Proving that there is no fool like an old fool former Democrat President Jimmy Carter has recently stated that he has "no regrets" about his handling of the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, which he blindly considers the only real downside to his four years in office. I guess he is overlooking such trivial things as the fuel crisis, the economic recession and the "malaise" as it was termed, but that might not be surprising considering that the former peanut farmer went on television and basically blamed all problems on the American people. And he wasn't reelected -what a surprise! The truth is that if Jimmy Carter had any sense in that peanut-sized brain of his, he would have a great many regrets, not only for doing almost nothing to secure the release of the hostages but for allowing the situation in Iran to deteriorate to such a point that the Ayatollah and his gang of terrorists were able to take power in the first place.Few other presidencies in recent American history have been such monumental examples of stupidity as that of Jimmy Carter and the way he handled or rather mis-handled Iran tops the list. It was Carter who appointed George Ball to the Trilateral Commission in 1978 who did all he could to suppress support for the Shah and the Iranian monarchy. His head of the National Security Council also supported a halt to all support going to the Shah and worked with elements in the CIA to shift support to the Ayatollah who was preparing his bid to take power. Carter then did nothing as revolution erupted and brought down the ancient Iranian monarchy, allowing for the first time in modern history for terrorists to take control of an entire nation which they then used as their base to support their compatriots abroad. Even when it came to providing basic humanitarian medical treatment for the ailing exiled Shah President Carter had to be cajoled and brow-beaten into allowing the monarch to be taken to the Mayo Clinic for treatment.
The man who was to succeed Carter as President, Republican Party leader Ronald Reagan, said later that “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.” There would have been no hostage crisis to bungle if Carter had supported the Shah rather than undermining and abandoning him. There would have been no terrorist takeover, no Iranian support for terrorists in the near east and no nuclear arms crisis such as we are now facing if President Carter had not completely sold out the monarchy of the Shah who was a man of peace, a friend and ally to the west and a man who recognized the State of Israel and worked for peace in the Middle East. President Carter, you have plenty that you should regret and plenty for which you will ultimately have to answer for.
BUT... Admitting that means he mademistakes. Its really all the American peopels fault, and the Iranians for misusing their git of Democracy he gsve them. Isnt it better than an evil Dictator anyway?
ReplyDelete{yes this is sarcasm}
I disagree with some points here. I think it was a disastrous policy of the Shah's to heavily support israel and let Mossad agents train SAVAK. Iranians today of every political stripe are upset about the close relationship with israel under the Shah. One can be sure that the Shah was trying to help America, as usual; it was not to his taste probably.
ReplyDeleteCarter is supposed to be a Trilateralist type himself. So of course he was going to be one to sell out any God-fearing leader. The Shah was a very spiritual man though not a traditional Muslim.
All those Trilateralist/New World Order people have a hatred against God. It's unfortunate that the point man behind the foreign policy scenes during that entire period was Kissinger, who recently has praised Obama as the one who could bring in the New World Order.
One cannot praise the Shah enough for his staunch anti-Communism, his sincere wish to help his people advance. His mistake was to toss religious devotion as a virtue out the window. If he had piously taken public pilgrimages to the Shia holy Shrines, the Revolution may not have had such steam.
But it was the ultimate hypocrisy of the US and Europe to secretly condone if not aid and abet the return of Ayatollah Khomeini, in preference to the more secular Shah.
A more ideal ally for the standard US mindset has never been existed.
The US is afraid of both any religion and monarchies, with almost knee-jerk fear. To me that's crazy and these are the best people to support, not corrupt puppets as I could Karzai of Afghanistan was from Day 1.
There's much to say about the Shah, but the Carter Administration's handling of his admission to the US for medical treatment was beyond pathetic. Quaking in fear of Iranian students' reaction, they only relented at the very last minute. It was SO shameful, after everything the Shah had done to help the US advance its policies not only in the powerful ancient nation of the Lion and the Sun [passports read: "Empire d'Iran"!], but throughout the Middle East and beyond.
[It happened that my best friend at college's father was a high official in the State Dept. at the time, and dealt with the Iranian hostage crisis. Only later did another official tell me how badly he and State had bungled everything!]
The whole massive betrayal on all levels of the US apparatus, including the CIA, was unconscionable.
No one ever apologized, either, though the discussions went on about the blame for who "LOST Iran". That shows how much hubris there was. The U.S. never OWNED Iran!
But it behaved - IRONICALLY - like the worst of despots, waving a lazy finger when it was time for the upstart Shah to exit, as he had become tiresome, making bold requests that he could make his own decisions concerning his own business!
The ruling clique in power in the U.S. were not souls from the Light; they were enslaved to the dark side. The only problem for the Shah was that he was too sincere of a man to see it until the carpet was pulled out from under him. The entire Iranian military were waiting for the arrival of General Huyser to inspire them with offers of American support or at least advice. But instead, he told them to STAY in their barracks! As good soldiers, they obeyed, also trusting the perfidious U.S.
To this day, many monarchists in Iran are angry that the U.S. failed to bolster the Shah. Mere months before, the American President had toasted Iran as "an island of stability in the Middle East" while praising the Shah lavishly. Talk about a false friend!
One problem is that the average American, descendant of peasants or similar, is not comfortable in the presence of royalty and feels constantly a need to undermine or diminish it to make himself feel significant.
One almost can see this dynamic subtly taking place in the photo above.
Thanks, good rundown.
If I wanted to be really conspiratorial I would say it could be that the hidden clique in the US and elsewhere wanted Iran (and whichever other country suits them) to be in the hands of extremists so as to be able to use the threat to consolidate their own power in the world's more dominant countries. If I wanted to be conspiratorial. Kissinger was a big player at the time and I had to laugh recently when he made his comments you refer to about Obama. I'm sure there were some of his "friends" who gasped when he said what he did and cajoled him afterwards for slipping up and saying out loud what they usually deny in public. I always say to listen close to what his type admits to because things are always more advanced than that. What they let us know about is bad enough so you can bet that what they are NOT telling us is far worse.
ReplyDelete