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
Mola Nasredeen

Zion: Carter rocks, Israel sucks...

by Mola Nasredeen on

You don't like carter because he's exposed the war crimes of racist apartheid regime of Israel. Carter is a real human being who arranged the peace between Israel and Egypt. But of course zionist like you prefer a warmonger, an idiot or an idiot warmonger. Go sell your wares somewhere else.


Good points

by Zion on

Slater, I agree with your main point. Obama is a Carter catastrophe in the making. Good points.
On a side note:

Mammad (and company),

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

You know, there are even more backward countries who still have their monarchies, like Great Britain and Canada and Australia, Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, Japan... .
Funny but your bunch's ranting matches almost word by word the typical government backed loudmouth lumpen behind the Iron Curtain back in the good old days. Anyone wonder why?


Republicans Should Listen to Ron Paul - #2

by Khar on

I admire his courage for questioning his own party's and bush's policies....




Imaginary world of Iranicons: Carter was same as all the others

by Aghayeh Anonymous (not verified) on

The notion that Carter was someone who actually supported human rights during his presidency (rather than merely give some lip service to it) is a joke. There is very little difference between Democratic and Republican leaders. Let us consider Carter's actual record as President:

Carter's projected military budgets for the early 1980s were higher than the ones Reagan presided over.

Carter said America would not stand idly by while Nicaragua tried to set forth on a different path after the Sandinistas threw out Anastasio Somoza. He told them they had to retain the National Guard, which had been Somoza's elite band of US-trained psychopathic killers. The Sandinistas said no. So Carter ordered the CIA to bring up the officers and torturers running the Argentine death squads to train a force of Nicaraguan exiles in Honduras scheduled for terror missions across the border. They called them the contras.

El Salvador: In October 1979, a coup by reformist officers overthrew the repressive Romero dictatorship and pledged reforms, including land reform. But within weeks, it became clear that the reformers among the new rulers had been outmaneuvered, so they resigned en masse as the real leaders stepped up frightful repression in the countryside, killing close to 1,000 people a month. Some 10,000 were killed in 1980, most of them peasants and workers.

The Carter Administration sent millions in aid and riot equipment to the Salvadoran military, dispatched US trainers and trained Salvadoran officers in Panama. The Administration cast the conflict as one between the "extremes" of left and right, with the junta trying to steer a "moderate" course. In fact, 90 percent of the killings were carried out by the army or paramilitary death squads acting under army or government supervision. The Carter Administration continued to push this line throughout 1980, not suspending aid until the killing of four Maryknoll nuns in December.

It was the Carter Administration that restored the Khmer Rouge to military health after the Vietnamese kicked them out of power in Cambodia.

In South Korea, where students and workers were demonstrating against the military dictatorship of Chun Doo Hwan, notably in Kwangju. Carter's envoy advised the South Korean military to hit back hard, and it did on May 17, 1980, killing at least 1,000, the most horrible massacre since the Korean War. The White House instructed the local US military commander to release a South Korean force from border duty to attack the demonstrators, which they did with terrible brutality.

In his introduction to Lee Jai-eui's Kwangju Diary, Bruce Cumings reviews the documents unearthed by Tim Shorrock and says the record "makes it clear that leading liberals-such as Jimmy CarterSand Zbigniew Brzezinski; and especially Richard Holbrooke (then Under Secretary of State for East Asia), have blood on their hands from 1980: the blood of hundreds of murdered or tortured students in Kwangju."

Carter presided over the dispatch of arms to Indonesia, fresh from its invasion of East Timor, which makes him, oh, just one more American to get the Nobel Peace Prize after sponsoring genocide in Asia. And he started the covert CIA operation in Afghanistan, rallying the mujahedeen to fight the Soviets. Soon the CIA would bring the Saudis, and Saudi cash, to Afghanistan, not least among them Osama bin Laden.

He led a campaign to free Lieutenant Calley [of My Lai infamy] when Carter was governor of Georgia.


Another chance fro Fred to echo his own remarks over and over

by AnonymousAnonymous (not verified) on

I wonder: does Fred receive a free toaster oven on the thousandth occasion that he repeats (ad nauseam) the phrase "Islamist/Anti-Semites and their like minded lefty allies"? But then again, when you don't have logic or evidence on your side, you have to attack your opponents.


Lord of wars loosing to war lords!

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Bakhtavar says "The Bush Administration has never advocated attacking Iran."

He hasn't done that because Iraq war has lasted more than six days, six weeks or six months that Rumsfeld thought!
The Afghan/Pakistan case is even worse, as you know even your man recently admitted that things are not going well there!
Mr. Bakhtavar, in a nutshell lord of wars is loosing to the war lords! //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_War


Republicans should listen to Ron Paul

by Khar on

Ron Paul is one the few Republicans that I admire; he believes the radical Islam and Khomeini are the direct consequence of the coup of 1953. Watch the following video below.


