Obama's Jimmy Carter Disaster

His advisers appear to adhere only to the obvious immature foreign policy proffered by Jimmy Carter


Obama's Jimmy Carter Disaster
by Slater Bakhtavar

Author bio: Slater Bakhtavar is president and founder of Republican Youth of America, a frequent commentator and respected analyst on foreign policy issues, an attorney with a post-doctoral degree in International law and pursuing his M.B.A.

During the 1970's, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had acceded to the monarchist governmental leadership role present throughout Iran's history, implemented economic, educational and social reforms. In 1971, the Shah and the Iranian people celebrated 2,500 years of Persian Monarchy, and in 1978 the Shah implemented a wave of democratic reforms. The Carter Administration, awkwardly wielding a contorted rhetoric of "human rights" thoughtlessly encouraged the overthrow of the Shah and thereby hastened the arrival of an exiled and obscure cleric Ayatollah Khomeini, and with him the Islamic Republic of Iran.

President Carter's misguided approach to raising human rights (catered to fundamentalists and communists) in the context of US-Iran relations, led to the Shah's fall. Iran then became a theocratic abyss, whose radical fundamentalists tolerated far more abuse and torture of political prisoners than the Shah ever had, and supported a stream of terrorist acts and causes. The individuals who comprise Iran's theocracy are now the worlds, as well as the vast majority of the Iranian people's greatest enemies.

Now, Barack Obama has said that he is inclined to meet with the internationally controversial Iranian President at the right time after due preparation and advance work by US diplomats. Contrary to mainstream media views, the President of Iran is virtually powerless. Any candidate for the presidency of Iran must first be vetted by a hard-line group of twelve clerics who are controlled by the un-elected Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei. During the recent election for President of Iran the members of the Guardian Council disqualified over ninety-eight percent of the candidates, including all female candidates and virtually every single reformist. Hence, although Iran has elections, these elections are simply fodder for the mainstream media, providing straw figures to distract foreign politicians like Barack Obama.

Many of Barack Obama's national security policies are sideways backward-looking and retreads from the Carter Administration. Obama supports direct negotiations with the Iranian theocracy, opposes support for pro-Democracy Iranian groups, and advocates open lines of relation with the most corrupt members of the regime. All this works to legitimize the dictatorship.

The signature moves of Obama are to be too noble for mere politics, but the team of foreign policy security advisers that his administration looks likely to field is the constellation of advisers and policy staff that will render him just another "high-toned liberal" doomed to failure. The Obama team is composed of a combination of the young and inexperienced, a retreads of the usual suspects, characteristic of the Carter and Clinton Administrations, lofted up from poorly grounded gray matter of liberal universities and think tanks. The team members may be united by with good intentions; but without appropriate grounding, they are likely on the road to disappointment and failure.

Among the few prominent figures are Zbigniew Brzezinski who was President Carter's National Security adviser and a veteran of multiple failures in Iran; Lt. General Merrill McPeak, designer of untimely Air Force retrenchment and stillborn change during the Clinton Administration; Gregory Craig, aide to Ted Kennedy and an exuberantly creative Clinton partisan who defended his President at the impeachment; and Susan Rice, the black hole of talk and inaction.

President Bush has consistently reached out to Iranian people, a nation that Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute dubbed the "most pro-American in the entire region, if not the world", and Thomas Friedman of the New York Times called "the ultimate red state.", while the un-elected anti-American government wields a miniscule 15-20% support.

Although we are unsure whether Obama merits to be judged by the company he keeps, his advisers appear to adhere only to the obvious immature foreign policy proffered by Jimmy Carter. In Iran, the Carter Administration helped bring down one of the United States greatest allies and infiltrated modern terrorism. The lack of intellectual and moral clarity about global threats and how America and the freedom seeking people of the people of Iran and other mid-east nations should respond will make them incapable of acting on the crucial deeper game.


