We just don't get it.

The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we

are in, in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that
George W. Bush, the so-called "dim-witted cowboy," has created the entire mess. The
truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of
the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in
the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah
Khomeini.

MICHAEL D. EVANS, the Jerusalem Post - Jun. 20, 2007

Most events in history happen for a reason or other events trigger them and of course,
most political events can be traced back to their origins if studied closely. It’s easy to
speculate for pundits and commentators but students of history have an obligation to
learn them, inspect them and unearth these events on a factual basis. This paper will try to
discuss the links between Carter’s foreign policy and the rise of the Islamic revolution in
Iran.

President Jimmy Carter was elected as the 39th President of the United States during the
time when the American people were confused and felt betrayed by President Nixon’s
Watergate scandal and the political failure of the Vietnam War. Carter did sound like a
reasonable man at a time when America was in her darkest hour and people thought this
man of moral conviction could lead them through their national nightmares. He narrowly
defeated President Gerald Ford. But it all turned out to be a disaster for both the United
States and the world as a whole. He had too many issues to deal with, from sky high
inflation, energy crisis to Panama Canal dispute, Soviet-US talks and of course the
Iranian revolution and its terrible hostage crisis.

Jimmy Carter was unsuccessful in doing what he had promised to deliver and his lack of
leadership in foreign policy and national politics resulted in a disastrous political defeat
for his party and himself in November 1980.

1
When Jimmy Carter entered the political fray in 1976, America was still riding the liberal
wave of anti-Vietnam War emotions and numerous mistakes made during the Nixon
presidency. In his Inaugural Speech on 20th of Jan, 1977, Carter revealed his stance on
human rights and served notice:

“Our moral sense dictates a clear-cut preference for these societies which
share with us an abiding respect for individual human rights. We do not seek to
intimidate, but it is clear that a world which others can dominate with impunity
would be inhospitable to decency and a threat to the well being of all people.”1

Carter’s pro Human Rights campaign shocked the foundations of many American allies
including the late Shah of Iran who was running an ancient country with cultural and
historical complications that needed time to be corrected. The Iranian Constitutional
Revolution had already taken place in 1905 and the democratic experience of the society
was almost new and in its baby steps. The problems on the ground had been created over
a long period of time and over centuries. The country had been a battleground for
invading armies from Alexander to Arabs and Mongols. Invading armies came in, sacked
the people and imposed their own will and culture by force. Iran has had a long history
behind herself and reforms of any sort couldn’t happen over night. It did need time to be
corrected and most of the time revolutions are not a good answer to the problems that run
deep in the social fabrics of the land. Prime examples were Russia and France where
revolutions produced tyrannies one after another.

According to “Answer to History”, the late Shah of Iran had promised to have full
democratic elections and reforms well by the year 1981.2

What happened in Iran in the late 1970's and the resulting takeover of the Islamic
extremists is a very complex issue. It is a culmination of many variables including social,
political, cultural, religious, economic and strategic, both domestically (Iran) and
internationally (U.S. and Europeans). The late Shah of Iran was an authoritarian ruler, but
1
Inaugural address of Jimmy Carter on 20th of Jan, 1977 via Carter’s Presidential library
2
Answer to History by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, 1981

2
not a tyrant. He was not like Saddam, Idi Amin, and Fidel Castro or like Khomeini and
his thugs, absolutely not. He was a patriot and seen as one among many Iranians and a
true one at that, for things he did to upgrade the lives of ordinary Iranians and
modernizing an old country he inherited. The social and mostly political problems were
not genuine excuses for a revolution like that of Iran in 1978-79 periods. If the protesters
were honest in their democratic demands, then the late PM Bakhtiar delivered them. Most
of their demands were met by him such as disbanding the SAVAK, and trying those who
were suspected of being corrupt, but the protestors didn’t quite want to reform the
regime. They were driven by their religious beliefs that Shah was “the corrupt on earth”
and had to be removed.

