Pictory

a little cheater in me.

Thanks for your opinion.

I'll be sure to make a note of it.

Here look....

File Under: People who insult others views that threaten their own deeply rooted insecurities.

The so called fiction you find boring was written by a historian and Professor of a University in Germany. He actually had to have some proof as well as have his work stand up to cross examination.

The interesting thing is this. And promise me you won't share this secret with anyone. Okay? Promise? Okay.

There are some people in the world who really have difficulty believing in points of view that are based on verifiable facts and they are called Muslims. Yet they have no problem believing in things like ISLAM, which are based on unverifiable ideas. It is them that have their wires crossed in their minds. Not the other way around.

By the way I cheated a little, did you notice how I used my mind and intelligence, that's something Islam prohibits, it says just follow this book. Oops! I have a little cheater in me.

and now ..

add Isaac to his list of personalities.

and its spelled SEMITIC, idiot.

Attacking Carter is anti-Semetic

Carter helped make peace between Egypt, the largest Arab country and Israel.

to attack Carter is Anti-Semetic.

As a Jew, I am offended by comments that support the Pahlavis.

the Pahlavis were and are anti-semites.

Ladies and Gentlemen.....

We have yet ANOTHER personality..........

John Carpenter

Jamshid Niavarani

James Smith

and now, John Levine..........

FOUR personalities.......none of them real......one person.....

who is simply unreal.

Your video clip is an distortion of reality

There was high drug use during the Pahlavis.

Ashraf Pahlavi was arrested in Europe with opium and other narcotics.

The Pahlavis were the bank rollers for the drug use in Iran from 1925-1979.

Ashraf Pahlavi was also the Madam of "Shahre-No", the red light district in Iran.

Prostitution, drugs, bribery, theft, the Pahlavis were corrupt to the bone.

James Smith = John Carpenter = Jamshid Niavarani = Ghazan Ghofli

Yeah, a lesson learned from khomeini, one person with multiple faces repeating the same non-sense.

Az gorbeh porsidand shaahedet kiyeh, goft domam.

Interesting that NO counter argument was presented by all these John Doe's against my indisputable data about prosperity of iran in 1979.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXBf1RQvqhc

John Carpenter and Jamshid Niavarani are 100% right

I have read this site.
The only ones who are telling the truth are Jamshid Niavarani and john Carpenter.
Is everybody else being paid off?

Will Somebody Please..........

Contact the closest cuckoo's nest and put this idiot and all of his personalities in a straitjacket?

Johnny / Jammy

You are as truthful about your identity as Ayatollah Khomeini was about everything.

As far as savak is concerned, your answer is in this persian proverb "... cho mast girand, har ankeh hast girand." or if the verdict is to arrest those who drunk alcoholic beverage, then all should be arrested.

savak was no worse than savamak or any other intelligence service, including those of the west; except that it was far more incompetent and too soft on enemies of the state, otherwise it would not have let such a large number of criminals cloaked as anti-shahis and islamists and leftists, likes of khomeini, rafsanjani, khamenei, rajavi, ahmadinejed, and hundred others loose to destroy iran in the next 30 years.

John Carpenter

I know John Carpenter III. He is a good Iranian American Shia Muslim.

I, on the other hand, am a secular Iranian American who is an agnostic Shia Muslim at times and an athiest most of the times. May John's ALLAH help me if I am wrong.

May Husayn, the son of Ali; and Mohammad, the son of Abd'ALLAH, the Muslim prophet and Cousin of Jesus, the son of the Virgin Mary forgive me.

But, still, if there is a God, would he permit the Holocaust?

Would God permit the Human Rights Violations of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and the SAVAK (1957-1979)?
See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

I guess only ALLAH knows.

Jamshid Niavarani

is the same person as John Carpenter with the same uneducated non-sense hatred and the same lack of logic and reasoning. Going from a fake name to another fake name does not change the person's reality of anti-iranianism. If likes of John Carpenter, aka Jamshid Niavarani, a ghajar descendant and pahlavi server but hand biter condemns pahlavis, then pahlavis must have accomplished their biggest achievement of getting rid of those non-iranian ghajar addicts. When there is no logic then there is blind demonization, and that is good to prove the opposite of their position.