Recently by Slater BakhtavarCommentsDate
Green Street
Jun 29, 2009
Carter Administration’s Dilemma: Iran’s Theocracy
Jun 13, 2009
No War, No Surrender
Feb 24, 2009
more from Slater Bakhtavar
programmer craig

PS to sadegh

by programmer craig on

By the way, incase you didn't catch it, it was 1971 when Sadat formally offerred to enter into a peace agreement with Israel, if Israel would agree to return Sinai and the gaza strip to Egypt. In 1978, he got Sinai back, but not Gaza. I bet the israelis really, really wish they had given Sadat Gaza too, way back then.

programmer craig


by programmer craig on


President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt died in September 1970. He was succeeded by Anwar Sadat,
who resolved to fight Israel and win back the territory lost in the
Six-Day War. In 1971, Sadat, in response to an initiative by UN
intermediary Gunnar Jarring, declared that if Israel committed itself to "withdrawal of its armed forces from Sinai and the Gaza Strip" and to implementation of other provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 242
as requested by Jarring, Egypt would then "be ready to enter into a
peace agreement with Israel." Israel responded that it would not
withdraw to the pre-June 5, 1967[8]

Sadat hoped that by inflicting even a limited defeat on the Israelis, the status quo could be altered. Hafiz al-Assad,
the head of Syria, had a different view. He had little interest in
negotiation and felt the retaking of the Golan Heights would be a
purely military option. Since the Six-Day War, Assad had launched a
massive military build up and hoped to make Syria the dominant military
power of the Arab states. With the aid of Egypt, Assad felt that his
new army could win convincingly against the Israeli army and thus
secure Syria's role in the region. Assad only saw negotiations
beginning once the Golan Heights had been retaken by force, which would
induce Israel to give up the West Bank and Gaza, and make other concessions.

I suppose I am an "odd one". I actually read history books. 

That isn't a very good wikipedia article, but I don't have time to do your leg-work. One can hardly read anything about the Yom Kippur war without reading about Sadat's motivations for fighting it, so you shouldn't have much trouble finding better sources.




Islamic Jokers...

by Anonymous Independent (not verified) on


When overwhelmed with 30 years of nothing but disaster as a result of ingenuity of self-proclaimed wise guys of 1970s, Islamists first demonize and dismiss the Monarchy and then ridicule and still dismiss western democracies. I guess we are then left with either theocracy or communism, or maybe they want to reinvent another new system to their liking just like their fabricated the bogus revolution of 1979 and invented the fraudulent islamic republic.

So neither the Monarchy of Sweden is good enough nor the secular Republic of France! Oh, but who cares as long as we have the Theocracy of iran and the socialist of N. Korea!

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! What a bunch of western-uneducated left-overs of the 70s hypocrites. I wonder what the hell islamists are doing in the west lecturing on how bad pre-revolution iran was and how flawed the western democracies are; they should move to either the islamic republic of iran or n. korea!



by sadegh on

Sadat had wanted a peace treaty with Israel since before that war.

How about a citation?? There was nothing inevitable about Camp David...read a little about Sadat and Menachim Begin (a terrorist during the British mandate period)...you shouldn't belittle the achievements of others when you have achieved so little yourself. Very sad, taking a line out of my post and then trying to score cheap and petty points with it...shame you even failed on this count...You're certainly an odd individual with too much time...

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh



Democracy is still a radical ideology and many Islamists fear it

by sdf (not verified) on

The Left, in particular, has forgotten that the United States is a Revolutionary Nation all the way back to its founding. The Right has also forgotten this in the long decades in which an established Nation could wander from its path and yet still be corrected back to it by its People.

Today the People are wandering from the path, the political realm is all over the landscape and those that espouse the basic, and to this day still, Revolutionary outlook of the Founding are now finding resistance to it.

That does not lead to Freedom or Liberty for *anyone* in the long run.

It is a path to Despotism.

A path to Tyranny.

Because bias and Nationalism are perfectly acceptable... if you support the Universal Right of the Individual to come together and form societies and Nations. The Founders worried that this Revolutionary Path would be side-tracked or lose, in the end. Right they were to worry about.

