Populum Test Server » Hostage Crisis Repeated

Tags for This Article:

Populum
Tag Cloud
Control Panel

Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): 2008 Election Presidential; Bush Admin; Bush Admin; Iran; Iran Contra Affair; Iran War; Iraq
Add to My Group

March 30, 2007 at 07:20:53

View Ratings | Rate It

Hostage Crisis Repeated

by jalil bahar Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.robkall.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

The Mullahs in Iran are planning to do to Blair what they did to Jimmy Carter! The arrest of 15 British sailors was a very carefully orchestrated effort on the part of the Mullahs to extract the same concessions they received from the United States in 1980 - that kept their regime alive!Remember? In 1980, the Mullahs carefully stretched out the crisis right up to November, to the heart of the Presidential election season. One mediator after another approached them on behalf of Jimmy Carter, while they also secretly negotiated with Reagan’s camp. In the end, they managed to receive assurances from both Democrats and Republicans not to ‘interfere in Iran’s domestic affairs’. They played one side against the other, brought Jimmy Carter to his knees and went so far as to meet George Bush Sr. (then Vice-President Elect) secretly in Paris to receive his personal security assurances that the U.S. ‘will not interfere with Iran’s domestic affairs’.Jimmy Carter in turn, tried to bring the Mullahs to their knees too, by getting Saddam Hussein to invade Iran. Carter’s nudge created an 8 year war that not only resulted in millions of casualties, but planted the seeds for Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait and the current quagmire in Iraq.

The Mullah’s have however prevailed - for almost 30 years!!

They have emerged as the shrewdest political operators in the world today. They have played their hands beautifully having turned the “West’s” invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan into a ‘grandiose’ win for themselves. They have cleverly placed their own political allies in power in Iraq (the Shiites) and in Afghanistan (Northern Alliance)! They have also caused enough chaos in Iraq to have humiliated ‘the invaders’… who now wish they had never gone there to begin with. They precipitated America and Britain’s imminent troop reductions and stand ready to take all the spoils. This is after the United States expended more than $300 Billion dollars and over 3,000 war casualties. The Mullahs did all this without shedding a drop of blood or much money. Wow!!Maybe Bush and Blair have figured all this out! Understandably America and Britain are pissed. And the mullahs understand the situation and know that their security is not assured and that they are very vulnerable. In addition to Bush and Blair, virtually the whole world is hoping for regime change of some sort in Iran. So adding insult to injury, the Mullahs have cleverly continued down the path of acquiring nuclear technology. It is not a far leap to say that Iran’s energy related nuclear activity was always designed to establish nuclear capacity that could be used for other purposes. Why did they retrofit unfinished European light water reactors that the Shah had originally contracted for into heavy water reactors? Why establish a parallel military program to assist the ‘peaceful’ nuclear energy effort? The Mullahs naturally fear an indirect U.S. inspired move for regime change in Iran. They see the Brits as proxy fighters for Bush… who can not (and will not) take on Iran directly given his father’s promises. And the Brits after all have been fomenting dissent in Southern Iran, and have partnered with both the U.S. and the Europeans in putting economic pressure on Iran.

So why not extract similar promises from the Brits that they were able to extract from the Americans, last time they took hostages. Why not nuetralize Blair. Make Britain sign the same documents that promise ‘no interference in Iran’s internal affairs’. This way, without the threat of either American or British military actions, the Mullahs can continue with their Nuclear ambitions, and keep their stranglehold on the people …without any stoppage.

This will only leave Israel as a serious threat, but right now Iran can counter anything Israel throws at it. The Mullahs, after all, have long range missiles that can hit Israel too!

All the clues to the Mullah’s calculations are now out there for us.

First of all, they are under no rush to ‘wrap’ it up. Read the press reports. Iran is in the midst of its national “Persian New Year” holidays… so nothing can happen quickly (unless you are planning to abduct a bunch of British Sailors). Or, they seem to be “waiting for a response” from the British Government. This is all double talk for a plan to ‘stretch’ it out.Then, there is today’s news that Iran’s foreign minister told Ban Ki-moon (UN General Secretary) that “all Britain has to do is admit that their ship was in Iranian waters.” Remember there was a previous abduction of British soldiers at Iran’s frontier with Iraq some months ago. Britain apparently provided a short apology and that did the job. The point is, the Foreign Minister’s statement is a code statement for “the Mullah’s not only want an apology, BUT, written promises of no more ‘excursions’ into Iran. Or in other words, a written commitment that Britain will NOT interfere inside Iran!There is also the statement by another Senior Iranian military commander that they might trade the hostages for the diplomats that the U.S. arrested for ‘fomenting’ terrorism in Iraq. This is another tactic for delaying the settlement. First of all this is NOT, the deal that the Foreign Minister was referring to. This is really a ploy to confuse the situation by making things more complicated and involving the US, and thus simply delaying any possible settlement (or release). Again another clue they want to stretch this out!