Johnny boy, if you had any sense you would argue your points with reason rather than resorting to duplicity. I can be far more reasoned in criticizing pahlavis, as someone said, for abandoning iran in 1979. That was the shah's biggest failure and the only thing that can damage his legacy in history.

Jimmy Carter was a good President

US President Jimmy Carter is a good man.

He had only one choice in 1979:
To abandon the Shah.

The Shah was a dictator.

99% of Historians say the Pahlavis were dictators.

99% of Historians say that the Pahlavis were corrupt.

The Pahlavis led to their own downfall.

Mansour Rafizadeh, Hossein Fardoust and Fereydoun Hoveyda were all friends of the Shah. After the Revolution these men and countless others wrote books detailing how the Pahlavis were Evil.

Thank God for the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

Iran should have become a Republic more than 2500 years ago.

Well...

Name is okay but association with ghajar has a fishy smell. That was the problem with Ghajar descendents, that at the same time that they were fed and trusted by Phalavis, they satisfied their animosity by trying to take revenge by acting as fifth column from inside and back-stub the person who fed them. Some even say that even mosaddeq had a similar attitude.

It is obvious that pahlavis will not return, nothing new here; but when you use childish non-sense like demonizing reza shah THE GREAT because he was a villager from north, then people do not take you seriously and use a similar tactic for criticizing you.

Whatever pahlavis were or were not, and however controversial their rule; no truthful iranian can deny that iran was far more prosperous and far more free for majority of iranians during pahlavis' reign than what was before them (ghajar) or after them (islamic republic). When you blindly contradict that fact with no logic except for display of hatred, then people do not take you seriously and accuse you of being insincere or ignorant.

Here is a paraphrase from a recent article by A. Milani, a critic of pahlavis:

Iranian economy in 1979 was at the same level as S. Korea, slightly below that of Taiwan, and slightly above that of Turkey. Today all those three countries are far more prosperous than iran, with S. Korea and Taiwan supplying a large part of industrial needs of countries of west, asia, and africa.

Numbers don't lie!

Your Family Tree?

Is full of termites.

John is not an Iranian name, nor is Carpenter.

For the right amount of money, you can get an shenasnameh that identifies you as Bugs Bunny or Elmer Fudd.

Family Tree?

I was born John Carpenter.

The Shenas Nameh even has written on it with farsi lettering "John Carpenter".

The Carpenter name has been in "Shenas Namehs" since Reza Pahlavi introduced them.

The IRI "Shenas Nameh" also has the name "John Carpenter".

Why do you associate me with the Qajars only? My family aided all the Iranian Monarchs.

The Monarchy was abolished in 1979. It will never return to Iran.

This matter has nothing to do with the Qajars, Pahlavis, etc...

Iran will forever be a Republic.

I still have hope for one day it being a democratic republic.

Kaveh Jaan, Cool Down.

This site is flooded with descendants of Ghajar kings (one of them with some 34 children), who are unanimously still angry with pahlavi regime only becuase they believe pahlavis ate their lunch and put an end to their addiction to abundant harem wives and opium. I bet J.C. is one of those on the side of one of ghajar daughters married to an american. They don't care about iran but for their lost fortune as if iran belonged to them to ruin piece by piece. They have this blind hatred towards pahlavis brain-washed into their minds without even being able to rationalize or justify it. They all equally admire the criminal khomeini only because he got rid of pahlavis and satisfied their hatred and revenge.

No, I'm Not Angry At All

There is truly no such thing as an objective historian. Every individual who researches past events and subsequently writes a term paper, a news article, a book, or gives a lecture, or an interview, cannot do so successfully without somehow mentally placing themselves in the very time and place they are discussing.

Therefore, all objectivity goes out the window.

Interesting that you mention Stephen Kinzer. I thoroughly enjoyed reading "All The Shah's Men" and anxiously await his upcoming book on Rwanda. What's truly funny is the fact that a person such as yourself would hold anything a man who works for the Sulzberger family says or writes about the Middle East and/or Iran in any regard.

