Shah and helped create the vacuum that will soon be filled by Soviet-trained agents and religious fanatics who hate America." Under the guise of promoting" human rights," Carter made demands on the Shah while blackmailing him with the threat that if the demands weren't fulfilled, vital military aid and training would be withheld. This strange policy, carried out against a staunch, 20 year Middle East ally, was a repeat of similar policies applied in the past by US governments to other allies such as pre Mao China and pre Castro Cuba.

Carter started by pressuring the Shah to release "political prisoners" including known terrorists and to put an end to military tribunals. The newly released terrorists would be tried under civil jurisdiction with the Marxist/Islamists using these trials as a platform for agitation and propaganda. This is a standard tactic of the left then and now. The free world operates at a distinct dis-advantage to Marxist and Islamic nations in this regard as in those countries, trials are staged to "show" the political faith of the ruling elite. Fair trials, an independent judiciary, and a search for justice is considered to be a western bourgeois prejudice.

Carter pressured Iran to allow for "free assembly" which meant that groups would be able to meet and agitate for the overthrow of the government. It goes without saying that such rights didn't exist in any Marxist or Islamic nation. The planned and predictable result of these policies was an escalation of opposition to the Shah, which would be viewed by his enemies as a weakness. A well-situated internal apparatus in Iran receiving its marching orders from the Kremlin egged on this growing opposition.

By the fall of 1977, university students, working in tandem with a Shi'ite clergy that had long opposed the Shah's modernizing policies, began a well coordinated and financed series of street demonstrations supported by a media campaign reminiscent of the 1947-1948 campaign against China's Chiang Ki Shek in favor of the "agrarian reformer" Mao tse Tung. At this point the Shah was unable to check the demonstrators, who were instigating violence as a means of inflaming the situation and providing their media stooges with atrocity propaganda. Rumors were circulating amongst Iranians that the CIA under the orders of President Carter organized these demonstrations.

In November 1977, the Shah and his Empress, Farah Diba, visited the White House where they were met with hostility. They were greeted by nearly 4,000 Marxist-led Iranian students, many wearing masks, waving clubs, and carrying banners festooned with the names of Iranian terrorist organizations. The rioters were allowed within 100 feet of the White House where they attacked other Iranians and Americans gathered to welcome the Shah. Only 15 were arrested and quickly released. Inside the White House, Carter pressured the Shah to implement even more radical changes. Meanwhile, the Soviets were mobilizing a campaign of propaganda, espionage, sabotage, and terror in Iran. The Shah was being squeezed on two sides.

In April 1978, Moscow would instigate a bloody coup in Afghanistan and install the communist puppet Nur Mohammad Taraki. Taraki would proceed to call for a "jihad" against the "Ikhwanu Shayateen" which translates into "brothers of devils," a label applied to opponents of the new red regime in Kabul and to the Iranian government. Subversives and Soviet-trained agents swarmed across the long Afghanistan/Iran border to infiltrate Shi'ite mosques and other Iranian institutions. By November 1978, there was an estimated 500,000 Soviet backed Afghanis in Iran where, among other activities, they set up training camps for terrorists.

Khomeini, a 78-year-old Shi'ite cleric whose brother had been imprisoned as a result of activities relating to his Iranian Communist party affiliations, and who had spent 15 years in exile in Ba'th Socialist Iraq, was poised to return. In exile, Khomeini spoke of the creation of a revolutionary Islamic republic, which would be anti-Western, socialist, and with total power in the hands of an ayatollah. In his efforts to violently overthrow the government of Iran, Khomeini received the full support of the Soviets.

Nureddin Klanuri, head of the Iranian Communist Tudeh Party, in exile in East Berlin, stated, "The Tudeh Party approves Ayatollah Khomeini's initiative in creating the Islamic Revolutionary Council. The ayatollah's program coincides with that of the Tudeh Party." Khomeini's closest advisor, Sadegh Ghothzadeh, was well known as a revolutionary with close links to communist intelligence. In January 1998, Pravda, the official Soviet organ, officially endorsed the Khomeini revolution.

American leaders were also supporting Khomeini. After the Pravda endorsement, Ramsey Clark, who served as Attorney General under President Lyndon B. Johnson, held a press conference where he reported on a trip to Iran and a Paris visit with Khomeini. He urged the US government to take no action to help the Shah so that Iran "could determine it's own fate." Clark played a behind the scenes role influencing members of Congress to not get involved in the crisis. Perhaps UN Ambassador Andrew Young best expressed the thinking of the left at the time when he stated that, if successful, Khomeini would "eventually be hailed as a saint."