Then, the timing is very strange. Both Bush and Blair are lame ducks, waiting to be knocked over. Neither of them have any remaining political capital to take on the Mullahs. What a great time for the Mullahs to pick a fight?

If the Mullahs can stretch this one out into next year, this will also have a huge impact on elections both in the UK and the US. They have already started establishing backroom channels with the Democrats (in the US) with meetings in Davos, Switzerland with Kerry and Biden… All the above has to be considered in light of Britain’s traditional role as a double player. On the one hand, they have maintained close trade ties with Iran (and even assisted the Mullahs in toppling the Shah) and on the other they generally act as a proxy for US strategic objectives.

We must never lose sight of the fact that although the UK is a member of the EU, it is also the world’s No.2 oil trading nation, with the 2nd and 3rd largest oil companies, Shell and BP, (which by the way, have investments in Lukoil, now the world’s 6th largest oil company).

The US above all would like to maintain the petro-dollar as the world’s fiat currency and by doing so it can support its massive public sector debt and control the world’s economy while forcing the EU and its other competitors (notably China) into line. The UK has carefully avoided joining the Euro currency club and has continued to support the petro-dollar as long as US institutions float funds through the British banking system. There clearly are benefits for the Brits to act as US proxies.In effect the Brits can leverage US assets and resources by acting as a US proxy. (Let’s not forget that the Brits put up 10,000 troops while the US put up 100,000 troops in Iraq … yet the Brits are ‘overseeing’ Southern Iraq where 50% of Iraq’s Oil reserves sit….what a heavy price US is paying for needing a friend? (Dumb Americans)!!Now that North Sea oil is dwindling, nothing would make the Brits happier than helping to destabilize the regime in Iran and possibly breaking up the country to grab a big chunk of Iran’s oil reserves (as in Iraq). The Mullahs have read Britain’s hands and are doing everything they can do to survive. They are ready for another 444 days of hostage captivation. There will be countless ‘false intermediaries’ put up by the Iranians with ‘imminent’ promises of a release. There will be a great deal of ‘bravado’ and ‘rhetoric’ from both sides. Given their survival so far and their sheer political brilliance … maybe the Mullahs will come out with one over the Brits! They want a repeat of 1980!Then again, maybe not! Blair is no Jimmy Carter. He is not a fool. He has already hit the Mullah’s hard by asking Turkey to mediate. The Mullahs in turn rejected Turkey’s participation. If relations between Turkey and Iran are impacted by this crisis, Iran’s whole ‘ground supply route’ from Europe that runs through Turkey will be threatened … which could be disastrous for Iran. The saga will go on for sure. Put on your seatbelts and hang on tight for another ride.Dr. Jalil Bahar – March 29th, 2007

www.faceofiran.com

Former Iranian Diplomat, now retired real estate investor in Delaware

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

12 comments

American against War and Violence. Writer, English Teacher, Inventor, Creator of the First Manmade Floating Farm On The Ocean.... My companies name is ACET: Algae Charcoal Ethanol Technicorp. We grow Algae for Oil.
Dom JermanoAmerican against War and Violence. Writer, English Teacher, Inventor, Creator of the First Manmade Floating Farm On The Ocean.... My companies name is ACET: Algae Charcoal Ethanol Technicorp. We grow Algae for Oil.

Iran Is Not The Enemy!

Maybe a blessing in disguise? I firmly believe the present American government is responsible and are behind 911 in setting it up. I do not believe the story of hijackers. I think it was really a broad plan that included gaining power and control of American resources, to include the heist of 30 billion from the vaults at ground zero, and to take more resources which were in neighboring Iraq, near Kuwait. Of course Kuwam Inc. is involved. It is why they fear this Iran nuclear standoff, and N. Korea's development?

You bring so many obvious points that the mainstream media do not disclose. In fact Bush Sr. is as much involved. His wifes Barbara's father owned oil wells in Kuwait. That was never disclosed to the American public prior to the first invasion in forcing Iraq out of Kuwait, in which Kuwait was originally Iraqs, before being stolen from them during the opium trading days with China.