When Bejamin Franklin was asked in 1787 what the New Government would be, his response was clear and succinct: "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."

Best we remember Mr. Franklin editor of the Declaration and Constitution. He realized just how abnormal the United States was and would continue to be.

And the Republic is *still* ours.

If we can keep it.

programmer craig


by programmer craig on

Carter's 'immature' foreign policy brokered Camp David in '78 which
brought peace between Egypt and Israel, and took an essential and
incredibly important step towards peace in the Mid East.

First you accuse the author of bias and ignorance of historical fact, and then you go and say something like this? lol. 

You need to study up on the 1973 Arab Israeli war, and on Sadat. Sadat had wanted a peace treaty with Israel since before that war. And on pretty much exactly the "Camp David" terms. Jimmy Carter's participation in that deal was largely coincidental. He recieves far too much credit for that - his one "accomplishment" in office. A trained monkey could have been President of the US in the late 1970s, and both Egypt and Israel would have still been eager to sign that treaty.



by Zion on

You reckon Carter, being such a great man in your book, also shares your passion for camels?


Fixed link for manufactured

by Anonymousanonymouse (not verified) on

Fixed link for manufactured coup of 1978.

This book by William Engdhall is a Must read for every Iranian. The author is an anti-imperialist:


The author's website:

What really happened to the Shah of Iran:
Excerpts from the book:



Apologists for Islamic Jihad

by Anonymousanonymouse (not verified) on

Apologists for Islamic Jihad are out in full force. Here is a 20-year program of Jihadist for America:

Author sees Islam's 20-year plan for U.S.
Arab-American author outlines secret

20-year strategy to undermine our country



Great article, however,

by anonymousanonymouse (not verified) on

Great article, however, Slater, you need to reference your assertions. Here are some references for you. Make sure you copy them and save them in your files:

Carter's Habitat of inhumanity ...READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE:


Complicity of France in Manufacturing the Iranian Revolution and Jimmy Carter's betrayal of the Iranian People

Manufactured Coup of 1979 Against the Late Shah of Iran

4))Chirac Assisting Khomeini

5))Carter's Doctrine:

6)How Democrats Lost Iran and Now Could Lose Iraq under Obama

Adapted from Dinesh D’Souza’s new book, “The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11” (Doubleday). D’Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.


Today's Shah doesn't look so bad:

Blame President Carter for situation in Iran



Waste of My Time - Also, Mammad Please Read

by Anonymous Observer (not verified) on

Reading this article was the biggest waste of five minutes of my life (and that includes time that I waste surfing YouTube for funny videos). It is to be expected though. Republicans are down in the polls and they are panicking. They will throw the kitchen sink at Obama to make him lose the election. Just wait. The juiciest racial stuff will come out in September / October. The used the same racial tactics against Henry Ford, Jr. close to November, 2006. Their formula is this: throw everything you can at the opponent regardless of the criticism that will follow. All that matters is for us to win. So what if they call us racists? After the elections people will forget all about it and we will be in charge.

On another note, I am glad to see that Mammad is advocating for people outside of the US to speak up about human rights in Iran. I agree! Let's start with you, Mr. Mammad. Why don't you put your obsession with Israel and your conspiracy theories about the Zionist bogeyman aside for a minute, and instead of writing long winded comments on this site about Israel and Muslims, etc.,and write a small piece about the plight of hundreds of thousands of street children in Iran. That is an issue that does not seem to get much attention, and perhaps you can use your PhD skills, and your compassion for the people of Iran in bringing world attention to this tragedy. Here, I have even done some research for you. Here's a 2007 article from the LA Times (BTW, I am not sure if LA Times, like everything else on this planet, is a "Zionist" operation, but I am sure that you will tell us!).


I recall reading your claim that you have educated thousands of American children. Now, here's your chance to take a small step toward helping the children of Iran. I know that they are not from North Tehran or anything, but they still deserve to live like a human being. I will be looking forward to reading your article on this issue, Mr. Mammad.

Mola Nasredeen

Carter replaced the corrupted regime of Nixon's third term

by Mola Nasredeen on

Don't try to frighten us with President Carter. Look at the rest of the ex-presidents. They are all busy filling up their pockets with money while this old man travels all over the world helping people. Go and check what his organization is doing. Look at Habitat for Humanity, building homes for the poor, thousands of them. Look at all the elections that he attends and supervise in the third world. Look at how he stuck out his neck to protest the inhuman, racist treatment of Palestinians by the barbaric regime of Israel in his latest book. Stop scaring us from President Carter. He is a great man.

Now you are advocating McCain to be elected and serve the third term of the Bush administration. Are you kidding us? This is a proven cycle: Republicans come to power and mess up everything in this country. Look at us! we are the laughing stock in the eyes of the world. If republican party had any decency it would not have given us a third rate cheer leader who can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

Democrats have to come and save the country from disasters every time. President Jimmie Carter replaced the corrupted contiuation of Nixon's regime. Do you remember Nixon? President Carter brought back accountability to US government. Obama is no prophet but is bringing a message of hope for change. He will win in a landslide and you republicans go and lick your wounds for while so we could rebuild this country.


To all those equipped with facts, knowledge and logic...

by Internets on

Thank you for your contribution and your excellent material. You have been very informative.

Unfortunately responding to Slater and/or the other demagogue-like trolls in here is like talking to a brick wall. Slater is an antagonist and he is not here to either debate or to learn. Furthermore, he follows the text book strategy of the NeoCons regarding anything that requires substance, by spreading misinformation, lies and fallacies. The bigger the lie, the more chance that it derails a healthy and productive debate.

Whilst it is questionably healthy for Iranian.Com to post articles like this, as it generates website hits as it stirs passion, it is unhealthy for the even keeled people who apply reason to discussions, to engage in any civilized debate with the likes of Slater in here.

JJ has to ask himself this question: how many more great contributors/posters is he prepared to lose, for the sake of pleasing the nut-jobs who now seem to troll this site without any repercussions/recourse from the moderators?. I must again insist that the ideals of "Nothing is sacred" has been diluted because of commercialism on this site. Sad but true ;)



Fossilized in 1979, never to wake up again...

by Free from 1400 years of islamic slavery (not verified) on

Yeah, let's go back to Pahlavi dynasty, imposed on Iran by the British empire in 1921, and then reimposed in 1953 when we Iranians started acting ungratefully.

I wish "the islamic" regime would allow people to vote if they want to go back to pahlavi regime's prosperous days or stay with "islamic" oppression. If some 1970s fossilized islamists living in the west have more empathy with their dead ideology than with people of iran, that does not mean that those "in iran" are equally dumb that have not learned anything from the black coup of 1979 by tools of fraud, lies, and deceit, followed by 30 years of oppression and despair.

As for pahlavi regime being the works of foreigners: they were works of foreign intervention far far less than IRI has been, just that we still do not know the full story behind the coup of 1979. However, nothing in IRI or its 1979 coup has iranian roots and it has done nothing for iran for the past 30 years. They even have to import more than half of their lousy refined gasoline, something that iran never did prior to 1979, and despite 100 years of iranian experience in oil industry. They are the one who care more for arabs than iranians and time and again have been telling us that "islam is what matters" and that they are "muslims first iranian next" and that "persian gulf should be called islamic gulf" and "if only one iranian remains alive, that would be enough for islam" and "he felt nothing after 15 years of exile from iran" (all from ayatollah khomeini the half-indian-half-arab SOB) and they were happy to gift $200M to people of lebonan (from ayatollah karrubi) and on and on. With such overt anti-iraniasm, who needs covert foreign intervention to make IRI work for "everybody" (arabs, indians, chinese, ...) except for iranians.

And without pahlavi regime, we would all be living in iran behind charcoal pot smoking opium in the day and reproducing at night in our harems of four wives and 40 concubines, as our "ghebleh aalam" ghajar role models did.

All of us, including hardcore islamists and leftists, owe our education and comfortable life in the west to pahlavis, like it or not. Without the educational system set up and fully paid by the pahlavis' policies, none of us would have made it to the west to learn how to bite the hands that fed us for the sake of marx or mohammad.


Slater Read this . .

by rather than engage in conspiracy theories. (not verified) on

Slater writes: "However, the same group of converts assisted in the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. "

I cant believe you went to school and you utter such conspiratorial nonsense. Only monarchists residing in LA spew such nonsense because they cant come to grip with the reality that the Shah was hated by the people and kicked out by the people. At same time they dont want to give credit to a 72 year old cleric in leading those people.

But seriously if you mentioned that in any academic circle you would get laughed at. Instead of reading law books, read some books about the ROOTS of the revolution.

I suggest you find this Interview and read it:
The Iranian Revolution: An Oral History with Henry Precht, Then State Department Desk Officer


1. I recall a cable coming in from the Embassy in May 1978 which identified Khomeini, who figured in the troubles but wasn't revered yet as leader of the stature he later acquired. That the Embassy had to identify him in a cable to the Washington audience tells you something about how much we knew about Iranian
internal politics and Khomeini's role in it.

2. Another incident occurred just shortly after I came on board. I was told that Henry Kissinger [former Secretary of State] had just returned from Iran and gotten in touch with the State Department to report on his conversation with the Shah. The Shah told him he didn't see how it was possible for a bunch of ignorant mullahs to lead demonstrations so precisely organized and so effective. There must be some other force leading them. He concluded that the CIA must be behind them. He asked why the CIA would do this to him. Why would they turn on him? He suggested two answers: Perhaps the Americans felt that, with his dealings with the Soviets for nonlethal military equipment, a steel mill and such, he was too cozy with the Soviet Union.
If Americans thought he was soft, maybe the religious people would be more staunchly anti-Communist and stronger in supporting the containment policy. His other theory was that the Americans and the Russians, as the British and the Russians in the beginning of the century, had decided to divide Iran into spheres of influence. We would take the south, which had most of the oil, and the Soviets could run the north, as they had in the past. person I was going to have to deal with.

PRECHT: These were the Shah's two theories as to why the CIA should be stirring up trouble against him. I was dumbfounded. This was the man we were relying on to save our terribly important interests in Iran. He was a nut.

But, although President Carter had spoken about human rights and excessive arms sales in his campaign, in office he didn't really want to implement those programs. In fact, he didn't want any trouble in Iran. He didn't want Iran as an issue. The Arab-Israel question was looming large on the American agenda as was the Soviet Union and China. Iran in turmoil was an unnecessary addition to our agenda.

Back in August, CIA had prepared a national intelligence estimate mentioning there was trouble but nothing serious in Iran. The Shah has it under control. There was one notable sentence saying Iran was not even
in a "pre-revolutionary situation."

and the Shah was always depressed about what he should do. He wanted guidance from us. There was a debate in Washington about how to advise him. There were essentially two lines of thought. One was kind of weak-kneed: to continue liberalization or accelerate it. The other was the iron fist. That is, to send troops out and shoot down as many people as necessary and bring an end to the rebellion once and for all. Dr. Brzezinski was the advocate of the iron fist, but President Carter was not buying that kind of policy. So, what you had was Brzezinski in touch with Zahedi sending messages to the Shah of his own design, and we in the State Department, good and proper bureaucrats, clearing our instructions all over the government and sending out messages to Sullivan in regular channels, suggesting he encourage the Shah towards moderation. The Shah, poor fellow, was confused by the conflicting advice. He was getting one line from Brzezinski, and
another from Sullivan, and was desperate to know what to do.

I rest my case.

Kaveh Nouraee

The Fact Remains

by Kaveh Nouraee on

In the event of Barack Obama being elected President, U.S. foreign policy will, for all intents and purposes, might as well be called the Second Term of Jimmy Carter, 32 years later.

