How different would things be if....

[Special-K]

Considering how Iran is such a major sponsor of terrorism, causing problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is making waves with their nuke program, what would things be different if Carter had supported the Shah?

 

One the revolution had happened, considering the geopolitical climate, what could the US have actually done? I have read that the Ayatollah was terrified of an American response - was one effectively possible? What would it's consequences have been?

 

 

 

 

 

-K

[thekirk]

Considering how Iran is such a major sponsor of terrorism, causing problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is making waves with their nuke program, what would things be different if Carter had supported the Shah?

 

One the revolution had happened, considering the geopolitical climate, what could the US have actually done? I have read that the Ayatollah was terrified of an American response - was one effectively possible? What would it's consequences have been?

-K

 

I don't know if it's possible that Carter could have prevented the fall of the Shah. I've heard a lot of people say that Carter's sanctimonious withdrawal of support was key and critical to the whole thing happening, so you could say that maybe supporting him would have prevented his fall. I've talked to a lot of people, including a guy who claimed to be an Iranian employee of the CIA, during the Shah's rule, who curse Carter's name on a daily basis. I don't know--I wasn't there. Blaming a sitting President, or giving him credit for things that just happen to have happened on his watch is a dubious thing. The Shah was coping with a bad situation, was in ill-health, and who knows what would have happened if Carter had supported him? There's nothing to say that he would have remained in power. Things might have gotten worse, but I'd be hard pressed to see how. Good God, the SAVAK killed fewer people in its entire history than the Shah's successors did in the first five years of their rule. Irregardless of his brutality, they weren't hanging rape victims under the Shah.

 

Some of the things I've heard about this era have been very interesting. If you remember, the Ayatollah spent his exile from Iran initially in Iraq, and then France. He returned to Tehran in an Air France aircraft, and, at least initially, had the overt support of the French government. The story I told that ties this in is that the French government had a great deal to do with the fall of the Shah, as an attempt to crack open the market for French weapons sales. They hoped that if they got the Shah out of power, the American lock on the Iranian market would be broken. Even if they didn't get into the Iranian market, the resulting instability would induce others in the region to buy French.

 

This was about the time Jacques Chirac was selling the Iraqis a nuclear reactor, and the French were looking to do almost anything to boost their economy by exporting. When the Iranians failed to become major customers for the French, supposedly that was why they instigated (or, at least, encouraged...) the Iran-Iraq war, in order to sell weapons to the Iraqis and the Gulf Arabs. I've heard this same source go on for hours about this stuff, and there's enough corroborating data out there to make me wonder if maybe he isn't at least partially correct in his ideas. Given everything we've seen the French government doing in the last few years, under Chirac, you have to wonder. As a conspiracy theory, it is at least slightly more common-sensical than the Trilateralists running things.

 

I do know that the resulting instability that flowed from the Shah's fall has killed millions of people, and perhaps helped cause the fall of the Soviet Union. Look at what flowed... The Shah falls from power, and the Soviets, seeing the loss of a stabilizing power on their flank, the rise of Islamism, and the instability of their puppet in Kabul, decide to invade Afghanistan to either take advantage of the chaos or prevent the spread of Islamic fundamentalism to their own turf. That's one, right there--with the Shah in power, the Soviets likely would not have chosen to try an invasion, fearing the response. So, we'd have gone to the Moscow Olympics.

 

Similarly, had the Shah been in power, or his son (don't forget that the Shah was deathly ill during all this), Saddam would have been very unlikely to have invaded Iran. And, if he had, the Gulf Arabs would have been equally unlikely to support him, financially, or otherwise. They only did that during the Iran-Iraq war because of the fear of Shiite fundamentalism spreading to their own turf. Iraq would have remained a second-rate power, and the Hussein family would likely still be running the place into the ground. That right there is a couple of million lives that would have been spared suffering the fate of re-fighting WWI in the deserts and marshes of southern Iraq.

 

Other things? Who knows? Those two major conflicts both spread from the fall of the Shah, and the resulting instability of Iran. If you were to presume that Carter was responsible, then the man should be tried for war crimes. Fortunately for him, political idiocy and the law of unintended consequences have no traction in our legal system. If they did, then Carter arguably has earned a place up there with Pol Pot, Stalin, and the other twentieth-century mass-murderers. Ironically, he'd be there unintentionally, but, still... He'd be there.

Edited February 16, 2008 by thekirk

[Archie Pellagio]

Over all it wouldn't have changed much.

 

As it was there following the revolution there was a very real spirit of reconcilliation between the US and Iran - Although not in public.

 

The US was in negotiation with the new government and looking to reestablish contact and relations with the new rulers of the country.