Khomeini was allowed to seize power in Iran and, as a result, we are now reaping the harvest of anti-American fanaticism and extremism. Khomeini unleashed the hybrid of Islam and Marxism that has spawned suicide bombers and hijackers. President Jimmy Carter, and the extremists in his administration are to blame and should be held accountable.



Image
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Liberator
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am

Postby Liberator » Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:53 am

Please visit the original link for access to the hyperlinks in the text!
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1857

****



France and the Iranian Revolution
From the desk of Fjordman on Wed, 2007-01-24 15:06


Now that the Islamic Republic of Iran is in the news with its suspected nuclear weapons program, it could be good to pause and reflect for a moment on who contributed to the Islamic Republic being established in the late 1970s, probably the one event next to the influx of oil money to Saudi Arabia – and possibly the establishment of the Eurabian networks which all happened in the 70s – that was chiefly responsible for the global resurgence of Jihad. The inaction and general incompetence displayed by former US President Jimmy Carter, today an apologist for the Islamic Jihad against Israel, certainly contributed, but we mustn’t forget former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing.

The irony is that while the Ayatollah Khomeini could establish an Islamic state directed from the suburbs of Paris, the French 30 years later have hundreds of Islamic mini-states on French soil. Khomeini and his cronies used this window of opportunity at a critical stage of the uprising against the Shah to consolidate their power and establish their lead over the direction of which the Revolution was heading.

As Ambassador Freddy Eytan says:

President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing had invited the Shah of Iran as his first official foreign guest, in view of France’s interest in Iranian oil. In 1978, Giscard and his Interior Minister Michel Poniatowski foresaw the collapse of the Shah’s government, which would damage France’s commercial interests.

The proposal was then raised to bring the Ayatollah Khomeini to Algeria. Before, he had been chased from one place to the other. The DST, the French secret service, opposed his entry but Giscard overruled them and granted Khomeini political asylum in France. He stayed in Neauphle le Chateau near Paris. From there, he distributed cassettes to Iran inciting against democracy, peace in the Middle East, the Jews and Israelis. He also called for jihad, a violent holy war. The PLO distributed Khomeini’s cassettes to Iran. When the American embassy in Teheran was attacked in November 1979, PLO members were among the perpetrators. Yasser Arafat was the first official guest in Teheran. He received a popular welcome as a great hero for supporting the Islamic revolution.

Today, we know that Khomeini’s concepts of the Islamic Republic have led to a major expansion of militant Islam. Both Hizbollah and Al Qaeda have their origins in the revolutionary ideas developed in Khomeini’s Iran. The violent speeches in the Iranian mosques and international Islamist terror would not have developed without Khomeini’s stay in France and the publicity he received there. Without Giscard’s hospitality, Khomeini would not have been able to take power in Iran and develop an infrastructure for international propaganda and terrorism.


David Frum writes in his recent review of David Pryce-Jones’s book Betrayal: France, the Arabs, and the Jews:

Pryce-Jones demonstrates that French foreign policy has repeatedly arrived at nearly equally perverse results in the Middle East. When Saddam Hussein banished Ayatollah Khomeini from Iraq in 1978, France welcomed the turbaned zealot. In France, the ayatollah discovered limitless freedom to agitate: As he himself later said, “We could publicize our views extensively, much more than we expected.” Pryce-Jones quotes a study by Amir Taheri that the ayatollah gave 132 radio, television, and print interviews over the four months of his stay in France. He received almost 100,000 visitors, who donated over 20 million British pounds to his cause. In February 1979, the ayatollah returned to Iran in a chartered Air France jet; an Air France pilot held his elbow as he descended the steps to the tarmac.


Nit Boms wrote:

In 1978, as protests against Shah Pahlavi swept across Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini was living in a cozy house in the Parisian suburb of Neauphle-le-Chateau, engineering an Islamic revolution that would soon shake the world. Under the watchful eye of the French government, Khomeini met regularly with journalists and actively campaigned for the shah’s overthrow. In fact, when Pahlavi finally fled his country in 1979, Khomeini was provided with a chartered Air France flight to Tehran, where he presided over one of the world’s most repressive regimes until his death in 1989.


Former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing is still around. He has not been called to account. Today he is the chief architect behind the awful EU Constitution.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -J.F.K
User avatar
Liberator
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:45 am


Return to Modern Iran Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest