It All Started in Tehran (or: how the Carter administration ed up bigtime)

[whottt]

Axis

By Amir TAHERI in Axis of Logic
www.axisoflogic.com . . .
October 30, 2004 -- When the Americans go to the polls on Tuesday they would do well to remember two events that have altered their lives forever. The first was the raid on the US Embassy in Tehran, and the seizure of American hostages on Nov. 4, 1979. The second was the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks against New York and Washington.



The embassy seizure showed that Americans were no longer safe outside their homeland and that even diplomatic immunity would not protect them. The 9/11 attacks showed that the Americans were no longer safe even in their own homeland, and that no amount of military clout could protect them against enemies that recognized no bounds.



In a sense the Nov. 4, 1979 attack on the US Embassy in Tehran could be regarded as the opening scene of a long drama that reached its catharsis on Sept. 11, 2001.



Here is why.



The 1979 embassy attack came at a time that the administration of President Jimmy Carter was trying to prop up the new Khomeinist regime in Tehran. Carter had decided to support Khomeini in the context of the so-called “Green Belt” strategy developed by his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Bzrezinski.



That strategy was born out of the assumption that the US and its allies were unable to contain the Soviet Union, then expanding its zone of influence into Africa, the Indian Ocean region and, through left-leaning regimes, in Latin America.



To counter that, Bzrezinski envisaged the creation of a string of Islamic allies that, for religious as well as political reasons, would prefer the United States against the “Godless” Soviet empire. The second stage in Bzrezinski's grand strategy was to incite the Muslim peoples of the USSR to revolt against Moscow and thus frustrate its global schemes.



The Bzerzinski strategy had been partly inspired by the French Sovietologist Helene Carrere d’Encausse who, in her book called “The Fragmented Empire”, predicted the disintegration of the USSR as a result of revolts by Muslim minorities.



When the Islamic revolution started in Iran, the Carter administration saw it as the confirmation of its assumption that only Islamists could master enough popular support to provide an alternative to both the existing despotic regimes and the pro-Soviet leftist movements.



The Carter administration went out of its way to support the new regime in Tehran. A ban imposed on the sale of arms and materiel to Iran, imposed in 1978, was lifted, and a US presidential “finding”, signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1954, was dusted up to reaffirm Washington’s commitment to defending Iran against Soviet or other threats.



Also to symboliZe support for the mullas, President Carter initially rejected a visa application for the exiled Shah to travel to New York for medical treatment.



Just weeks after the mullas’ regime was formed, Bzerzinski traveled to Morocco to meet Mehdi Bazargan, Ayatollah Khomeini's first prime minister. At the meeting, Bzrezinski invited the new Iranian regime to enter into a strategic partnership with the United States. Bazargan, concerned that the Iranian left might bid for power against the still wobbly regime of the mullas, was “ecstatic” about the American offer.



The embassy raid came just days after the Bzrezinski-Bazargan meeting in Morocco and, by all accounts, took Khomeini by surprise. It is now clear that leftist groups opposed to rapprochement with the US had inspired the raid.



Khomeini saw the incident as a leftist ploy to undermine his authority. He was also concerned about the possibility of the US taking strong military and political action against his still fragile regime. Deciding to hedge his bets, the ayatollah played a double game for several days, waiting to gauge American reaction.



According to his late son Ahmad, who had been asked to coordinate with the embassy-raiders, the ayatollah feared “thunder and lightning” from Washington. But what came, instead, was a series of bland statements by Carter and his aides pleading for the release of the hostages on humanitarian ground.



Carter’s envoy to the UN, a certain Andrew Young, described Khomeini as “a Twentieth Century saint”, and begged the ayatollah to show “magnanimity and compassion.”



Carter went further by sending a letter to Khomeini. Written in longhand, it was an appeal from “one believer to a man of God.” Carter’s syrupy prose must have amused Khomeini who preferred a minimalist style with such phrases as “we shall cut off America’s hands.”



