It's Carter's fault the Middle East is fucked up

[Sidewinder]

Why do I think it's President Jimmy Carter's fault the Middle East is fucked up? First, read about the Islamic Revolution that deposed the Shah.

The Carter administration followed "no clear policy" on Iran.[98] The U.S. ambassador to Iran, William H. Sullivan, recalls that the U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski “repeatedly assured Pahlavi that the U.S. backed him fully." President Carter arguably failed at following up on those assurances. On November 4, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would "back him to the hilt." At the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department believed the revolution was unstoppable.[99] After visiting the Shah in summer of 1978, Secretary of the Treasury Blumenthal complained of the Shah's emotional collapse, reporting, "You've got a zombie out there."[100] Brzezinski and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger (Secretary of Defense under Ford) were adamant in their assurances that the Shah would receive military support. Brzezinski still advocated a U.S. military intervention to stabilize Iran even when the Shah's position was believed to be untenable. President Carter could not decide how to stabilize the situation; he was certainly against another coup. Initially, there appeared to be support for a peaceful transfer of power, however this option evaporated when Khomeini and his followers swept through the country, taking power on February 12, 1979. Many Iranians believe the lack of intervention and sometime sympathy for the revolution by high-level American officials indicate the U.S. "was responsible for Khomeini's victory."[101] A more extreme position asserts that the Shah's overthrow was the result of a "sinister plot to topple a nationalist, progressive, and independent-minded monarch."[102]

Now let's imagine what would've happened if the US militarily intervened to keep the Shah in power. First, the Shah would ruthlessly suppress the Islamists so he can continue his plan to prepare Iran for the 21st century. Saddam Hussein would NOT think Iran was weak, would know an attack on Iran would NOT be tolerated, and would NOT start the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq would NOT be economically devastated by the costs of that war, and Saddam would be LESS tempted to invade Kuwait. If Kuwait was safe from Iraq, the US would NOT have felt the need to station soldiers in Saudi Arabia to secure its oil supplies. Osama bin Laden would NOT have felt insulted that infidels (American and allied troops) had set foot on the holy grounds of Mecca, would be LESS likely to see the US as the Great Satan, and would likely remain an American ALLY in the fight against Communism, as he was during the Soviet War in Afghanistan.

If Saddam Hussein did NOT order the invasion of Kuwait, the US would NOT have seen him as a threat to its interests, and without the Persian Gulf War, George H. W. Bush's successors (Clinton and/or George W. Bush, assuming they win the elections) would NOT have been tempted to finish what was started in the Persian Gulf War. Iraq would likely remain under a brutal and ruthless dictatorship, but at least Saddam would be able to prevent al-Qaida and al-Mahdi suicide bombers from launching attacks in crowded marketplaces.

Furthermore, if the Shah remained in power, Iran would NOT have supported Syria and Hezbollah, and the Lebanese Civil War would've been considerably LESS bloody. Israeli involvement in Lebanon would've been more LIMITED, and with Hezbollah denied Iranian support, the Israeli public would likely have been spared quite a few terror attacks.

Do you agree or disagree with my opinions?

[Straha]

I was actually thinking of starting a thread with an essay I've been thinking of writing tying pretty much every major development of the past thirty years to the Iranian revolution.

That being said Carter didn't fuck up the Middle East, the Iranian Revolution was a long time coming. To make a long story very short:

- The shah ran a dictatorial regime against intermittently intense pressure from the Mullahs in Iran.

- The shah also went out of his way to try and modernize and educate the "backwards" country side to remove its Islamist tendencies. Though in effect he was merely educating and training the same religious base which had opposed him so thoroughly.

- The Shah then took his newly educated "modernized" students and put them in important positions of power in the government. While he ran a corrupt despotic regime which was based on the Shah's control of the army (which he intentionally neutered at the upper levels so as to not be able to oppose him, and which was never trained for crowd control in any fashion.)