There are evidences pointing to the fact that Shah was not a dictator as many tend to
believe. One of them is the fact that unlike other ruthless dictators of the 20 th century,
Shah didn’t limit the interaction of his people with the outside world. Indeed, he
encouraged it to such a degree that he set up scholarships in order for Iranian students to
study abroad. His government was a western oriented ally and a member of NATO’s
CENTO pact. He didn’t try to build walls around his country, limiting his people’s access
to the free world the way Soviets, Eastern European dictators or Cuba have done. No
mass graves trailed the late Shah when he finally left the country in January, 1979. No
"death caravans" haunted his memory though. Tehran produced no equivalent of Buenos
Aires "Plaza de Mayo" where "grandmas" gather every Sunday to reclaim news of their
missing children. To be sure the military courts were quick to hand in the death sentences
to the opposition, but the practice of royal pardon was abundantly resorted to and
practiced. The sentences were systematically commuted or annulled. Some viewed this
practice as a gimmick to earn political capital but be it as it may, few now dispute the fact
that the Shah was averse to cruelty or execution.

When President Carter took office in 1977, “the Iran of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi
was a staunch American ally, a bulwark in the standoff with the Soviet Union, thwarting
the dream held since the time of the czars of pushing south toward the warm waters of the

3
appropriately named Persian Gulf. Being an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War, Iran was a
target for Soviet subversion and espionage”. 3

Like the U.S. in today's war on terror, Iran arrested and incarcerated many who
threatened its sovereignty and existence, mainly Soviet agents and their collaborators. To
support the fact that the Shah’s regime did not kill or torture hundreds of thousands of
people, as many claim nowadays, I’d draw your attention to works of Iranian author and
historian ‘Emad Baghi’ who in August 2003 published his works on the number of
casualties suffered by the anti-monarchy movement. Rumors, exaggerated claims by the
leaders of the Islamic revolution and a disinformation campaign against the fallen
monarchy, not to mention western media reports that the imperial Iranian regime was
guilty of "mass murders", has finally been challenged by a former researcher at the
‘Martyrs Foundation’ (Bonyad Shahid). The findings by Emad Baghi, now a respected
historian, has caused a stir in the Islamic Republic for it boldly questions the true number
of casualties suffered by the anti-Shah movement between 1963 and 1979. Mr. Baghi
states: 4
“The statistical breakdown of victims covering the period from 1963 to 1979
adds up to a figure of 3,164. Of this figure 2,781 were killed in nation-wide disturbances
of 1978/79 following clashes between demonstrators and the Shah's army and security
forces.”

Despite this revelation all officially sanctioned books in Iran and other publishing around
the world dealing with the history of the Islamic revolution write of "15,000 dead and
wounded". Such wild figures have found its way in Western accounts. The irony here is
that when Khomeini overthrew the shah in February 1979, many of the former 3,000
political prisoners allegedly detained by the Shah’s security forces were executed by the
ayatollah's firing squads along with some other 20,000 pro-Western Iranians and ex-shah
army generals and ministers. And according to the book ‘The Real Jimmy Carter’, it is
believed that revolutionary regime executed more people in its first two years in power

3
Profiles in Incompetence: Jimmy Carter. Investor’s Business Daily newspaper, May 2007

4
A Question of Number:. http://www.emadbaghi.com/en/archives/000592.php Published in August 2003

4
than the Shah's SAVAK had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years. Mr. Baghi further
states:

“In any case, the total [number] of those killed for underground actions against the
Shah's regime comes to 383 which added to the 2,781 "martyrs" would mean that 3,164
Iranians lost their lives in the revolution against the monarchy and not 60,000 as the
Imam had stated. In time, other historians may take up the task of finding the truth about
the countless people executed or eliminated during the brutal years rule of the mullahs.”5

However, all these facts did not sit well with the Carter administration, who, on taking
office, declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. The shah
was one of his first targets. Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 "political"
prisoners. The fact was that the Islamic clergy hated the shah not because he was an
oppressive dictator. They hated him because he was a secular, pro-Western leader who, in
addition to other initiatives, was expanding the rights and roles of women in Iranian
society. Under Khomeini, women returned to their second-class role, and citizens were
arrested for merely owning satellite dishes that could only pick up Western television
channels. The land reforms made the traditional clergy angry and took the main source of
income of the rural mullahs away from them. According to Comparative Education6, the
shah’s land reform took away the entire traditional clerical establishment by surprise
when he declared his “White Revolution”. Up until 1962, Islamic clergies had the
opportunity to be the judge, teacher and even medical doctor of far-distant villages of the
country and could earn good sums of money by doing these jobs without being trained
and educated enough to do so. The land reforms of the Shah’s government made them
despise the entire system for taking their source of income away. 7

Indeed the late Shah of Iran made some notable mistakes and a few grave ones. He
should have been more aware and in tune with the needs of his people rather than being