As days passed, with the American diplomats paraded in front of television cameras blindfolded and threatened with execution, it became increasingly clear that there would be no “thunder and lightning” from Washington. By the end of the first week of the drama, that was to last for 444 days and ended the day Ronald Reagan entered the White House, Khomeini’s view of the United States had changed.



Ahmad Khomeini’s memoirs echo the surprise that his father, the ayatollah, showed, as the Carter administration behaved “like a headless chicken.”



What especially surprised Khomeini was that Cater and his aides, notably Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, rather than condemning the seizure and the treatment of the hostages as a barbarous act, appeared apologetic for unspecified mistakes supposedly committed by the US and asked for forgiveness and magnanimity.



Once he had concluded that the US would not take any meaningful action against his regime, Khomeini took over control of the hostages’ enterprise and used it as a means of propping his “anti-imperialist” credentials while outflanking the left.



The surprising show of weakness from Washington also encouraged the mullas and the hostage-holders to come up with a fresh demand each day. Started as a revolutionary gesture, the episode, soon led to a demand for the US to capture and hand over the Shah for trial. When signals came that Washington might actually consider doing so, other demands were advanced. The US was asked to apologize to Muslim peoples everywhere and, in effect, change its foreign policy to please the ayatollah.



Matters became worse when a military mission sent by Carter to rescue the hostages ended in tragedy in the Iranian desert. The A-Team dispatched by Carter fled under the cover of the night, leaving behind the charred bodies of eight of their comrades.



In his memoirs, Ahmad nicely catches the mood of his father who had expected the Americans to do “something serious” such as threatening to block Iran’s oil exports or even firing a few missiles at the ayatollah’s neighbourhood.



But not only none of that happened, the Carter administration was plunged into internal feuds as Vance resigned in protest against the attempt to rescue the hostages. It was then that Khomeini coined his notorious phrase “America Cannot Do a Damn Thing.”




He also ordered that the slogan “Death to America” be inscribed in all official buildings and vehicles. The star-spangled flag was to be painted at the entrance of airports, railway stations, ministries, factories, schools, hotels and bazaars so that the faithful could trample it under feet every day.



The slogan “America cannot do a damn thing” became the basis of all strategies worked out by Islamist militant groups, including those that, for doctrinal or political reasons, were opposed to Khomeini.



That slogan was tested and proved right for almost a quarter of a century. Between Nov. 4, 1979 and Sept. 11, 2001 a total of 671 Americans were seized and held as hostages for varying lengths of time in several Muslim countries.



Almost a thousand Americans were killed, including 241 Marines who were blown up while asleep in Beirut in 1983.



For 22 years the United States, under presidents from both parties, behaved in exactly the way that Khomeini predicted. It took countless successive blows, including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, without decisive retaliation. That at ude invited, indeed encouraged, more attacks. The 9/11 tragedy was the denouement of the Nov. 4 attack on the US Embassy in Tehran.

[whottt]

This is pretty revealing...I had always assumed that the Soviets played the largest role in the rise of the Ayatollahs. I know they backed the formation of the PLO, the 1967 War against Israel and the rise of the Ba'aath party in Iraq. Still not convinced they didn't play a larger role in Iran. But this article also shows why the sensitive approach will never work.

And anyone ever notice how enemies of the US always wind up in France when they are in need? Where's Yasser right now? Where was the Ayatollah prior to taking power in Iran? Our friend indeed.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

The Reagan administration ed up too.
And don't forget Rummy and Bush I's friendship with Saddam.
Start thinking about what is going on TODAY.

[whottt]

What's the big deal? We made friendly overtures to Iraq during the Reagan era, after the Soviet Union backed the socialist Baath party into power, because Iran was a hostage taking enemy. Then Saddam turned into a head and we punished him for it. Now he's gone. It's not that hard to figure out. Saddam had no track record when all those meetings took place...other than he hated Iran and so did we. Had we reacted towards Iran like we should have, when they took our diplomats hostage, none of this terror war might have occurred. Jimmy sucked terrorist and they laghed at him for it.