Thank you for the laugh.

It's also hilarious that you say that Persian is an outdated term. You worship a sociopath who, because of his outdated thinking, was directly responsible for the deaths of countless men, women and children. You can call them Iranian if you want. It doesn't change the fact they're still dead.

Now here is the part that truly makes me laugh. You asked if I'm ashamed of being Iranian. As a matter of fact, I am extremely proud of being Iranian. And if someone refers to me as Persian, I am not going to go sideways and admonish them for using what you would consider to be outdated terminology.

It is you who has changed your name to John Carpenter, not I.  

It is obvious that you are the one who is ashamed.

Kaveh, why are you so angry

Kaveh,

Why are you so angry.
Every objective historian write that the Pahlavis were just wrong for Iran.

Kinzer, the New York Times writer has said many times that Mossadegh should have led Iran instaed of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

"Persian" is an out-dated term. People are Iranians.

Are you ashamed of being Iranian?

And Peasant John Carpenter Is A Phony And A Moron

Ex-President Jimmy Carter may be the salt of the earth, but as president he was among the worst in history. His policies and overall impotence as a leader resulted in the state of affairs we wake up to every morning.

Do you hear me, Jackass Carpenter?

Yes, SAVAK killed Iranians. Communists and Shia terrorists. Unfortunately, they didn't get your Indian daddy Moussavi, who killed countless Iranians worldwide.

By the way, Jackass, Iran is the name of the country, and Persian is still universally acceptable to describe the people. Additionally, Iranian is not a phrase, you simpleton. Go back to 2nd grade and this time, pay attention.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty Internatonal condemned the Shah.

Human Rights Watch did not come into existence until 1988. Amnesty International is merely a lobbying group that focuses on individual prisoners and their rights. I have friends who are members of AI. The mission at AI is to create awareness of an individual's circumstances. Neither organization condemned the Shah. However, they both have thousands of files on Iranian people who have been imprisoned, tortured, and executed by your IRI masters without a shred of due process. 

Get your facts, straight. And remember that most of the human race is infinitely more intelligent than you, and cannot be fooled by your terminal stupidity.

The economic and political climate in 1979 led to the Iranian revolution.

Wow, what a briliiant deduction. Did you figure that one out all by yourself? Coming from an idiot like you, someone who is so stupid that you can't count to 21 unless you are naked, that's amazing.

You brainless twit, every revolution, every coup has been the result of the economic and political climate.

The rest of your post is the same recycled tripe read on the evening news by some talking head in a cheap hairpiece.

President James Carter is a Good man

President James Carter is a Good Man. To say that he created the Iranian revolution is wrong. Iran has always been a troubled area.
The Qajars, Pahlavis and Even the Islamic Republic have had problems.
To blame Carter for the lack of law in Iran by the Pahlavis is just wrong.
The Shah approved the SAVAK. SAVAK killed a lot of Iranians.

Human Rights watch and Amnesty International condemned the Shah.

By the way, Persia ceased to exist in 1925 when Reza Shah declared to the world Persia is now Iran. Stop using the word Persian for people, use the proper phrase Iranian.

The economic and political climate in 1979 led to the Iranian revolution.

President Carter, Ford, Nixon, JFK, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR advised the Shah. Unfortunately, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was an idiot.

Reza Pahlavi was advised by the United Kingdom. What happened? Reza Pahlavi was a failure. In 1941, the U.K. removed Reza Pahlavi from power and put his son Mohammad Reza in power.

Mohammad Reza was a failure from 1941-1953. He was powerless. The prime Minister Mossadegh was the man in charge.

After Mossadegh was removed, 1953-1979, the Shah increased persecution of political prisoners.

What happened? In 1979, the Shah left the country. He put Shapur Bakhtiar in charge. Bakhtiar's government fell in less than a month.

Khomayni returned to Iran. The Shah ordered his Generals to permit Khomayni to land in Tehran. February 11, 1979 Iranian abolished the Monarchy once and for all.

Donot forget the Elder of the Zion

Israel sourced support SAVAK. The Mullahs are persian branch of the Elders. Israel interest served with wars not peace in the Middle East.