This isn't meant as a slight against the junior senator from Illinois. He has charisma. He carries himself with ease and self-confidence, which goes a hell of a long way in a country where people seem to get elected on the basis of style, rather than substance.. If you don't believe me, then consider the case of American Idol, where aspiring singers who have a measure of talent and ability have been voted off in favor of some people who should be arrested for disturbing the peace whenever they sing.

But let's face it. Barack Obama does not have the experience needed to be even remotely effective. By no means is it a stretch to say that the powers that be in the Democratic Party have orchestrated this from the beginning; that is to say, have a black man and a woman as the top two candidates for nomination by the party. It's a no-lose scenario for the DNC; by directly targeting their appeal to women and blacks, they can effectively undermine efforts by the GOP to win in November.

And if the Democrats win, then what?

The same powers that be that have put Barack Obama on the ticket will be dictating and micro-managing his administration's poilcies. Only they won't be his policies, per se, as much as they wiill be the DNC's policies. And rest assured those policies will mirror those of Jimmy Carter, who in four short years managed to wreak a havoc the likes of which the world is still paying for.




Let us hear your voice Mammad Agha

by Free Thinker (not verified) on

Mammali says:

"For those of us who live outside Iran:

Be the voice of the oppressed, the voice of a defender of Iran's national interests ... "

So why have you kept your mouth shut all these years? Show us an example of your anti-Islamic regime articles in the defense of the oppressed tortured, executed and unjustly discriminated peole of Iran like Bahai's, Jews and gays!



Dear Re-borne Islamists,

by Free Thinker (not verified) on

First allow me to pay my respects to a few notable ones. I am glad to see that Q aka "mother of the bride" is still showing interest, albeit in his civilized parlance, in matters related to the days where he was still an infant, i.e. 1979. Also Mammad is noteworthy for his time-tunnel vision of the dates where his parenst musthave been in their infancy, i.e. 1960's. And finally, in the order of seniority that is, to Mola: as another fellow potser asked: How is your camel's sister?

Well, after this preamble, allow me to give you a word of advice. Jame Earl Carter Jr. and Goerge Walker Bush are the faces of the same coin. That coin is called American Democracy. In assessing their records one must respect the will of the American nation in choosing them as their chief administrators. They are both humans and a such liable to err. The trouble is that when one errs at such high level of responsibilty, an entire generation can be the victim of one's error. Now, as Iranian, mostly living in America, or those of you who like me are living in Iran, we should assess these two leaders in the light of who damaged through their errors the Iranians more than the other.

I am yet to see a single argument to demosntrate how GWB has damaged a generation of Iranians and how JEC has saved them?



Mammad The Islamist

by AnonymousIrooni (not verified) on

You say:

"Your republic is also in corruption up to its "neck." Sharon was being investigated, Olmert is being investigated, Katsuf was thrown out of office, .... So, is it not time to advocate monarchy for Israel, like when King David was in power"

OK assuming this is true. At least they are able to throw out corrupt leaders. Sharon's son even served jail time. And as you say, Our fellow Yazdi Katsav, was thrown out.

Can you tell us how many IRI leaders have been thrown out for corruption lately?

At least their system works. At least they can change leadership (whether you agree with their leadership decisions or not).

And why are you talking about "King David"? Why are you bringing religion into this? Would you like it if someone referred to Ali's or Hussain's caliphate times?

Chera engad be hameh tohmat mikoni toa? You are first to get insulted when people attack Islam. You always ask for respect- even when you have such outlandish ideas about Change in the IRI, how progressive Khomeini was or that Khomeini was a "leftist".... I did not see Kashani insult you.... But some how you are allowed to take jabs at people with typical slogans used daily by our IRI akhoonds such as "let alone a Zionist and bloody enemy of Iran".

You lose any credibility when you say such none sense.

You show off about how many article you write every month about this and that. You are the last voice of Manteg on this website. I may not agree with Zion or Kashani, but they have 100 times more respect than you.