And to make a longer much more convoluted story even shorter (last time I said that when I was writing a post on Iranian politics I stayed up another hour) people in Iran complained, pushed for reform. The shah was utterly ineffectual, thought about pushing back, didn't. Flailed around for help, went to Carter, sorta kinda but not really. Carter was in the White House as a modern day Saint claiming to represent human rights. Carter offered full support of the Shah as long as he tried to go with the tide of the people and modernized. The Shah didn't and instead played all his cards in the most horrificly wrong fashion. And the Shah was deposed.

Carter could never have kept the Shah in power, and had no method of replacing the regime. Even if he could have it would have only made the situation on the ground in Iran worse.


I'll elaborate tomorrow, but I actually do need to get some sleep. I recommend getting your hands on Gary Sick's book "All Fall Down" (he was in the NSA and was closely involved in the administration during the revolution) and "Turban for the Crown" by... someone whose name I forget. But they both go into some detail about what happened, and why. And why intervention just simply wouldn't have worked out at all.

[K. A. Pital]

So the guy who deposed a popular left wing nationalist (Mossadegh) for the Shah was not at fault, eh?

[Sidewinder]

So the guy who deposed a popular left wing nationalist (Mossadegh) for the Shah was not at fault, eh?

I concede to being overly American-centric (I grew up in the US, after all), but I still believe Iran (and the rest of the world) would've been better off if the Shah was NOT replaced by Khomeini as its ruler.

Also, according to some sources, "a number of scholars and historians believe that alongside the plotting of the UK and US, a major factor in his overthrow was Mossadeq's loss of support among Shia clerics and the traditional middle class, brought on by his increasingly radical and secular policies and by their fear of a communist takeover."

[Guardsman Bass]

So the guy who deposed a popular left wing nationalist (Mossadegh) for the Shah was not at fault, eh?

Keep in mind that Mossadegh's popularity was on the down road when they toppled him, although he was extremely popular throughout the first part of his office.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So the guy who deposed a popular left wing nationalist (Mossadegh) for the Shah was not at fault, eh?

I concede to being overly American-centric (I grew up in the US, after all), but I still believe Iran (and the rest of the world) would've been better off if the Shah was NOT replaced by Khomeini as its ruler.

Also, according to some sources, "a number of scholars and historians believe that alongside the plotting of the UK and US, a major factor in his overthrow was Mossadeq's loss of support among Shia clerics and the traditional middle class, brought on by his increasingly radical and secular policies and by their fear of a communist takeover."

Eh? Then who would you have suggested replace Khomeini? He was the only one who could have held the country together after the Shah's overthrow, what with so many factions exerting centrifugal forces on the entire system. As it is, even at the present day, the only reason why they aren't at each others' throats is the United States.

[K. A. Pital]

So wait, you're saying that Mossadegh's secularization program is the reason he failed... But then say that the Shah, who was a secular ruler too and tried to secularize Iran, is cool. It just looks like a total disconnect.

Or are you blaming Mossadegh for not being brutal and secular enough? Not willing to brutally supress the islamists like you claim the Shah would?

I fear that in such a case, the Islamic revolution would just happen sooner.

[Straha]

So wait, you're saying that Mossadegh's secularization program is the reason he failed... But then say that the Shah, who was a secular ruler too and tried to secularize Iran, is cool. It just looks like a total disconnect.

Mossadegh failed because he lost popular support. American influence helped, but not nearly as much as some people like to make it out. (There were riots in the streets against Mossadegh when he was removed.) Part of the reason Mossadegh failed was because he alienated the clerics who feared that he'd go socialist or, even worse, communist and try to completely neuter the clerics. So the Clerics, who've always been political in Iran, acted, shifted sides and a huge number of the people went with them.

That being said you hit the nail on the head with the way people treat the Shah for secularizing Iran. After what he'd done he was simply too unstable to receive any support. And, quite frankly, the idea of military support for the Shah to keep him in power is just ludicrous. To use an (admittedly not perfect) analogy it's like saying "The sudden collapse and breakup of the USSR in the early nineties caused a great deal of death and destruction of property. I think the United States should have intervened militarily to keep the USSR together for a longer period of time until the break-up could happen in a much more orderly fashion."