You neither mention Halliburton. I wonder if Kuwam has ties with Halliburton?

911 I think was a bank robbery. The N.Tower although hit first fell last. The S. Tower is obviously the location near WTC 5 & 4 that vaulted the bullion. In fact I think they made a mistake when the first plane hit the N.Tower thinking it was the S. Tower. It burned for 30 minutes until the 2nd plane hit. They needed to implode the S. Tower building first to see where the debris spanned out, since it was closer to building 5&4. They had to get the bullion out via tunnel exits! When they saw exits were not blocked by falling debris and it was clear which took about 30 minutes they imploded the N. Tower to really bring upon the chaos and confusion. Guiliani was on the ground making sure everything was going as planned.This is when they took out the money. I think it took about 7 hours to do, and when they couldn't fit anymore in their vehicles inside the tunnel they left the scene, boom boom crackle building WTC7 was demolished. That was the headquarters, and I believe Guiliani and Silverstein are instrumental players in the plan.

It is plain to see why Guiliani wanted to hurry up with the cleanup project, and Larry's order to pull WTC 7. Those buildings were full of asbestos. They knew the health risks, if that information got out, and the huge losses they would suffer in trying to sell the buildings. So they found insurance companies who would insure the buildings. In fact they made more from the insurance policies than the loss paid for the lease agreements. With the bullion haul, they made out pretty good.

I a fellow American left the US really sad about the whole affair. How could Americans kill other Americans? Humanity is that cruel and desperate? How to solve the mystery? I think people should organize an underground investigation and really disengage with the American system until these people are brought to justice, with a real 911 investigation, with answers to the questions we have. . There should be underground awards of money to entice people who worked on the plan who would be willing to provide more evidence to the Bush setup. I think someone would come out if the price was right, to bring that whole Bush of Cards family out in the open for their crimes.

In the mean time I have created an idea that would provide our energy needs in the world, because with the war, the loss of life in Iraq, I can never bring myself to be part of the American family sucking the oil that they plan to get rich on in the US economy from Iraq. It is quite problematic for many people I think. You can see my website: http://www.sugarcitycane.com

Maybe my company will be born from people who see its good and value, as they disengage from the greedy murderers in the US. I only hope you might share this with others, so they know hope is still there. We do not need to be controlled by the high tech security lairs, by sucking up Iraqi Oil, to bring their plans to pass. Iran is closer to being our friend in this mess than people really care to believe.

Thanks for your insight,

Sincerely,

Dominic Jermano CEO: Charcoal Ethanol Organization, Creator of SugarCityCane the first City built on the Ocean.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Friday, March 30, 2007 at 8:29:33 AM

Emily saw her first article in print 71 years ago. Subsequently, twenty-six earned awards. Mike Lowry, Stew Udall, then Secretary of the Interior, read her work in Congress Recently, Emily stopped when a voice called, ?Wait, I know who you are!? The caller explained, ?When I was 6 years old and my brother was 12, we spent Sunday morning sprawled on his bed reading your column. Now when I can?t stand the world as it is, I read them again.Grasping Emily's hand, she whispered."Thank you.? In 19...

to see more of bio, click on member name
emily horswillEmily saw her first article in print 71 years ago. Subsequently, twenty-six earned awards. Mike Lowry, Stew Udall, then Secretary of the Interior, read her work in Congress Recently, Emily stopped when a voice called, ?Wait, I know who you are!? The caller explained, ?When I was 6 years old and my brother was 12, we spent Sunday morning sprawled on his bed reading your column. Now when I can?t stand the world as it is, I read them again.Grasping Emily's hand, she whispered."Thank you.? In 19...

to see more of bio, click on member name

IRAN IS NOT THE ENEMY

THANK YOU for shedding so much knowledge. Perhaps your words carry enough weight to force an investigation: not a real investigation, since the Bush Crime Ring has managed to keep any "investigation" simply a slap in the mug for any citizen -an embarrassment. On top of that they have succeeded in changing the subject. We need to focus on opening 911 to world inspection. Dr. EmilyHorswill

by emily horswill (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Friday, March 30, 2007 at 11:35:43 AM

I am a simple man of eclectic interests and tastes with no particular academic credentials. I still perceive, think, read and write somewhat. Writing music is a hobby of mine

banned for abusive email to an editor
"Hoss" David P.I am a simple man of eclectic interests and tastes with no particular academic credentials. I still perceive, think, read and write somewhat. Writing music is a hobby of mine

banned for abusive email to an editor

The OIL,,

Mr. Bahar's article gives so many hints that I'm sure he believes there is a nexus of complicity between IRAN, UK and USA that runs through from Carter to the present.