Freedom from 1400 ...

by Mammad on

Yeah, let's go back to Pahlavi dynasty, imposed on Iran by the British empire in 1921, and then reimposed in 1953 when we Iranians started acting ungratefully. 

I would be happy to go back to those days, if you only tell me how you leave this world and move to a fantasy one.



Programmer Craig

by Mammad on

What to do about human rights in Iran? Here is my opinion.

For those living in Iran: 

Continue and expand the great work that many brave and hard working adovocates of respect for human rights do, and reveal all the atrocities done to basic human rights of Iranian people.

For those of us who live outside Iran:

Be the voice of the oppressed, the voice of a defender of Iran's national interests, not the voice of war, sanction, threats, lies, exaggerations, half-truths, half-baked half-truths. 



Kashani, the happy man

by Mammad on

It is even sadder that you still live in your fantasy world; still patting people on their back for their "great work," acting as the God Father of all right-wing loonies.



Zion the monarchist

by Mammad on

If monarchy is so good, why don't you advocate it for Israel? Your republic is also in corruption up to its "neck." Sharon was being investigated, Olmert is being investigated, Katsuf was thrown out of office, .... So, is it not  time to advocate monarchy for Israel, like when King David was in power?

The arrogance of a non-Iranian, let alone a Zionist and bloody enemy of Iran, telling Iranians what kind of government is good for them is astonishing.



Agha-ye Anonymous, I

by sadegh on

Agha-ye Anonymous, I completely agree...there is very little difference between Republicans and Democrats in terms of their foreign policy; both are willing, without much thought, to sacrifice vast swathes of foreign populations (but also American troops) to secure 'American interests' (or 'American interests' as they perceive them)...human rights rarely enter the equation...the only difference is that Democrats are more subtle and tactful, which arguably has done less damage in the long-term, while the Republicans are gun-ho and presently obsessed with the nonsensical idea of their own 'manifest destiny', which has cost millions of lives and continues to cost the lives, of Iraqis, Afghans, Americans, Palestinians and many others...

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh



don't be so sad Kashani!

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Kashsni says: "It is so sad that some people are not able to realize that even if the U.S attacks Iran, it is because of the animosity that the fascist regime started with the U.S 30 years ago."

Kashani_jAn, I am not sad to see Neconcon/AIPAC type to be sad, however there is no reason for your sadness! People of your political conviction haven't attacked Iran because they are stuck in Iraq and they are doing very poor in Afghanistan. IRI being "fascist" has nothing to do with that. If Iraq had gone well and Rumsfeld's dreams about the length of that war had come true the "democracy" export to Iran, i.e., quest for complete control over Middle East oil would have begun soon after the Iraq war.


The die was cast long before

by Alborzi (not verified) on

Its common to blame Carter, but in fact he did all to save Shah, it was futile. The problem was not just the over throw of a democratically elected government by CIA, the thing was that during Nixon administration, Shah started to believe his own shit. He went and delivered the famous Cyrus speech which was laughable. He made all Iranians to read his book, he changed calendar, all in all he just went psycho and it was due to all the idiots around him. His idiocy got to a point when he left the country (coward), he left all his loyal servants in prison to be killed. No it was not Carter, he was present.

Farhad Kashani

It is so sad that some

by Farhad Kashani on

It is so sad that some people are not able to realize that even if the U.S attacks Iran, it is because of the animosity that the fascist regime started with the U.S 30 years ago. We have been lucky that we haven’t been attacked yet. The U.S might attack Iran, but undoubtedly, the fault rests with the regime’s constant provocation and bashing of the U.S.


It is also as sad that some people have this logic that 1 foreign person or 1 foreign agent is capable of pulling such a huge coup in 1953. They can’t explain how a single agent or an even a single foreign intelligence service is capable of bringing those millions of people to the streets in support of Shah. They’re not able to understand that Shah has his supporters, and those supporters were the ones who executed the coup,; just as in 1979, the revolution was supported by the people, if it wasn’t for the people, none of those would’ve happened. The responsibility is ours, not anyone else’s.