Mola Nasredeen

Mr Bakht, you are a lier or naive.. or maybe both

by Mola Nasredeen on

On what planet do you live on? This Bush of yours goes to sleep every night dreaming of bombing Iran. The Republican party and even some of the Democrats are for attacking Iran. Do you take us as fools or you want to fool us? In either case you're too late. Start another approach.

Meanwhile educate yourself about what's really happening. Go ahead and read Simon Hircsh's article in New yorker about the Bush and Cheney's war plan regarding Iran. If I were you I'd been ashamed to call myself Republican with all the shit they have started all over the world. Go and hide!

Slater Bakhtavar

    The Bush

by Slater Bakhtavar on



The Bush Administration has never advocated attacking Iran. The Bush doctrine advocates freedom and democracy in Iran through direct communcation, funding of pro-Democracy groups and other methods. Anyone of Iranian heritage who advocates even minor military attack on Iran should be denounced.

Dr. Mossadeqhs campaign against British injustice was a noble cause and his subsequent overthrow by the British MI6 should be noted.  However, the same group of converts assisted in the overthrow of the Shah in 1979.




Islamists are ganging up on the author for no reason.

by Anonymous non-islamist (not verified) on

I don't agree with all of what the author says... BUT...

How come islamists/leftists claim that 1953 anti-revolution had nothing to do with iranians' will and everything was planned by foreign elements but the black revolution of 1979 was all becuase of iranians' will and had nothing to do with the same foreigners who have been sending mullas into iran since the safavid to use islam for their benefit -- exactly what IRI has been doing for the past 30 years.

At macroscopic level, an unbiased high school kid can see that IRI has done nothing for iran and everything for arabs and brits and ... by looting the country and returning it to 600 A.D., something that monarchy cannot be accused of doing no matter how negative one's view of the monarchy might be.

So who was 'brought in' more successfully to send iran backwards and fulfill non-iranians' dreams, the shah or the khomeini?

This is called Hypocrisy!

Mola Nasredeen

Carter rocks, Mccain sucks..

by Mola Nasredeen on

Any comments?

Farhad Kashani

Mr. Bakhtavar, great

by Farhad Kashani on

Mr. Bakhtavar, great article. Good analysis. Keep up the good work.


Nureyev be proud of the Choreography

by Fred on

It seems the Islamist/Anti-Semites and their like minded lefty allies have detected an opportunity to release some of their pent-up vitriol against the ancient regime and Israel.  Status quo being the Petri dish that they thrive in, any and all suggestion to the contrary propels them to display their choreographed loutish response.   


John McCain: Wrong On Foreign Policy & National Security

by Obama for President 08 (not verified) on

John McCain: Wrong On Foreign Policy & National Security



Terrible article and

by sadegh on

Terrible article and terribly argued by 'Slater' the self-loather...Rehashing all the typical baseless monarchist and historically illiterate prejudices, to which no serious scholar gives even the slightest credence...Just bare assertions...So Carter is responsible for the entire revolution??? Not the fact that the Shah was a power-hungry autocrat, engaging in corruption and nepotism. Not to mention the fact that he was a American stooge and loathed by masses of his own people. The disaster the Khomeinists later wrought does not erase that fact. As Mammad pointed out even the most basic of dates are mistated...the gratuitous 'celebrations' took place in 1971!!!! Where did you get your "post-doctoral" degree (which would surely imply that you had a doctorate in the first place, which I doubt, do you mean postgrad?), the University of Kathmandu?

Yet another reactionary, pseudo-progressive, irrelevant monarchist...it's tragic in a way, the Iran which they mistakenly believe they once knew (which they did not) has moved on and changed and they still haven't even realized it...instead they pontificate and propagate nonsense about which only the insular and antiquated royalists care...We have heard this argument many times, rationalized torture, murder and oppression in the name of 'progress' or 'modernization' or whatever...A shame you can't look the victims of SAVAK in the face and explain to them your pathetic vindication of their murder. Human rights are not conditioned by a set of criteria you predetermine in advance...both royalists and Islamists need to come to terms with this idea and cease to fudge the issue of human rights when it suits them and their agendas.

What is even more impressive is that you cite the American Enterprise Institute, a neocon think-tank (and stalwart supporter of Israel and the campaign to bomb our country), and Thomas Friedman, an apologist for the Iraq War who is completely unqualified to authoritatively discuss Iran or its politics.

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. What has the Bush admin done, except support extremists and reactionaries in the form of first Sharon, then Olmert and the Saudi monarchy, while fundamentalist Israelis continue to build illegal settlements on the Occupied Territories...