 

The senior iranian leadership accepted this.

 

The storming of the US embassy then made things very complicated with khomeini (who initially ordered their removal) later seeing the popularity of the action and then endorsing it.

 

It could be very liekly there would be aworkable (if not neccesarily smooth) relationship between the US and Iran, which could have significant knock on effects.

 

But as the old adage goes, after the revolution comes the revolution.

 

On the whole there would certainly be no positive effect of Carter propping up the shah. Revolutions occur when the people no longer believe in the rulers legitimacy. His time was up. He was hated.

 

It would've been better to have handed him over to the iranians, we made the decision not to support him before his ersatz-abdication, which implies that the US no longer accepted his legitimacy, therefore he was no longer our "client" and thus we had no reason to protect him in exile, and it would've gone a long way towards improving the teetering possibility of US/ Iranian relations.

[KingSargent]

It would've been better to have handed him over to the iranians, we made the decision not to support him before his ersatz-abdication, which implies that the US no longer accepted his legitimacy, therefore he was no longer our "client" and thus we had no reason to protect him in exile, and it would've gone a long way towards improving the teetering possibility of US/ Iranian relations.

 

Right. We had just abandoned South VietNam to the wolves, now we are going to pull another "Fukk You, Friend"? :rolleyes:

[gewing]

Right. We had just abandoned South VietNam to the wolves, now we are going to pull another "Fukk You, Friend"? :rolleyes:

 

 

 

too damned straight!

 

Playing the game as if the US was a sociopath, with no concern for anyone else was part of the problem, imfo.

[JWB]

Right. We had just abandoned South VietNam to the wolves, now we are going to pull another "Fukk You, Friend"? :rolleyes:

The Shah was not our friend.

[Archie Pellagio]

Right. We had just abandoned South VietNam to the wolves, now we are going to pull another "Fukk You, Friend"? :rolleyes:

 

What the US (and others) did to South Vietnam was criminally traitorous with no excuse.

 

With the Shah we had already decided by our refusal to provide further support that he was no longer legitimate, and the popular will of the Iranian people ran counter to him in a popular revolution (at that stage it was not about religious zealots)

 

We'd already shut the door of the warm cabin to leave him in the snow drifts.

 

We wouldn't be abandoning him, we'd be sheltering a corrupt and brutal dictator who we'd previously disowned for that very reason.

 

We picked the worst of both worlds...

[philgollin]

The Iranian "revolution" was extremely popular and the overwhelming majority population was against the Shah.

 

The armed forces were reasonably loyal and the oil producing regions were likewise reasonably loyal (but in the South the Abadan/Khorammshah area had problems with the Marsh Arab majority - but Ahwaz had severe problems until the troops arrived in force.

 

The Shah was regarded as a vain parasite and the Savak were hated throughout the country.

 

Even the vast sums of money brought in by the 70s oil price hike was mishandled with relatively unpopular secular education being imposed too fast on a censervative population and too much money going to a small, corrupt clique. The vast majority of the religious poor saw nothing but corruption and a regime which imposed rigid obedience under fear of summary punishment. Even when the US and UK advised the Shah to slow things up and slacken his security apparatus he ignored them. Early demonstrations were put down violently merely leading to wider-spread upset.

 

There was nothing an outside force could have done other than kill more civilians.

 

What the US and UK should have done is try to force the Shah to relax his regime and slow down (or even back-track on) his secular chnages.

 

I still remember David Owen's completely stupid remarcks which caused a sudden rush in anti-UK demonstrations in Iran.

 

 

(It was all the more ironic considering that one of the previous year's "best-sellers" was "The Crash of '79" even if that was based on a different premise.)

 

.

[Rocky Davis]

The US supported and sometimes installed leaders of nations with strategic importance during the Cold War (Iran, Chile, Panama, Nicaragua come to mind). Most of these (in the end) turned out to be money-grubbing despots that were hated by the populace. And, since the US either supported or installed the despotic leader, then the populace living under said despot also turned their hate towards the US.

 

I remember those times well (in the late 1970s). The university I was attending had hordes of Iranian students also attending (mostly in the technical fields, engineering, etc.). They dare not speak out bad about the Shah in public because SAVAK agents posing as students would report "anti-government activities" back to the motherland. If this happened, the outspoken student could have his student visa pulled and he/she would be sent back to Iran (for punishment) and/or his/her family still living in Iran would pay the consequences for an outspoken child abroad. Hence, the protests that I personally witnessed here (in the Dallas area) involved Iranians that put paper bags over their heads and cut holes out for the eyes.

 

It was a sight to see such protests - some massive.

 

There were protests while the Shah was in power and there were certainly protests when the US was considering giving him asylum once he was deposed and replaced by Khomeini.