Taking Responsibility

Until we Iranians take responsibility for our actions and their consequences,instead of blaming Carter, the US, England, Russia, or whomever else we won't get anywhere. The PEOPLE of Iran stood up to get rid of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's regime. Their revolution was hijacked by the mollahs, and referred to as the "Islamic Revolution". Now, the people of Iran, once bitten, twice shy, are apathetic and fearful to rise once again and get rid of the akhoond's theocratic tyranny running amuck in Iran.

Why are you so crul to Alborzi??

The poor guy says that his sister was tortured and you are telling him Begheyrat for not going to Iran??? Is he stupid to go if his family was killed by IRI???
Give him a break!!!

Whatever to justify THE set-up called revolution

The only way to justify the trap called revolution and the set-up regime brutalizing iran in the last 30 years is to demonize shah's regime to the extent that IRI would look innocent comparatively.

I had every famous book that I could get my hands on those days, including all about poor by Dostoyevsky and Hugo, and nobody cared slightest, let alone searching my house for it.

I never saw anyone carrying a machine-gun those days in public, let alone savak possibly facing a bunch of renegade leftists and islamists. Machine-gun carrying became popular only after the revolution.

Savak never needed to carry their victims along to locate others. These techniques were popularized after the revolution, thanks to ingenuity of sadistic islamists.

Only a rare breed would be sophisticated enough to be an islamist, a leftist worrying about poor, and a liberal purchasing Playboy, all at the same time. That is indeed a work of art, a page taken from a Grisham's novel.

The ugly face of khomeini, his fake revolution, and his gullible and/or opportunist followers would not be masked to look any better with any Dostoyevskian fiction.

The link to

The link to IRGC

//www.globalpolitician.com/24039-iran

Incompetent, yes, however, he is...

He is a saint compare to Bush!

Still I would not blame Crater for what happened in our country. Many failed us and Carter happened to play a minor role in it.

Iran is on its way to

Iran is on its way to democrassy:

Iranian Revolutionary Guards Perpetuate Terror Within and Without

Profile in Incompetence: In

Profile in Incompetence:

In this exclusive 10-part series, IBD takes a hard look at Jimmy Carter’s administration and compares it to that of George W. Bush, which Carter has called the worst ever.

Installments cover the economy, foreign policy, human rights, dealing with dictators, fighting Communism and the Democratic leadership in general during times of war.
//www.ibdeditorials.com/Special3.aspx

Iran: Carter's Habitat For

Iran: Carter's Habitat For Inhumanity
This article is an exceptionally significant piece in light of Pelosi et al's attempt to resurrect the failed and catastrophic policies of one the most incompetent presidents in the world, Jimmy Carter. I hope and pray that history doesn't repeat itself again. (Red is my interjection)

Link Via Iranian Plateau

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 5/24/2007

Leadership: In the name of human rights, Jimmy Carter gave rise to one of the worst rights violators in history — the Ayatollah Khomeini. And now Khomeini's successor is preparing for nuclear war with Israel and the West.

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

Being an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War, Iran was a target for Soviet subversion and espionage. 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.

This did not sit well with the former peanut farmer, who, on taking office, declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. The shah was one of his first targets. As he's done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 "political" prisoners. He chastised the shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support.

The irony here is that when Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the shah in February 1979, many of the 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians. (Khomeini also sacrificed hundreds of thousands of its own people in extending that war for six years after an Iraqi cease-fire offer, in a bid to spread the Islamic revolution to Iraq, and it sent tens of thousands of its own youngsters to their deaths in that war, clutching plastic keys to paradise, charging artillery units or clearing minefields.What are the cost in terms of blood and treasure for Khomeini's delusional ambitions? A golden opportunity to end the war as victors was denied to our nation and 8 years later, after so many Iranians were maimed and martyred, the poison chalice had to be drunk.)(see this)

According to "The Real Jimmy Carter," a book by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: "Kho-meini's regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah's Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years." (SEE: Emad Baghi's Report; He is rehabilitated former collaborator of the regime)

The mullahs 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 Iran society. Under Khomeini, women returned to their second-class role, and citizens were arrested for merely owning satellite dishes that could pick up Western television.