The majority of Iranians inside Iran are for talks with the Americans, and a normalization of relations, in defiance of much of the Iranian leadership...that doesn't mean they support their economic plight being exacerbated by sanctions (which are proven to fail in nearly every instance) or being bombed into oblivion by the US army's machinery of death and destruction. Just look at the failure with respect to Cuba, Zimbabwe, Iraq (prior to the war) and many other nations, and the success with NORTH KOREA...they conducted talks and the issue of proliferation and disarmament is finally coming to a resolution, that is NORTH KOREA, the most extremist, ideologically driven, fanatical, totalitarian state in the world...

Some of the articles many Fallacies

Pro-Human Rights doesn't equal Pro-Islamist (INCLUDING THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OUTLINED, this assertion has to be one of the most ignorant in this silly article)

Pro-America doesn't not mean Pro-Bush...(a president with the lowest approval ratings ever, they're so bad that even Ahmadinejad is more popular in terms of world-opinion) 

Opposition to the IRI doesn't mean support for a bombing campaign against our nation...

Where has Obama said he opposes pro-democracy groups inside Iran? That's right. he hasn't. The US is supporting the terrorist MEK (on the State Department's own terror watchlist), and (maybe) the Jundollah, if we are to believe esteemed Pulitzer prize winning journalists such as Seymour Hersh, Andrew Cockburn and many others.

Iran's two leading dissidents, Ganji and Ebadi have criticized the Bush administration's policy on Iran and Ganji refused to meet with officials from the US government or except their cash with all its strings attached. Just ask Ahmad Chalabi...


Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh



Such a......

by Khar on

Such a waste of ink, paper and time writing and reading this article if I can call it that. Sir you don’t even have the historical dates correct such as you wrote:  "In 1978, in the midst of democratic reforms, the Shah and the Iranian people celebrated 2,500 years of Persian Monarchy" No sir the circus you are referring to took place in 1971 when Nixon was president not 1978. Back then people where referring to it as a clown show, in fact in 1978 Iran was in the midst of revolution and the “celebrating people” were too busy trying to kick the shah out. You also wrote:   “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" Again you haven’t done your home work, Shah's reforms so called “white” revolution took place in 1960's not 70's which were designed solidify his dictatorial system. Then you wrote: "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". Wrong again, 37 years iron fisted rule and crushing the dream of democracy with help of Mullahs in Iran in 1950s caused his downfall not Carter. Seriously I suggest that you read more and take a crash course on Iranian history before you start writing again! Ok, up to this point I thought you just need history lesson but then you wrote: 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” Dude you must be joking me? So you call the last 8 years shining example of US foreign policy, there is nothing wrong with diplomacy instead of thinking you can kick everybody’s ass around the world. Now you proved that you also lack common sense and disconnected from realty of last 8 years and for that you can’t take a crash course.  No need for me to comment further on the rest of the article, just please at least remember before year 2000 presidents of these United States Of America used to be elected by people’s vote not the supreme court, Before year 2000 US had respect in the world. At the very least Barack Obama will be elected by the vote of the American people to office of the president. Just think about this the legacy of bush and republicans for last 8 years are: Terror attacks, fear mongering, plundering national treasury, worst economics condition in the last 40 years, 2 wars with more than 5000 of our kids and more than hundreds of thousand innocent people killed based on a big lie, allowing big oil companies to rip off American people. By the way where is Bin-Laden why isn’t he captured by now after more than 7 years after 9/11 and there was no attempt bringing him to justice...?  Please think and research before you write again!


The most laughable part of this article...

by Internets on

"President Bush has consistently reached out to Iranian people"...

Bush II has single handedly managed to strengthen the postion and the prestige of the IRI, more than Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Clinton, all combined!.

I hear that Rush Limbaugh is in need of a gag-ball boy. Ata boy Slater, go to daddy, he is waiting for ya!.


Respected analyst learn a bit of history

by Mammad on

The man does not know what he is talking about.

In the midst of democratic reform in 1978 (What reform?)? Celebrating 2500 of Persian Monarchy in 1978?(when Iran was in the grip of the Revolution!) Carter's human rights proclamations causing the Shah's downfall? Mornarchist governmental leadership role present throughout Iran's history? Just because we had a monarchy, we should always have monarchy?

Even the people of Nepal, one of the most backward countries in the world, recently abolished their monarchy. But, we should go back to ours, after overthrowing it by a revolution. Right! This is the view of a supposedly "progressive," "modern," and "forward looking" monarchist.



Message to Respected Analyst on foreign policy issues

by faridm on

A misguided approach to raising human rights is still better than having no approach to raising human rights, regardless of whether it is being catered to an extrinsic party, i.e. communists.