[p620346]

Suppose that Kohmeni's aircraft had been shot down over the Med by an Israeli (USN) aircraft.

[Rocky Davis]

Suppose that Kohmeni's aircraft had been shot down over the Med by an Israeli (USN) aircraft.

 

Can you say "Let's throw a lit match on that gasoline and see what happens."

[nitflegal]

I doubt if it would have mattered much, the Shah was just too unpopular. My dad was TDY'd there for four months a year before the fall (and would have been there for the fall if there hadn't been a 2 month delay because of work on the AWAC program; thee guy he was supposed replace was a bit ticked. . .) and we visited him. Even on the embassy there was a lot of talk about how nasty the Shah was and his Savak was just flat out evil. That iron-hand stuff was already breaking down, I don't see it getting better without a miracle.

 

Matt

[stimson47]

I think a few people have pointed it out already, but it's really doubtful that even a verbal show of support would've mattered much in 1979. The Shah was deeply unpopular with his people, and truthfully had been since he came to power in 1941 when the Soviets & British installed him. I've met a few Americans who served in the Tehran embassy over the years, and they all say the same thing about the Shah: he was vain, weak, and surrounded himself with yes men who told him what he what he wanted to hear. Unfortunetely, most of the American sources at the time were in the SAVAK or close to the Shah, so we tended to think the trouble would pass in 78-79. Also, from what I've heard it was more the defection of the Army (or rather their refusal to intervene at the very end) that really sealed the deal. By 1979 the matter was very internal.

 

Regarding French involvment in the return of Khomeni and the overthrow of the Shah. Khomeni actually spent a very short period of time in France (he was expelled from Najaf in 1978 by Hussein). And there is in fact a story that floats around out there that the head of DGSE at the time approached SAVAK and offered to arrange an "accident" for Khomeni, but they declined the offer. It seems pretty unlikely that Khomeni and the other opposition leaders needed the assistance of the French government to finish off the Shah.

 

On a note of total irony here. Two of Khomeni's grandchildren are very active in the opposition to the current Iranian government, and one visited the U.S. recently and met with the son of the Shah.

[philgollin]

............. Also, from what I've heard it was more the defection of the Army (or rather their refusal to intervene at the very end) that really sealed the deal. ..........

 

 

One big problem was the conscripts going on leave, back to their families, and picking up the discontent at home. This led to the army having to spread its reliable and/or elite units around te country to "stiffen" the ordinary troops (who were already "stiffening" the Gendarmerie).

[Archie Pellagio]

Even the vast sums of money brought in by the 70s oil price hike was mishandled with relatively unpopular secular education being imposed too fast on a censervative population and too much money going to a small, corrupt clique. The vast majority of the religious poor saw nothing but corruption and a regime which imposed rigid obedience under fear of summary punishment. Even when the US and UK advised the Shah to slow things up and slacken his security apparatus he ignored them. Early demonstrations were put down violently merely leading to wider-spread upset.

 

The problem was the price hike from 73 onwards of oil, and the vast public works and infrastructure projects (good things) as well as massive defence spending (questionable things) meant there were massive inflationary pressures on the Iranian economy.

 

As for shooting down Khomeini's plane, as it was the early days of the revolution were highly chaotic, with little centralized authority - even by khomeini, although he was one of the few people who's words carried any weight.

 

Had his plane been shot down, or he ascended to allah or whatever, it would've meant simply greater revolutionary chaos in Iran, and anyone's guess as to what might happen.

 

Don't forget, khomeini returned to Iran once the Shah had already left for "indefinate medical treatment".

[Special-K]

Thanks for the replies! I'm learning alot about the subject that I wasn't aware of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-K

[philgollin]

The problem was the price hike from 73 onwards of oil, and the vast public works and infrastructure projects (good things) as well as massive defence spending (questionable things) meant there were massive inflationary pressures on the Iranian economy. ........................

 

Which is the main reason why the oil regions were generally "pro-Shah" - they had increased incomes with the oil jobs and the vast imports of the oil and gas companies meant that work and opportunities were rife.

 

However, especially in the South, the general discontent (and Marsh Arab nationalistic leanings) meant that there were massive demonstrations in late Summer which led to a security crack-down which led to a cycle of demonstrations - crack-down (inc. deaths and torture) - general discontent and reprisals - demonstrations and round, and round again.

 

I always wondered what happened to all those Savak officers who left the country - it would seem that only nice middle-class business people and down-trodden poor made it to Europe, USA and Australia.

 

.

[Archie Pellagio]

Which is the main reason why the oil regions were generally "pro-Shah" - they had increased incomes with the oil jobs and the vast imports of the oil and gas companies meant that work and opportunities were rife.