5
Ibid
6
The Shah's White Revolution-Education and Reform in Iran - Keith Watson - Vol. 12, No. 1 (Mar., 1976),
pp. 23-36
7
Eternal Iran; P 69-71 A publication of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy

5
so single minded in implementing his vision for a secular and modern Iran. It was a
vision being implemented too quickly and not aligned with the cultural and social
maturity of the Iranian population. His Majesty the late Shah of Iran once said that the
single unifying point for Iran was "the King, the Monarch". That’s partly true. But,
equally, the other unifying point, certainly at that time for Iran, was religion - i.e. Shiite
Islam. Perhaps not among a few educated, westernized Iranians, but certainly for the
majority of average people there. Progress is a great thing provided your average
population’s mindset can keep up with it. It’s true that Iran’s economic and industrial
modernization was not matched by a political modernization. One of the most notable
mistakes of the Shah was that he didn’t truly permit the middle class he helped create in
late 60s and early 70s, to participate in political process. The late Shah of Iran saw his
economic and industrial success as the sole proof of his wisdom. That’s where he was
wrong. The overall economic record of the period 1953-1979 was stunning. An IMF
report confirms it:

“During 1960-76, Iran enjoyed one of the fastest growth rates in the world. The economy
grew at an average rate of 9.8 percent in real terms, and real per capita income grew by
7 percent on average.” 8

People tend to forget that the Shah’s reign brought modernity and social changes to the
country but again many are quick to criticize the SAVAK. Righteously, the security
apparatus of the government, for its deadly contribution to the collapse of the Shah’s
regime, deserves its own fair share of criticism. The SAVAK blended ruthlessness with
sheer incompetence. It had been effective in dismantling the clandestine structure of
Iran's Communist Party (Tudeh party) in late 1950s but failed to gauge the creeping
popular discontent, fanned by Marxist groups like the Mojahedin e Khalq (MEK) and
Marxist Fedayeen. The SAVAK’s pure incompetence forced many to turn to more
extreme factions to fight the monarchy. The Shah would pay dearly for his failure to
permit a more democratic opposition. A case study would support a theory that the value
accorded to any given regime should be measured in light of its inevitable successor and

8
Answer to History, authored by the late Shah of Iran 1980

6
the ability of the latter to improve conditions and ills of which they accused the
predecessors. Jimmy Carter’s mistakes were much graver than the Shah’s.
The main difference is that Carter's mistakes have affected the world today. By not
supporting the Shah, and by enabling Khomeini’s hands, Carter's actions gave birth to
what we call Islamic Fundamentalism today. The alliance of the Reds (Communists) and
Blacks (Islamists) contributed to the Shah's downfall and was emboldened by one single
factor that was President Carter’s ignorance of the problems on the ground and not using
diplomatic tools properly to enforce his vision. It’s right to claim that his ignorance later
came to deny him a second presidential term in 1980 elections. The US government run
by Jimmy Carter gave little useful advice to the Shah during the turmoil of 1978-79. In
mid December of 1978, Ambassador Helms, the former US ambassador to Iran and
former head of CIA, weighed in, saying: “Washington’s response to developments in Iran
is lethargic and uncomprehending.”9

Carter’s mishandling of the Iranian revolution and backstabbing of the Persian monarch
emboldened the Soviets to invade Afghanistan, and also sent confusing signals to other
US allies in the world. He should have known at the time that the soviets were intimately
and actively involved in getting rid of the Shah. It’s hard to believe that he didn’t know
and not only allowed it to happen, but enabled it so that he could get rid of the Shah and
replace him with this religious man, Khomeini. President Carter’s administration hardly
knew what to do with Iran. It was unable to adjust itself in dealing with the situation and
what the US government couldn’t comprehend was that the cement holding the
Communists and Islamic clerics together was their shared hatred for America. Carter’s
foreign policy makers didn’t see that clearly.10 To make matters worse, CIA had failed to
see the seriousness of the challenges posed by the anti-American elements of the society
to the US interests in Iran and the Mideast region.