[Sidewinder]

And, quite frankly, the idea of military support for the Shah to keep him in power is just ludicrous. To use an (admittedly not perfect) analogy it's like saying "The sudden collapse and breakup of the USSR in the early nineties caused a great deal of death and destruction of property. I think the United States should have intervened militarily to keep the USSR together for a longer period of time until the break-up could happen in a much more orderly fashion."

I concede it was foolish of me to think US support might have kept the Shah in power, and that I was too harsh on Carter.

[Sea Skimmer]

Now let's imagine what would've happened if the US militarily intervened to keep the Shah in power.

That would be about a 9.2 on the military clusterfuck of an operation scale, which I declare rates invading Iraq in 2003 as an 8.0. Seriously now Iran had a fucking better tanks then the US Army did in 1979, and its air force and air defense technology was in many cases equal. Huge portions of the Iranian military might well have mutinied if the US sent in multiple army corps (which wouldn’t even be possible to deploy in a useful timeframe) to try to hold the place together, and hell given the Vietnam rebuilding still going on at the time US forces might start having some similar problems. Just scraping up enough units to do the job on paper, without stripping Germany as we could so luxuriously do in 1991, would be impossible without mobilizing half the National Guard.

Keeping the Shah in power was something that could only be accomplished by the Shahs own actions, and maybe a little CIA support. US military intervention was 100% hopeless and would only have ensured that the blackpowder keg that is Iran burst with the power of TNT.

[CmdrWilkens]

Moreover if you want a root cause for tension in the middle east look no further than how Britain subdivided the region and left it when the Empire finally collapsed. Iraq is the perfect example of drawing arbitrary lines in the sand with no regard to cultural or any socio-economic divisions already existing. This isn't to say that the nature of Ottoman rule in the previous centuries didn't plant seeds for future tensions but the British handling of things did little to help at best.

[Sea Skimmer]

I wouldn’t blame the Ottomans for much of anything. Most of Iraq internal problem are firmly rooted in the last 40 years of its history, which has been a literally explosion of the population in Iraq (they had only 3.8 million people in 1941, 2.2 million in 1919 when the country was formed) and a government with ruthlessly exploited ethnic divisions to increase its own control. The British we can blame not only for making the country, but also for very intentionally making the minority Sunni the ruling power.

I'd also hate the British for creating Kuwait, something they admittedly did long before long before they had the power to make Iraq. By all rights Kuwait should have been part of Iraq, and it’s certain that if the Iraq government had access to so much more money for so much longer that the whole place would have been much better off. Saddam and his predecessors would have been able to use more carrot and less stick, Saddam at least certainly never hesitated to invest in public works, and standards of living would be generally higher. This would make everyone less inclined towards illogical ethnic violence against people they’ve been living next to for over a thousand years.

[Scottish Ninja]

Iraq is the perfect example of drawing arbitrary lines in the sand with no regard to cultural or any socio-economic divisions already existing.

I had heard somewhere, might have been here, that the "lines in the sand" were drawn with complete regard to cultural divisions already existing - that is to say, throwing together three different cultural groups in one nation so that they would always be too busy bickering amongst each other to ever pose a credible threat to the British Empire.

[Adrian Laguna]

I had heard somewhere, might have been here, that the "lines in the sand" were drawn with complete regard to cultural divisions already existing - that is to say, throwing together three different cultural groups in one nation so that they would always be too busy bickering amongst each other to ever pose a credible threat to the British Empire.

They also gave power to a minority group on purpose. So that they would be too afraid of being massacred by the angry oppressed majority to kick the British out.

[Jeremy]

I was watching an Iranian lady speak on CSPAN who said that the Revolution against the Shah was initially a liberal student revolt that got swept away and misdirected by Khomeini and other religious elements.

Can some one corroborate that or is it unsubstantiated?

If true, could the situation have been controlled by the USA into a liberal democratic reform?