The most obvious benefit to all 3 in the current "staged" high profile "nukuler" conflict and the latest hostage charade is indeed the Price of OIL on the, to anyone with a brain can clearly see, RIGGED open oil markets. How does it work? Contrived event with Media complicity and of course the obligatory resultant "fears" in the oil markets. LIke Dr. Bahar points out, BP, Shell and Iranian & USA oil and well all the rest of the Global Oil "Company" Monopoly are all connected and benefitting HUGELY$$$$$$.

IS it a stretch to imagine that the original Iranian Hostage crisis was staged with USA complicity considering the contacts brought to light in this article? I think you can look at all the seeming disconnected "events" that brought down Jimmy Carter and get a true picture of the power structure running this world and how it operates. And this even includes Castro and now Chavez. Chavez benefits from OIL fears just like BP and EXXON etc.

Divide the masses along artificial ideological, religious or racial lines and use the divisions to control everything from commodity prices down to the lives of individuals unfortunate enough not to be able to extricate themselves from the propaganda and reality constructions of these Global controllers.

FREEDOM is for the Intelligent. But even the Intelligent who drive a car are paying these manipulated OIL prices.

by "Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 338 comments) on Friday, March 30, 2007 at 11:47:40 AM

Eileen is a mother, progressive activist, and nuclear policy advisor with Acting for a Greener World, a program of the Blue Sky Institute.
Eileen McCabeEileen is a mother, progressive activist, and nuclear policy advisor with Acting for a Greener World, a program of the Blue Sky Institute.

And What About Legitimate Iranian Grievances

You fail to mention several things in your article, such as the recent seizure of 6 Iranian diplomats within Iraqi borders by the US. One has been returned, both the status and whereabouts of the other 5 are unknown. There is quibbling over whether the diplomats had particular credentials, but the mainstream media is largely silent over this issue. While reports vary over whose waters the British sailors and marines were in, one thing is clear; the waters are disputed. The Treaty of Algiers of 1975 divided the Shatt al-Arab down the center, but after Saddam Hussein tore it up in 1980, it has been disputed. While the UK says that the United Nations has said that they have permission to patrol these waters, how can they recognize a border that Iran and Iraq cannot agree on? Patrolling these waters is asking for trouble.

Historically, Iran has many grievances against against the US and UK, dating back to the early 20th century, including abuses by the petroleum companies, the overthrow of democratically elected prime minister Mossadeq, the blowing up of a civilian airliner, the collaboration with Saddam Hussein to use chmical weapons that killed tens of thousands of Iranians. Some of these grievances were recently recounted by the Iranian ambassador to the UN, after the UN passed another set of sanctions against Iran.

The US has bullied other nations into agreeing to UN sanctions against Iran for pursuing uranium enrichment, a technology to which they have the "inalienable right" under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US and UK on the other hand are flagrantly violating the NPT by developing new nuclear weapon systems, instead of eliminating their stockpiles, and the US is trying to enter into an agreement with India to exchange nuclear technology. Exchanging nuclear technology with a non-signatory to the NPT is expressly forbidden by that treaty. Where are the sanctions against the US or UK? The US has spurned attempts at deep diplomacy offered through the Swiss ambassador, which included a recognition of Israel. Do I want to see nuclear weapons in Iran? No. However, the US and UK need to recognize the rights of the Iranian government, and engage in good faith diplomacy based on respect and mutual gain. All the Bush/Blair posturing is doing is leading us towards catastrophic confrontation.

by Eileen McCabe (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Friday, March 30, 2007 at 5:17:17 PM

UK Admitts tresspass.

One of the british soldiers detained by the Iranians came forward and admitted they were trespassing.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Friday, March 30, 2007 at 8:31:51 PM

Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me
pratliff94Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me

2007 Britain is much different than 1979 USA.

Right off hand without thinking a lot about it, I would say Britain needs to forget the hostages and do like Israel would do if Iran had captured fifteen Israeli sailors. Britain is foolish if she agrees to any blackmail.