One other issue that Carter’s administration was unable to comprehend was the fact that
the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-1980 had almost nothing to do with the 1953 coup

9
A look over my shoulders, A life in CIA by Richard Helms; pp 417-418
10
I Accuse: Jimmy Carter & the Rise of Militant Islam by Philip Pilevsky. Durban House, Published July
2007, pp 87-88

7
against Prime Minister Mossadeq. This argument made by the Iranian militants who had
taken over the US Embassy in Tehran was historically inaccurate. Mossadeq was not
elected by popular vote to the post of prime minister. In fact he was appointed to run the
cabinet by the Shah.11 In summer of 1953 when he was asked to step down, he refused.
Therefore Mohammed Reza Pahlavi had to have the military remove the very man he had
appointed to premiership a few years back.12 This was the basic argument for the
ayatollahs during the hostage crisis of 1979 and was the Iranians’ grievance, but the truth
was that it painted a false picture and confused the naïve western audience including the
US President Carter who didn’t like the previous US foreign interventions around the
world including those that were made by the Republican administrations. However,
Khomeini by taking the US embassy staff as hostages and keeping them for 444 long
days was up to an ugly game: Eradicating those who were secular and/or liberals and
those that his regime didn’t like, including Prime Minister Bazargan, Foreign Minister
Qotbzadeh and other nationalist and secular forces that once were his allies. President
Carter’s foreign policy-makers did not understand that by hostage taking, Khomeini and
his followers were into removing the very allies Carter had earlier hoped to be in charge
of Iran. He did not predict it and did not actually plan for the consequences that would
follow after the Shah was out of the picture.

What would have happened if the Shah had remained in power? If the Shah remained in
power, and the U.S. supported his successor when he died, it isn't likely the Iraq-Iran
War, with upward of a million casualties on both sides, a war that saw Saddam Hussein
first use mass-murder weapons, would have taken place. Nor is it likely there would
have been a Desert Storm, fought after Saddam invaded Kuwait to strengthen his
strategic position in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait definitely led
to foundation of American military bases in Saudi Arabia that fueled radical Muslims’
resentment, one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden for attacking America through
out the 1990s and on September 11th. The Soviet Union, seeing the US so willingly
abandon a staunch ally, invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, just six months after
11
Amir Taheri, The Persian Night: Iran under the Khomeinist Revolution. Encounter Books, 2009, ISBN
978-1594032400
12
Mark J. Gasiorowski, The 1953 Coup D'État in Iran, International Journal of Middle East studies, Vol.
19, No. 3, p. 261–86 (1987)

8
Carter and Russian leader Leonid Brezhnev embraced after signing a new arms-control
treaty. The reaction of Carter to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the
1980 Moscow Olympic. It made the United States look weak in the eyes of its allies and
enemies. Khomeini established the first modern Islamic regime, a role model for the
Taliban and other Islamic militants to follow. And when the U.S. Embassy was stormed
on 4th of November 1979 and more than 60 Americans taken hostage for 444 days,
America's lack of resolve was confirmed in the Jihadists’ mind. They saw first hand that
US dared not to respond.

One might pose the question whether President Carter was scared of the Soviets or did
not want to get into any conflict with the Russians. On November 19th, 1978 the Soviet
leader Berzhenev issued a stern warning to Jimmy Carter about the consequences of any
US intervention to save the Shah:

“It must be clear that any interference, especially military interference in the affairs of
Iran …would be regarded as a matter affecting security interests of the Soviet Union.
The events taking place in that country constitutes purely internal affairs, and the
questions involved them should be decided by the Iranians…..”13

The response from Carter was a weak response issued by the US State Department:
“The United States does not intend to interfere in the affairs of another country.”14

Foreign observers were entitled to conclude that the US had deserted her long time ally
and Carter didn’t want to demonstrate to the Soviets that his country is willing to back
one of his country’s most reliable allies in that important corner of the world. Jimmy
Carter simply didn’t want to challenge the Soviets on the issue of Iran either. The
invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in 1979 caused the US to rush to contain the
threat of Communism in South and Central Asia again in 1980s. Aided and directed by
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan’s intelligence services, the US had to fund the Mujahedeen for

13
I Accuse: Jimmy Carter & the Rise of Militant Islam by Philip Pilevsky. Durban House, Published July
2007, pp 86
14
Ibid

9
ten bloody years. These foreign fighters later, empowered by the defeat of the Soviet
Union – the Evil Empire- decided to bite the hand that fed them for the most part of the
1980s. The lack of resolve in handling of the Iranian revolution and the US
Embassy Hostage Crisis gave the ‘green lights’ to other militant groups around the globe
that if the US is attacked, it won’t have the guts to fight back. We saw the similar
incidents happening through out the 1980s until 2001 - A few of them are the US
Marines’ Barracks bombing by the Iranian backed Lebanese Hezbollah in 1983, 1993
attack on WTC in New York City to attacks on the USS Cole in 2000 and finally the
September 11th tragedy. The mistakes made during the 1979 by both sides still haunt us
until today.