Had the Shah not fallen that would mean that the USA would have never supplied Saddam with Area Denial weapons to use against the Iranians, correct?
Which means they would have never been used against the Kurds.

[Sidewinder]

If true, could the situation have been controlled by the USA into a liberal democratic reform?

Doubtful. Considering what happened in real life (the Iranians democratically voting to turn their country into an Islamic republic), it would NOT be in the US' best interests to have Iran be a democratic country whose people can vote to tell Uncle Sam, "Fuck you! Fuck you in the ass from which you shit the guns the Shah was using to oppress us! We're Communists now!" What the US would've wanted (at least, those who had working brains, unlike Carter) was a ruthless right-wing dictator who'd continue selling oil to the West and using the revenues to buy American weapons with which to suppress the left-wingers (Communists).

Had the Shah not fallen that would mean that the USA would have never supplied Saddam with Area Denial weapons to use against the Iranians, correct?
Which means they would have never been used against the Kurds.

I remember reading an online article (which I'm having trouble finding) which stated the Iranians deployed chemical weapons with the intention of using them against Iraqi troops, but accidentally killed Kurdish non-combatants during the Iran-Iraq War. But regardless of who was responsible for gassing Kurds, if the Shah had NOT fallen, Saddam wouldn't have invaded Iran, Khomeini wouldn't have been able to refuse to negotiate a peace treaty and continued the war with the intention of turning Iraq into another Islamic republic (see here), and hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive (and politically repressed, but that's better than having to put up with al-Qaida and its suicide bombers).

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, the idea that post-Shah Iran could've been something else than, well, Islamist republic... dubious at best, and realistically outright impossible.

[Straha]

I was watching an Iranian lady speak on CSPAN who said that the Revolution against the Shah was initially a liberal student revolt that got swept away and misdirected by Khomeini and other religious elements.

Can some one corroborate that or is it unsubstantiated?

A partial truth. It was undeniably primarily a liberal movement and students played a decent role in the revolts. That being said the glue that held the students, the constitutional liberals, the westernizers, the backwater peasants and the Bazaris were the Mullahs orchestrated and influenced by Ayatollah Khomeini. Without the Mullahs the revolution would never have developed like it did.

If true, could the situation have been controlled by the USA into a liberal democratic reform?

Yes and no. The revolution could have become a liberal democratic reform. Indeed a constitution was promulgated and given to Ayatollah Khomeini which would have essentially established a liberal democracy with very limited clerical oversight and this constitution could have been brought to power quite easily. Further the U.S., especially under St. Carter, would have loved to have worked with a new liberal regime and would have gone out of their way to supply them with whatever foreign aid they could.

That being said the answer is no because Khomeini and the clerics were not content to, having overthrown the shah, merely go home. They wanted their own Iran, and they would get their own Iran. Though, how anti-U.S. this new Iran had to be... is a great question. If the Embassy Hostage crisis had gone a bit different, the Clerics could have been friendlier to the states, and the U.S. would not have performed the 180 it did to support Saddam. Which is not to say the Iran-Iraq War wouldn't take place, just that it'd be different.

I remember reading an online article (which I'm having trouble finding) which stated the Iranians deployed chemical weapons with the intention of using them against Iraqi troops, but accidentally killed Kurdish non-combatants during the Iran-Iraq War. But regardless of who was responsible for gassing Kurds, if the Shah had NOT fallen, Saddam wouldn't have invaded Iran, Khomeini wouldn't have been able to refuse to negotiate a peace treaty and continued the war with the intention of turning Iraq into another Islamic republic (see here), and hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive (and politically repressed, but that's better than having to put up with al-Qaida and its suicide bombers).

Where to begin:

A. The idea that Iran used chemical weapons against Iraqi troops (as championed by Pelletiere) has been widely disproven. The only evidence for it were a couple U.N. surveys of the front where, having been taxied around by Iraqi soldiers, the UN inspectors said "Based on evidence at hand we are unable to say where the gas came from." By contrast almost every other U.N. report, despite vehement opposition in the U.N. to Iran, laid the blame squarely at Saddam and his people. And you know what the UN, and the rest of the world, did about that? Jack shit.