If we had not invaded Iraq and destroyed the only counter balance to the radical Islamist in control of Iran, the Iranian people would be much better off than they are today. It is amazing how the Bush Administration could have misread the situation so badly. Turkey is ready to pounce on the Kurds, and Iran will dominate Iraq in the foreseeable future while a very uneasy Sunni world is watching in fear.

The present Iranian government is the enemy of their own Iranian people. They are responsible for over 100,000 executions in the last twenty-five years inside Iran. Here is hoping a new day of freedom comes for the Iranian people whose history goes back so far in time. Arabs hate Persians and Shiites hate Sunnis or is the other way around. No it is both ways. Hate is devouring that whole region.

Having said these things, the United States needs to leave it up the Iranian people to deal with their own problems by keeping our nose out of their affairs.

As far as Britain responding to Iran, it is a much different ball game than when President Carter dealt with the "new" Islamic radical government. He thought he could win by being diplomatic. He could not and neither can Britain. Carter did not dare to intervene militarily since the United States was not five years removed from the Vietnam debacle. Britain has no such qualms and has the assets to move against Iran in every way possible: diplomatically, economically and militarily. The English lion still has a few claws and teeth left. It would not be surprising to see her using them by blockading everything entering and leaving Iran.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 970 comments) on Friday, March 30, 2007 at 8:45:31 PM

I'm a 57 year old Australian Vietnam Veteran, currently living in Australia.Spent the last 30 years as a Locomotive engineer and Union official negotiating with various Federal and State Govt authorities in that capacity.Pet hate are bullies of any nature/nationality, life's goal is to destroy/ridicule/minimise damage done by such people.
Eddy SchmidI'm a 57 year old Australian Vietnam Veteran, currently living in Australia.Spent the last 30 years as a Locomotive engineer and Union official negotiating with various Federal and State Govt authorities in that capacity.Pet hate are bullies of any nature/nationality, life's goal is to destroy/ridicule/minimise damage done by such people.

Hostage Crisis Repeated

Jalil Bahar,

Sorry mate, your words simply do not wash with this reader.

It was not the Iranian people who declared war against Iraq, it was not the Iranians who supplied Saddam with the where withal to wage said war.

Iran has not exported terrorism and murder under the pretext of Democracy.

It was not Iran that breached U.N. protocols by invading a member country.

Iran has NO history of such nefarious events, on the otherhand, the history books are full of such events committed by their biggest detractors the U.S.

I found this article insulting my imtelligence with it's implications that some how the Iranians have World designs at their hearts, which is clearly, a terrible lie.

We all know what nation has that goal as it's motivation, their PANPAC policy spells it out word for word.

Maybe Mr Bahar should aquaint himself with said policy ?

by Eddy Schmid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 212 comments) on Saturday, March 31, 2007 at 5:14:38 AM

Me, Myself & I.
palmer bladosMe, Myself & I.

The Education of Iran

A sobering reminder of just how much Carter is responsible for Iran's now sclerotic but still tenacious mullahocracy comes from Steven F. Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute in his new book, "The Real Jimmy Carter" (Regnery).

The Khomeini revolution was the first success of this newly assertive movement on a national scale – and its effects on the global movement have been incalculable.

And Carter was instrumental in this victory. Hayward tells the full story of how Carter, through passivity and indecision, allowed the situation in Iran to drift out of control. He notes that Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and the American ambassador in Tehran, William Sullivan, "repeatedly assured Pahlavi that the U.S. backed him fully, but in fact that backing extended little beyond private verbal cheerleading."

What's more, despite the fact that Islamic radicalism was 50 years old by the time Khomeini became a serious threat to the Shah, and that Khomeini himself had been a political force in Iran for years before he came to power, "the CIA," says Hayward, "not only hadn't read any of Khomeini's writings but didn't even have copies of them." As one State Department official put it, "Whoever took religion seriously?"

According to Hayward, "Neither the State Department nor the intelligence community took Islamic fundamentalism seriously, while American scholars on Iran deprecated the idea that the clergy would participate directly in forming or running a government." The chief of staff to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, William Miller, even recommended that the U.S. support Khomeini, who he thought would be a "progressive force for human rights."

Manifesting the same misunderstanding of the real nature of Islamic radicalism that still dogs the State Department and other agencies today, Brzezinski embarked on a plan to strengthen Islamic radicalism for the geopolitical ends of the day. According to political analysts and Iran experts Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi and Elio Bonazzi, Brzezinski "instituted a plan to train fundamentalist Afghan Islamic mujahedeen fighters in Pakistan under CIA supervision" – for which Carter's successor Ronald Reagan is often blamed.