One thing is clear...nothing appeases militant Islam and forgetting about it doesn't make it go away. Republicans get this now. Europe and most Democrats don't. They want to keep doing the same ...sanctions, treating these heads like they are reasonable peace seeking people, give them nobel peace prizes...as the problem gets worse and worse. It's time to fight it.

Get ready...Iran is on the ass kicking list now. They are heads and they are either going to join the 21st century or they are going to get their ass kicked and overthrown. It might even get nuclear.

Strap on your seatbelt. This has only just begun. If you don't like it...go to France, they suck enough terrorist to where you should be relatively safe...more or less. Just be prepared to pray to Allah 5 times a day, and hate jews and Americans, and survival should be no problem for you.

Welcome to reality.

[boutons]

"Now he's gone."

... totally wasted effort. Saddam didn't/couldn't attack/threaten USA and was not connected with militant Islam.

"Saddam had no track record when all those meetings took place..."

The Israelis took out his nuclear reactor in '81. I would say they thought Saddam's track record was pretty bad (and his "intentions" a la shrub Minority Report thinking).

"Had we reacted towards Iran like we should have"

too comfortably, conveniently vague. Tell us what President Jimmie Whott or Saint Ronnie Whott would have done differently in the Iran hostage crisis, or, and this is a lot easier, AFTER you got the hostages back home on 21 Jan 81.

"It's time to fight it."

Absolutely agreed. Then why the holy are we wasting our military's lives and resources ing around in Iraq where there was no militant/political Islam there?

Why? because shrub had on idea how to fight terrorism after he shot his wad in Afghanistan. He had already made an unmissable example of Aghanistan by obliterating the Taliban (but then took his eye off that ball). America's ability to fight militant Islam in Syria and Iran is dissipated.

'Iran is on the ass kicking list now."

Nah, even if shrub is elected, he won't touch terrorist-protecting/supporting countries Iran or Iran's Shiite proxy/protectorate of Syria/Lebanon. Should he? yes. The primary reason he won't? Because Shrub has wasted his military resources, and the world's 9/11 sympathy for USA, on the wrong ing target of Iraq. Afghanistan was not finished, and Iran/Syria were/are much more militantly Islam/terrorizing. Nice in job, shrub, you in cretin. The USA is not safer after Iraq war, and our military is now tied down, spent in a ing quaqmire of no benefit to USA.

I am all for a surprise attack on Iran to destroy its military bases, nuclear facilities, oil refineries, key government buildings, bridges, ports. This surprise could have been done from a military buildup ostensibly to go after Saddam, but then switch the shock-and-awe to Iran. No ground trooops, just a horribly destructive air war, cheap dumb bombs, like USA in the Balkans. That would have had a super-chilling effect on Saddam (as if he wasn't already incapacitated.)

If the world, still sympathetic to the USA pre-Iraq war, would have ed about attacking Iran, the US shuts them up with: "Remember the US Embassy in Teheran and STFU".

[spurster]

Now it's Carter's fault, too? Why not just go all the way and blame it on LBJ, JFK, Truman, and FDR?

Bush has been in the White House for nearly four years. Take some responsibility, admit your mistakes, and learn from them. Oh yes, and fire those advisors that have repeatedly screwed up.

[mouse]

Now it's Carter's fault, too? Why not just go all the way and blame it on LBJ, JFK, Truman, and FDR?

Psssst! You left out Abe Lincon




.

[whottt]

"Now he's gone."

... totally wasted effort. Saddam didn't/couldn't attack/threaten USA and was not connected with militant Islam.

Not true...it's been well do ented he supported the PLO and suicide bombers. Osama mentioned Iraq and Iraq realted reasons as justification for his attacks...and they both hate the USA.

The Israelis took out his nuclear reactor in '81. I would say they thought Saddam's track record was pretty bad (and his "intentions" a la shrub Minority Report thinking).