Khomeini established the first modern Islamic regime, a role model for the Taliban and jihadists to follow. And when the U.S. Embassy was stormed that November and 52 Americans taken hostage for 444 days, America's lack of resolve was confirmed in the jihadist mind.

On Nov. 4, 1979, some 400 Khomeini followers broke down the door of the embassy in Tehran, seizing the compound and the Americans inside. The hostage takers posed for the cameras next to a poster with a caricature of Carter and the slogan: "America cannot do a damn thing."

Indeed, America under Carter wouldn't do much. At least not until the 154th day of the crisis, when Carter, finally awakening to the seizure of U.S. diplomats and citizens on what was legally American soil, broke off diplomatic relations and began planning economic sanctions.

When Carter got around to hinting about the use of military force, Khomeini offered this mocking response: "He is beating on an empty drum. Neither does Carter have the guts for military action nor would anyone listen to him." (Carter or one of his advisors upon the establishment of IR called, Khomeini, "A Saint")

Carter did actually try a military response of sorts. But like every other major policy action of his, he bungled it. The incompetence of his administration would be seen in the wreckage in the Iranian desert, where a plan to rescue the hostages resulted in the loss of eight aircraft, five airmen and three Marines.

Among the core group of hostage takers and planners of the attack on our embassy was 23-year-old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who learned firsthand the weakness and incompetence of Carter's foreign policy, one that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are now attempting to resurrect.

According to then-Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, Ahmadinejad was among the hostage takers and the liaison between them and prominent Tehran preacher Ali Khameini, later to become supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.

The shah was forced into exile and on the run from Morocco to Egypt, the Bahamas, Mexico and finally Panama. In July 1979, Vice President Walter Mondale and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told Carter they had changed their minds about offering the shah permanent asylum. Carter's response was: "F*** the shah. I'm not going to welcome him here when he has other places to go where he'll be safe."

In October 1979, the shah, gravely ill with cancer, was granted a limited visa for treatment at the Cornell Medical Center in New York. He would die in Cairo in July 1980, an abandoned American friend. Our enemies took notes.

If the shah remained in power, 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 Hussein invaded Kuwait to strengthen his strategic position. That led to bases in Saudi Arabia that fueled Islamofascist resentment, one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden for striking at America, the Great Satan.

Khomeini introduced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families who would offer up their children as human bombs to kill as many Israelis as possible.

It was Khomeini who would give the world Hezbollah to make war on Israel and destroy the multicultural democracy that was Lebanon. And perhaps Jimmy has forgotten that Hezbollah, which he helped make possible, killed 241 U.S. troops in their Beirut barracks in 1982. (I would add this to the list)

The Soviet Union, seeing us so willingly abandon a staunch ally, invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, just six months after Carter and Russian leader Leonid Brezhnev embraced after signing a new arms-control treaty.

And it was the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban. As Hayward observes, the fall of Iran, hastened by Jimmy Carter, "set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in Sept. 11."

Writer 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? 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."

Quite simply, we concur.
//www.investors.com/editorial/editorialconten...

Carter in no way was

Carter in no way was neutral. Read the book

Carter involvement in orchestratin the revolution has been documented by several authors. The book by William Engdhal describes in excruciating details the complicity of the liberal left and Carter in manufacturing the coup of 1978.
//www.amazon.com/Century-War-Anglo-American-P...

Here are some excerpts:
"In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier. Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States.

Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.

The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt' Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.

During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere.

In its lead editorial that September, Iran's Kayhan International stated: In retrospect, the 25-year partnership with the [British Petroleum] consortium and the 50-year relationship with British Petroleum which preceded it, have not been satisfactory ones for Iran … Looking to the future, NIOC [National Iranian Oil Company] should plan to handle all operations by itself. London was blackmailing and putting enormous economic pressure on the Shah's regime by refusing to buy Iranian oil production, taking only 3 million or so barrels daily of an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day.