And it was the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban and
Al-Qaeda. The fall of Iran, hastened by Jimmy Carter’s diplomatic incompetence, set in
motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in Sept. 11.

British author and commentator Christopher Hitchens recalls a discussion he had with
Eugene McCarthy. A Democrat and former candidate for that party's presidential
nomination, McCarthy voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Carter in 1980. The reason,
McCarthy explained was: “Carter had "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of
the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and
abroad. He was quite simply the worst president we ever had." 15

Mr. Carter could not or did not understand that by playing the “Diplomacy Game” with
the Iranian ayatollahs, he was paying a higher price for the US national and international
interests. His diplomatic gestures were seen as signs of American weakness and demise.
And Islamic terrorists spiritually, politically and financially, emboldened by the late
Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution, had learned that it is possible to take on the Great
Satan and other western powers without the fear of backlash. No one is going to punish
them for their wrong doings. The weakness of the United States, the leader of the free
world, throughout Carter’s presidency resulted in great tragedies. In short, the US didn’t

15
The Real Jimmy Carter by Steven F. Hayward of AEI – Published in May 2004

10
have a capable leader with one voice when more than any other time, unanimity of action
was increasingly essential. If the contradictory policies of the Carter’s administration
were not a calculated move as suggested by many foreign observers, then one can only
conclude that the “US foreign policy establishment had no appropriate mechanism to deal
with the Iranian crises. Considering the abundance of resources available to the US
government in Iran, its ‘loss of Iran’ should be viewed as a masterpiece of flawed and
mistaken diplomacy.” 16

Jimmy Carter's belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy has had many
catastrophic results. What we encounter today as Islamic Terrorism mostly backed by the
current Iranian regime is one of the few gifts of the Carter’s failed foreign policy. Had he
shown resolve in dealing with the 1979 revolution and the US embassy hostage crisis, we
would not be in this mess we are today. Diplomacy is a great tool to enforce your
policies, if other tools of foreign policy including military might and economic incentive
and disincentives correctly back it. Jimmy Carter didn’t apply these tools properly in
order to handle many crises he faced during his 4-year presidency. All the blame does not
lie with Carter’s failure but he played an important role in this.

President Carter failed and his failures still haunts us.

16
Planning Foreign Policy; can it be done? http://www.jstor.org/pss/2149530

11
Bibliography:
1- Rise to Globalism, American foreign policy since 1938. Stephen E. Ambrose
2- President Carter’s biography at Whitehouse.gov official web site
3- Inaugural Address of Jimmy Carter 20th of Jan, 1977 via President Carter’s library and
museum
4- Father of the Iranian revolution, by Michael D. Evans, the Jerusalem Post, 20th of
June 2007
5- Guest of the Ayatollahs, by Mark Bowden – Publisher: Atlantic Monthly Press (April
25, 2006) - Look at http://iran.theatlantic.com/homepage.html
6- Eternal Iran, by Michael Rubin & Patrick Clawson – Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
(November 2005) – The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
7- I Accuse: Jimmy Carter & the Rise of Militant Islam by Philip Pilevsky. Durban
House, Published July 2007
8- A Question of Numbers. Written by the Iranian investigative journalist Mr. Emad
Baghi published on August 8th, 2003. External Link:
http://www.emadbaghi.com/en/archives/000592.php
9- Profiles in Incompetence: Jimmy Carter. Investor’s Business Daily – May 2007
External link: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Special3.aspx
10- The Real Jimmy Carter... Author: Steven F. Hayward, Published in 2004
11- Amir Taheri, The Persian Night: Iran under the Khomeinist Revolution. Encounter
Books, 2009, ISBN 978-1594032400
12- U.S. Foreign Policy since 1945 by Alan P. Dobson, Steve Marsh.
13- Planning Foreign Policy; can it be done? http://www.jstor.org/pss/2149530
14- US Foreign Policy and the Iran Hostage Crisis by David Patrick Houghton.
15- Mark J. Gasiorowski, The 1953 Coup D'État in Iran, International Journal of Middle
East studies, Vol. 19, No. 3, p. 261–86 (1987)
16- The Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1917-1991. A Book by
Ronald E. Powaski; Oxford University Press, 1998

12