So? The Iraelis kicked the out of a lot of countries we had diplomatic relations with...mainly because they had a habit of attacking Israel on all sides. We don't endorse everything Israel does...you are ing stupid...we don't protect Israel from the Arabs...we protect the Arabs from Israel. Figure it out.

too comfortably, conveniently vague. Tell us what President Jimmie Whott or Saint Ronnie Whott would have done differently in the Iran hostage crisis, or, and this is a lot easier, AFTER you got the hostages back home on 21 Jan 81.

Probably kicked the out of Iran and told the Soviets to go themselves.

Absolutely agreed. Then why the holy are we wasting our military's lives and resources ing around in Iraq where there was no militant/political Islam there?

It's statements like this that make me hope you don't vote. No militant Islam in Iraq? It has one of the holiest sites in all of Islam within it's borders...you didn't see it there because Saddam would slaughter them wholesale of they made problems.

Why? because shrub had on idea how to fight terrorism after he shot his wad in Afghanistan. He had already made an unmissable example of Aghanistan by obliterating the Taliban (but then took his eye off that ball). America's ability to fight militant Islam in Syria and Iran is dissipated.

You are ing insane...how the would we have a front to fight Iran without Iraq and Afghansistan? Are you this ignorant? They both border Iran...we are in much better position to fight them now.

Nah, even if shrub is elected, he won't touch terrorist-protecting/supporting countries Iran or Iran's Shiite proxy/protectorate of Syria/Lebanon. Should he? yes. The primary reason he won't? Because Shrub has wasted his military resources, and the world's 9/11 sympathy for USA, on the wrong ing target of Iraq. Afghanistan was not finished, and Iran/Syria were/are much more militantly Islam/terrorizing. Nice in job, shrub, you in cretin. The USA is not safer after Iraq war, and our military is now tied down, spent in a ing quaqmire of no benefit to USA.

Ignorant of history...we are on a record pace.

And a Bush victory will serve as a referendum on his policies. If he is re-elected it will send a message both to the world and to Bush that the American people are behind him and what he wants to do in the mid-east.

I am all for a surprise attack on Iran to destroy its military bases, nuclear facilities, oil refineries, key government buildings, bridges, ports. This surprise could have been done from a military buildup ostensibly to go after Saddam, but then switch the shock-and-awe to Iran. No ground trooops, just a horribly destructive air war, cheap dumb bombs, like USA in the Balkans. That would have had a super-chilling effect on Saddam (as if he wasn't already incapacitated.)

You won't get that with Kerry...ever.

If the world, still sympathetic to the USA pre-Iraq war, would have ed about attacking Iran, the US shuts them up with: "Remember the US Embassy in Teheran and STFU".

The world was never sympathetic to us pre-Iraq, Bush just refused to be subservient to their elitist terrorist creating policies. And you are deluded about our so called friends in Europe.

You have a severely imparied grasp of history, I don't really hold your views against you personally for this reason...I just wish you searched out world history with as much vigor as you attack President Bush.

[mouse]

Whott the are you talking about?

[whottt]

Now it's Carter's fault, too? Why not just go all the way and blame it on LBJ, JFK, Truman, and FDR?

Um because they didn't have anything to do with it and Carter did...how's that for starters?

Bush has been in the White House for nearly four years. Take some responsibility, admit your mistakes, and learn from them. Oh yes, and fire those advisors that have repeatedly screwed up.

Taliban gone from Afghanistan and replaced by Democracy...and Saddam gone from Iraq...why don't you give credit where it is deserved.

[whottt]

Psssst! You left out Abe Lincon




.

Abe Lincoln was a Republican.

[whottt]

Whott the are you talking about?

You'd have to not be stoned to get it.

[mouse]

<//////#~ puff ,puff, pass, that is my only creed I live by...

[mouse]

Abe Lincoln was a Republican.

That's why he deserved to get shot

[whottt]

I guess that's justification for the other two Republican Presidents assasinated as well.

I guess you are happy when racists succed in murdering men who stand against it.