This imposed dramatic revenue pressures on Iran, which provided the context in which religious discontent against the Shah could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and U.S. intelligence. In addition, strikes among oil workers at this critical juncture crippled Iranian oil production. As Iran's domestic economic troubles grew, American 'security' advisers to the Shah's Savak secret police implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah.

At the same time, the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of 'human rights' under the Shah. British Petroleum reportedly began to organize capital flight out of Iran, through its strong influence in Iran's financial and banking community. The British Broadcasting Corporation's Persian-language broadcasts, with dozens of Persian-speaking BBC 'correspondents' sent into even the smallest village, drummed up hysteria against the Shah.

The BBC gave Ayatollah Khomeini a full propaganda platform inside Iran during this time. The British government-owned broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah's government an equal chance to reply. Repeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result. Anglo-American intelligence was committed to toppling the Shah. The Shah fled in January, and by February 1979, Khomeini had been flown into Tehran to proclaim the establishment of his repressive theocratic state to replace the Shah's government. Reflecting on his downfall months later, shortly before his death, the Shah noted from exile, I did not know it then perhaps I did not want to know but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.[1][1]

With the fall of the Shah and the coming to power of the fanatical Khomeini adherents in Iran, chaos was unleashed. By May 1979, the new Khomeini regime had singled out the country's nuclear power development plans and announced cancellation of the entire program for French and German nuclear reactor construction. Iran's oil exports to the world were suddenly cut off, some 3 million barrels per day. Curiously, Saudi Arabian production in the critical days of January 1979 was also cut by some 2 million barrels per day. To add to the pressures on world oil supply, British Petroleum declared force majeure and cancelled major contracts for oil supply. Prices on the Rotterdam spot market, heavily influenced by BP and Royal Cutch Shell as the largest oil traders, soared in early 1979 as a result.

The second oil shock of the 1970s was fully under way. Indications are that the actual planners of the Iranian Khomeini coup in London and within the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment decided to keep President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives. The ensuing energy crisis in the United States was a major factor in bringing about Carter's defeat a year later. There was never a real shortage in the world supply of petroleum. Existing Saudi and Kuwaiti production capacities could at any time have met the 5-6 million barrels per day temporary shortfall, as a U.S. congressional investigation by the General Accounting Office months later confirmed. Unusually low reserve stocks of oil held by the Seven Sisters oil multinationals contributed to creating a devastating world oil price shock, with prices for crude oil soaring from a level of some $14 per barrel in 1978 towards the astronomical heights of $40 per barrel for some grades of crude on the spot market. Long gasoline lines across America contributed to a general sense of panic, and Carter energy secretary and former CIA director, James R. Schlesinger, did not help calm matters when he told Congress and the media in February 1979 that the Iranian oil shortfall was 'prospectively more serious' than the 1973 Arab oil embargo.[2][2]

The Carter administration's Trilateral Commission foreign policy further ensured that any European effort from Germany and France to develop more cooperative trade, economic and diplomatic relations with their Soviet neighbor, under the umbrella of détente and various Soviet-west European energy agreements, was also thrown into disarray. Carter's security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, implemented their 'Arc of Crisis' policy, spreading the instability of the Iranian revolution throughout the perimeter around the Soviet Union. Throughout the Islamic perimeter from Pakistan to Iran, U.S. initiatives created instability or worse." --

William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, © 1992, 2004. Pluto Press Ltd. Pages 171-174. [1][1]

In 1978, the Iranian Ettelaat published an article accusing Khomeini of being a British agent. The clerics organized violent demonstrations in response, which led to the flight of the Shah months later. See U.S. Library of Congress Country Studies, Iran. The Coming of the Revolution. December 1987. The role of BBC Persian broadcasts in the ousting of the Shah is detailed in Hossein Shahidi. 'BBC Persian Service 60 years on.' The Iranian. September 24, 2001.

The BBC was so much identified with Khomeini that it won the name 'Ayatollah BBC.' [2][2] Comptroller General of the United States. 'Iranian Oil Cutoff: Reduced Petroleum Supplies and Inadequate U.S. Government Response.' Report to Congress by General Accounting Office. 1979.