B. Saddam didn't want to negotiate a peace treaty either. It was only when the war went against him that he pulled a 180, and declared himself to be willing to settle for a UN proposed peace treaty setting the boundaries back to the 1975 treaty lines and little more. To be frank I can't blame Khomeini for turning that down, especially if he had no future guarantees for peace and if Saddam wasn't being punished for unilaterally attacking Iran. Furthermore, while Khomeini always preached revolutionary Shia the "revolution by arms" mentality wasn't really solidified until after the Iranian army was forcing the Iraqis back, and that took years to develop. If the rest of the world had bothered to act and try to punish Saddam for what he did (like it would ten years later) Iran would never have had the "Karballah or Bust" mentality it later developed, much to its own detriment.

Yeah, the idea that post-Shah Iran could've been something else than, well, Islamist republic... Confused dubious at best, and realistically outright impossible.

Hardly. If Khomeini had been a figure willing to step back into the shadows after the revolution, or to accept a glorified head of state roll than Iran could very well be a happily fully functional democracy. It was only the power drive of the clerics that enforced the "Islamic Republic of Iran" and not the "Republic of Iran".

[K. A. Pital]

If Khomeini had been a figure willing to step back into the shadows after the revolution, or to accept a glorified head of state roll than Iran could very well be a happily fully functional democracy.

Are you saying heavily islamist states can be "functional democracies"? The functionality of Iran's democracy is irrelevant if that is turned into a democratic theocracy by the voter's very own mentality, you know.

[Rogue 9]

I was watching an Iranian lady speak on CSPAN who said that the Revolution against the Shah was initially a liberal student revolt that got swept away and misdirected by Khomeini and other religious elements.

Can some one corroborate that or is it unsubstantiated?

I don't know for certain one way or the other, but if that were the case, wouldn't the students have revolted against the clerics once it became clear what was going on?

[Straha]

If Khomeini had been a figure willing to step back into the shadows after the revolution, or to accept a glorified head of state roll than Iran could very well be a happily fully functional democracy.

Are you saying heavily islamist states can be "functional democracies"? The functionality of Iran's democracy is irrelevant if that is turned into a democratic theocracy by the voter's very own mentality, you know.

Iran has had a very functional democracy which has acted in a non-Islamist way, just look at the later Rasfanjani years and the Khatami years. The voters' own mentality in the past has been to reform, to change and to westernize. What's kept the country in the hands of the clerics isn't the people but the clerical controlled Guardian Council which was inserted into the constitution by Khomeini.

If you refer to the popular acceptance of the constitution, then yes it is their own damn fault. But put yourself in their mindset for the referendum. "We've kicked out the shah, SAVAK is gone and we're finally free! Let's ratify this constitution so that the shah never comes back again!" Their euphoria at finally being able to get a constitution blinded them to the fact that it could quite probably become their yoke. And so, in part, it has.

[Straha]

I was watching an Iranian lady speak on CSPAN who said that the Revolution against the Shah was initially a liberal student revolt that got swept away and misdirected by Khomeini and other religious elements.

Can some one corroborate that or is it unsubstantiated?

I don't know for certain one way or the other, but if that were the case, wouldn't the students have revolted against the clerics once it became clear what was going on?

The clerics really only started to solidify their power during the Iran-Iraq War. And during the war all of society was given the focus of winning, of doing their duty to god and of dying for the country or fighting hard in an attempt to. Kind of hard to rebel in that atmosphere. When it finally did become clear in the 90s there were student protests, some quite bloody ones. To make a long story very short the Mullahs called in their para-military force (the Basij) to put them down. Bloodily. That's really a main difference between the clerics and the shah, when push came to shove the Shah would always vacillate until he couldn't move. The clerics have had no compunction with calling out the troops when they need to.

[Jeremy]

Rogue 9, the speaker gave the impression that the islamic movement was just more immediately attractive -- if the students didn't join it then they were certainly outnumbered.

Straha and Sidewinder, thank you both.