Zand-Bonazzi and Bonazzi also point out that "the other major Islamist terrorist force active today is also the product of misguided policies of the Carter administration, which deliberately destroyed the Shah of Iran and allowed the Islamic Revolution to take place. Hamas and Hezbollah are direct emanations of the Islamic Republic of Iran, responsible for killing hundreds of Americans (recall the 1984 attacks on the U.S. embassy and the Marine barracks in Beirut) and Israelis." Although Hamas and Hezbollah existed before Khomeini, he was instrumental in their becoming and remaining significant forces.

And Khomeini owed his own political life to Carter. As the peanut president himself put it when Pahlavi made a final appeal for help to regain his throne in February 1979, "F--k the Shah."

The bottom line? "Khomeini's regime," says Hayward, "executed more people in its first year in power than the shah's SAVAK had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years." Whether Khomeini in the early '80s sent a thank-you note to the man now basking in glory as "America's greatest ex-president," who was by then down in Plains licking his wounds and beginning his path to the Nobel Prize, is not known.

by palmer blados (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, March 31, 2007 at 9:05:59 AM

The author lives in a small village in central Europe and has been active in the local workers movement for nearly 3 decades.

Globalism knows no borders, why should we ?
Tony ForestThe author lives in a small village in central Europe and has been active in the local workers movement for nearly 3 decades.

Globalism knows no borders, why should we ?

Reading is fun

and there are a few different way of reading. On eway is to read and then sit back and identify the general feeling the material had upon one's self. Reading what this author wrote gave me the feeling he would like to see the US invade / drop bombs on Iran.

Not good.

And I don't care where you're coming from. I could care less what you've been through. Nothing, but absolutely nothing makes any one of us an expert in being the ones to call for war based on our history.

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments) on Saturday, March 31, 2007 at 3:02:11 PM

Jon Harrison is a freelance writer living in Vermont.
Jon HarrisonJon Harrison is a freelance writer living in Vermont.

The Education of Iran

This comment is very good, as far as it goes. No question but that we would've been better off in 1979, and better off today, if we'd kept the Shah in power. There is a further point, however, and it is that in 1953 we (the Americans and the Brits) overthrew the democratically elected government of Muhammed Mossadegh in Iran. We have been paying for that mistake since the advent of the "Islamic Republic" 1979. Had we let Iranian democracy mature, rather than nipping it in the bud, we'd probably have a stable and friendly government in Iran today.

One further point: the author of the article upon which we are all commenting asserts that Carter, in effect, provoked Saddam's invasion of Iran in 1980. Is anyone aware of any real, factual evidence pointing to U.S. instigation of the 1980 Iraqi invasion of Iran?

by Jon Harrison (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments) on Saturday, March 31, 2007 at 6:16:00 PM

Former Iranian Diplomat, now retired real estate investor in Delaware
Jalil BaharFormer Iranian Diplomat, now retired real estate investor in Delaware

Response to your question

There are in fact many sources for this fact (that Carter precipitated Saddam's Iran Invasion) -- but I would direct you initially to Robert Parry's website (Consortium News). He was an investigative journalist with Newsweek and Frontline. He recieved copies of Alexander Haig's memos to Ronald Reagan after his visit to Saudi Arabia -- where he was specifically told by the Saudi's that they were asked to convey Carter's request to Saddam Hussein in August of 1980 (during Saddam Hussein's first state visit to Saudi Arabia). And moreover, were asked to provide loan guarantees and further assistance to Saddam in support of the invasion. The Saudi's (as you know) do not even go to the bathroom without checking in ... with their masters.

by Jalil Bahar (19 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Sunday, April 8, 2007 at 10:22:11 AM

I Don't Like Ike

I take issue with the notion that Jimmy Carter is responsible for the Iran mess. In fact it began with Eisenhower who authorized the over throw of the Prime Minister

Iran's Mohammed Mossadegh. And if anyone is to assert blame; is the fact that millions of Iranians were starving and held hostage to Britains deal called the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), the British had a monopoly on the transporting pumping, and refining of oil in the majority of Irans borders. Britains greed caused this. I am surprised Eisenhower did not see the comparison with our own Revolution with the Brits during early America. But it was I Like Ike who is responsible for the mess we are in today.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Tuesday, April 3, 2007 at 8:11:50 AM