I don’t see how the Shah’s regime could have been preserved, unpopular as it was. But was it inevitable that it would be replaced by an Islamic theocracy/mullahcracy?
Hell no.
Damage was decades in the making.
Short of armed intervention (major intervention) I cannot see how.
As noted the whole mess was long in the making. A momentum built up that couldn’t be stopped at the last minute.
Carter? No. If we’d allowed the elections in 1954 to stand, Iran might have endured as a left-moderate democracy - perhaps oriented towards the West, perhaps joining the non-aligned movement with India et al.
He probably could have not pressured the Shah to improve his human rights record. Because of American pressure, the Iranian government set free a lot of political prisoners, and ended holding people accused of political crimes indefinitely without trial, many of whom went on to lead the Iranian revolution. He also ended a CIA program to bribe Iranian religious leaders to keep them from speaking out against the Shah.
If he hadn’t done those things, the revolution probably eventually still would have happened, but probably not in 1979.
Well… nukes…
It’s still his fault because it happened on his watch and he’s a Democrat.
Read Guests of the Ayatollah by Mark Bowden and think about what you would do differently. I can’t really think of anything, except perhaps not say the hostages are the first thing I think of when I wake up and the last thing I think about when I go to bed in public. Maybe make sure that Delta had their own air assets before 1979.
Rob
Jimmy and SAVAK:
Right. That was my point. His raising the issue of human rights in Iran made it harder for the Shah’s government to hold on to power.
The leftist revolution against the Shah, no. The Islamist revolution which superseded the leftist one, and thus the hostage-taking, could have been prevented by any number of actions, particularly washing his hands of Pahlavi’s request to seek medical treatment in the U.S.
Before the Revolution the US could have backed a liberal secular dark horse, Iran is a jumbled crossword puzzle of different cultural and social ties.
But in reality, yeah, Carter’s administration was screwed.
It’s still inexplicable to me why President Carter did not order an invasion of a Middle Eastern nation in order to install democracy in a country with a poor human rights record. I’m just fucking bewildered.
You asked what the Carter administration could have done to prevent the Iranian Revolution and I told you. I’m sorry if you don’t like it. The government of the Shah was a authoritarian regime backed up by brutal repression of dissidents, bribery and co-option of Persian elites, and and US military, economic, and intelligence assistance. Get rid of those things, the Shah’s government falls.
IMO, the only way Carter stops this is by going back in the Official White House time machine and stopping the CIA from overthrowing the elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh. Way to go, Ike, you helped screw up the Middle East for generations to come!
I think you were whooshed, although I could be wrong here.
Meh, take out the names and you’ve described pretty much every middle eastern country.
Nope, nothing Carter could’ve done. Once the Shah came back a revolution of some kind was inevitable, that’s just imho.
But it would’ve been great if America hadn’t destroyed the democratic government of Mohammed Mosaddegh, in 1953.
I mean I know Madeline Albright apologised for it and everything. But the it’s hard not to imagine what the middle east would look like if it had a robust democracy in Iran’s place as early as that.
He could have done two things:
-allowed SAVAK to assassinate Khomeini-that would have stopped the horror that the revolution became
-allowed a group of Iranian military officers to depose the Shah (they were all set to take over).
Carter wound up taking decisions that were the worst of both worlds-he neither helped the Iranian people, or thwarted islamic fundamentalism.
For this, he deserves our disrespect.
Because our history of relations with military dictators in the middle-east is so much better than the Islamic ones?
Gee, what was the name of that military guy that took over from the other military guy we helped to power and then we supported because he opposed Iran and then we went to war with twice. Starts with an “S” I think.
:rolleyes: Khomeini was the the only ultra conservative Islamic cleric? The Army officers taking over would have suddenly gained the support of the students clamoring for revolution?
It’s an established fact that violent revolutions (which here was inevitable), and begun even for the greatest of reasons, are total crap shoots. Carter was given a shit pie and had to take a bite.