 

However, especially in the South, the general discontent (and Marsh Arab nationalistic leanings) meant that there were massive demonstrations in late Summer which led to a security crack-down which led to a cycle of demonstrations - crack-down (inc. deaths and torture) - general discontent and reprisals - demonstrations and round, and round again.

 

I always wondered what happened to all those Savak officers who left the country - it would seem that only nice middle-class business people and down-trodden poor made it to Europe, USA and Australia.

 

Well, sure, but the thing is that the khorramshah area around Abadan etc was heavily westernized and often older guys will still be very pro-western / anti-islamist. You'll often find old guys who speak perfect english with a Texan accent!

I'll never forget one guy from Abadan who sounded like Clint Eastwood, i asked him if he studied in America, he said 'would you believe I can't even read or write Farsi?"

 

The marsh Arabs are in the North West and tended to keep to themselves as they aren't (or weren't) a real political entity in '78.

 

A lot of the SAVAK guys met nasty ends as they stayed a bit too long. The exodus didn't really start until '79, by which time it was too late for them. They didn't have long life expectancies post 1978.

[KingSargent]

Well, sure, but the thing is that the khorramshah area around Abadan etc was heavily westernized and often older guys will still be very pro-western / anti-islamist. You'll often find old guys who speak perfect english with a Texan accent!

I'll never forget one guy from Abadan who sounded like Clint Eastwood, i asked him if he studied in America, he said 'would you believe I can't even read or write Farsi?"

That doesn't mean he didn't study in America. I can't read or write Farsi either, and I speak pretty good English - even if I sound more like Sylvester than Clint Eastwood.

[philgollin]

Well, sure, but the thing is that the khorramshah area around Abadan etc was heavily westernized and often older guys will still be very pro-western / anti-islamist. You'll often find old guys who speak perfect english with a Texan accent!

I'll never forget one guy from Abadan who sounded like Clint Eastwood, i asked him if he studied in America, he said 'would you believe I can't even read or write Farsi?"

 

The marsh Arabs are in the North West and tended to keep to themselves as they aren't (or weren't) a real political entity in '78.

 

A lot of the SAVAK guys met nasty ends as they stayed a bit too long. The exodus didn't really start until '79, by which time it was too late for them. They didn't have long life expectancies post 1978.

 

I don't know where you were, but there were severe problems around Khorramshah/Abadan and Ahwaz had curfews for long periods (including the death of an American at one stage). The oil industry associated people knew which side their butter was - but there were still severe disturbances.

 

The Marsh Arabs lived down south around Khorramshah/Abadan - and were a factor that had to be taken into account when doling out jobs in the area.

 

There were several "false" scares in the general exodus of Shah supporters from Iran. Around August/September a major set of disturbences meant that manyfamilies found excuses to go on extended holidays. Things started hotting up again in late October (it had never really died down completely). Just before Christmas there were again major exoduses as the rumours of Khomeni coming and the Shah leaving got to fever point, even on the state television.

 

Things calmed down a bit in early January, but then built up again. However, foreigners and savy Iranians could fly into and out of Iran all that year. If one wanted to use the land borders then again it was easy, if expensive in bribes.

 

There is a lot of exageration surrounding the suddeness and completeness of the imposition of the worse horros of the Revolutionary Guards, etc.... , in reality they came quite slowly and in patches.

 

.

[Archie Pellagio]

I don't know where you were, but there were severe problems around Khorramshah/Abadan and Ahwaz had curfews for long periods (including the death of an American at one stage). The oil industry associated people knew which side their butter was - but there were still severe disturbances.

 

The Marsh Arabs lived down south around Khorramshah/Abadan - and were a factor that had to be taken into account when doling out jobs in the area.

 

I'm well aware of what happened in khorasan during the revolution, I just think you're giving far too much importance to the marsh arabs.

Sure they were there, but so were Jews, Christians and zartoosh. So what.

 

There is a lot of exageration surrounding the suddeness and completeness of the imposition of the worse horros of the Revolutionary Guards, etc.... , in reality they came quite slowly and in patches.

 

Preaching to the choir mate...

[philgollin]

I'm well aware of what happened in khorasan during the revolution, I just think you're giving far too much importance to the marsh arabs..........

 

Because you seemed to be totally wrong in placing where the Marsh Arabs were and were forgetting their local importance in the area

[Archie Pellagio]

Because you seemed to be totally wrong in placing where the Marsh Arabs were and were forgetting their local importance in the area

 

Right. Educate me then...

[philgollin]

Right. Educate me then...

 

Silly, silly, silly ! - where have I said they were.