Slater khan, to khejalat nemikeshi?

by Q on

Slater, I'm surprised that you're back writing for Iranian, because everything you have written before has turned out to be completely wrong and misguided. I'm not a fan of your "political stance" or your blind faith in dear Leader.

But on one point, I have to agree with dear Mola Nasreddin from below. You are either naive or severely dishonest.

The Bush Administration has never advocated attacking Iran.

Surely you know that in modern wars, you don't "advocate" attacking your opponent until the "circumstances" that develop "force" you to take action in order to "protect our interests."

Bush didn't "advocate" attacking Iraq until the week before he did. Practically until the last possible second, he kept lying that diplomacy was preferred. But we know now the decision was made years before. Did Saddam Hussein "advocate" invading Iran or Kuwait? Even Hitler didn't "advocate" attacking Poland or taking over Europe until the day before when "Polish aggression" triggered world war II.

Are you F#@$@# kidding me? You expect a known liar like Bush to be honest about something that everyone knows will hurt his own country severely? What the hell do you think all those advanced fighters and bombers and carriers are doing in the Persian Gulf, fighting "Al Qaeda in Iraq"? Don't be ridiculous.

You can't trust the words of known liars like Bush and Cheney, by their actions shall you judge them.

I was hoping you had learned something by now.

By the way: Thanks for leaving the US completely out of the Mossadegh scenario. I guess US involvement must not have been that important, and that's why the British waited 3 years until a favorable US administration gave the green light to the US-funded operation overseen by a US agent (Kermit Roosevelt), run out of the US embassy in Tehran. You are the one stuck in the 70's, with the mentality of your parents, if you believe this nonsense.

programmer craig


by programmer craig on

A misguided approach to raising human rights is still better than having no approach to raising human rights...

When has that ever been true? Did Jimmy Carter bring about an improvement on the issue of human rights in Iran? Has anyone ever gotten a country to improve it's human righst record, with a bad policy? Anywhere? Got some examples?

Ronald Reagan was responsible for improving human rights in more countries than anyone else, before or since. What did you think of approach to the issue of human rights? Did he even have one? Not that I can recall. Whatever he did, it worked. It worked in Europe, it worked in Asia and it worked in latin America. It would have worked in Iran too, but he had bigger fish to fry. In a way, it's too bad the communists didn't come out on top in 1978... would have put Iran pretty high up on the "priority" list.

What about you, mammad... I see you commenting all over this website. What is your suggestion for improving human rights in Iran? Or are you OK with the status quo?


Uneducated voices of 1970s

by Free from 1400 years of islamic slavery (not verified) on

Even the people of Nepal, one of the most backward countries in the world, recently abolished their monarchy.

If the problem was with the Monarchy, the Republic of iran had 30 years to prove it rather than disproving it by showing the true faces of anti-monarchy revolutionaries: islamists, leftists, and intellectuals (who have run away, acted as accomplices in islamists' crimes and looting of the country, or turned mute for the past 30 years).

Whatever monarchy was or was not, it was successful in founding the country of iran, maintaining its integrity for 2500 years (except for occasional failure in repelling attacks by foreigners and foreign ideologies, most notably by arabs and their backward religion, and islam plus marx in 1979), and giving iran the best days of its past 200 years during pahlavis.

Indeed Nepal is a backward country just like IRI is. Had it not been a backward country, it would have seen the numerous heavenly countries of europe and would have understood that the problem was somewhere else, and as in 1979, only the thugs of various tendencies wanted monarchy out of the way so that they can take over the country and turn it into the disaster we see every single day for 30 years now.

Obviously thugs in both countries, Nepal and Iran, had their eyes on republic (republic of Syria, republic of saddam's iraq, republic of Zimbabwe, republic of Liberia, ...); except that each gang of thugs assumed that "they" are the one who can mange to take over the country as the head thug of the republic once monarchy is overthrown and waters turned muddy. They were even wrong in their calculations of who was the thuggest of the thugs.