Can Muslims Be Good Americans?
Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia.
Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256) (Koran).
Scripturally - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically - no. . .Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day. Note: [There is an unmentioned SIXTH pillar of Islam -- Jihad, holy war which obliges every Moslem’s participation, either as a warrior or a supporter.]
Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. . . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.
Domestically - no. . . . Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually - no. . . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles, and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation, perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.
They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans.
* * * Call it what you wish; it's still the truth.
* * * You had better believe it.
* * * The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.
You HAVE to be kidding?! Wake up America !
And not only that , someone has elected a Marxist trained one as president of the U.S.A.
(Internet Email)
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
ISLAM'S JIHADI PLAN TO CONTROL AMERICA IN 20-YEARS
This Islamic 20-year project receives strong assistance from Oba-Hussein and his actions of putting fervent Moslems into top level poistions and at his insistence offering lower level government jobs to thousands of other Moslems.
Read the response, addressed to Mr. Obama, to all this at the end of the article.
By Anis Shorrosh IHC Abstract
Dr. Shorrosh offers the following 20-point analysis of the Islamist agenda to take over America by the year 2020:
1. Replace America’s freedom of speech with “anti-hate crime” bills that silence free speech nation-wide.
2. Wage a war of words using black leaders to promote Islam as the original African-American’s religion. Strangely, no one states the fact that it was Arab Muslims who captured and sold them as slaves, neither the fact that in Arabic the word for black and slave is the same: Abed.
3. Engage the American public on the virtues of Islam.
4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office.
5. Take control of the media and the internet by buying the corporations or a controlling stock. [Done! They even own about 10% of FOX!]
6. Encourage the fear of imminent shut-off of Middle Eastern oil supply.
7. Protest any time Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena. [The criminal CAIR leads the way in this!]
8. Acquire government positions, get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. Ever notice how many doctors in America are Muslim, when their countries of origin need them more desperately?
9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:
· Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961)
· Marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually)
· Convert angry, alienated black prison inmates and turn them into militants (2000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida).
10. Mosques and student centers (now ~2000) should teach hatred of Jews, Christians and democracy. Hundreds of Muslim schools are firstly loyal to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution.
11. Provide grants to colleges and universities in America to establish “Centers for Islamic studies”.
12. Tell the world that terrorists have hijacked Islam, but not the truth, that Islam hijacked the terrorists.
13. Appeal to Americans for sympathy towards the Muslims in America, who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.
14. Undermine America’s sense of security with misinformation of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.
15. Instigate prison riots demanding Islamic Sharia, not America’s justice system.
16. Increase charities throughout the U.S. but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism. [Obama publicly stated this as one of his goals!]
17. Raise interest in Islam on college campuses by insisting that freshmen take at least one course on Islam. Be sure that the instructor is American, Christian, scholarly and able to cover up the violence in the Quran while stressing its peaceful, spiritual and religious aspects only.
18. Consolidate all Muslim lobbies, mosques, Islamic student centers and media via the internet and hold an annual convention to coordinate plans to propagate the faith.
19. Send intimidating messages to outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by any means.
20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the US, by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethnic groups in America.
HOWEVER!
President OBAMA said in his Cairo speech: "I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story.
Dear Mr. Obama:
Where were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed?
Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.
Were they Muslims who celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.
Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution?
Declaration of Independence ? Bill of Rights? Didn't think so.
Did Muslims fight for this country's freedom from England ? No.
Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America ? No, they did not. In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery.
Your own 'half brother' a devout Muslim still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black Muslims as "pug nosed slaves."
Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family's "rich Islamic heritage" doesn't it Mr.Obama?
Where were your Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not
present.
There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King Jr.. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.
Where were Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage era? Again, not present.
In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so that often they are beaten for not wearing the 'hijab' or for talking to a man that is not a direct family member or their husband.
Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights aren't they?
Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler.
The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi's in killing Jews.
Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001?
If they weren't flying planes into the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the middle east.
No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other news networks that day.
Strangely, the very "moderate" Muslims who's asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo , Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11.
To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.
And now we can add November 5, 2009-- the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan .
That, Mr. Obama is "Muslim heritage" in America .
And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here in America .
And you, Mr. Obama, verge on being a treacherous traitor.
Read the response, addressed to Mr. Obama, to all this at the end of the article.
By Anis Shorrosh IHC Abstract
Dr. Shorrosh offers the following 20-point analysis of the Islamist agenda to take over America by the year 2020:
1. Replace America’s freedom of speech with “anti-hate crime” bills that silence free speech nation-wide.
2. Wage a war of words using black leaders to promote Islam as the original African-American’s religion. Strangely, no one states the fact that it was Arab Muslims who captured and sold them as slaves, neither the fact that in Arabic the word for black and slave is the same: Abed.
3. Engage the American public on the virtues of Islam.
4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office.
5. Take control of the media and the internet by buying the corporations or a controlling stock. [Done! They even own about 10% of FOX!]
6. Encourage the fear of imminent shut-off of Middle Eastern oil supply.
7. Protest any time Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena. [The criminal CAIR leads the way in this!]
8. Acquire government positions, get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. Ever notice how many doctors in America are Muslim, when their countries of origin need them more desperately?
9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:
· Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961)
· Marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually)
· Convert angry, alienated black prison inmates and turn them into militants (2000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida).
10. Mosques and student centers (now ~2000) should teach hatred of Jews, Christians and democracy. Hundreds of Muslim schools are firstly loyal to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution.
11. Provide grants to colleges and universities in America to establish “Centers for Islamic studies”.
12. Tell the world that terrorists have hijacked Islam, but not the truth, that Islam hijacked the terrorists.
13. Appeal to Americans for sympathy towards the Muslims in America, who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.
14. Undermine America’s sense of security with misinformation of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.
15. Instigate prison riots demanding Islamic Sharia, not America’s justice system.
16. Increase charities throughout the U.S. but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism. [Obama publicly stated this as one of his goals!]
17. Raise interest in Islam on college campuses by insisting that freshmen take at least one course on Islam. Be sure that the instructor is American, Christian, scholarly and able to cover up the violence in the Quran while stressing its peaceful, spiritual and religious aspects only.
18. Consolidate all Muslim lobbies, mosques, Islamic student centers and media via the internet and hold an annual convention to coordinate plans to propagate the faith.
19. Send intimidating messages to outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by any means.
20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the US, by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethnic groups in America.
HOWEVER!
President OBAMA said in his Cairo speech: "I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story.
Dear Mr. Obama:
Where were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed?
Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.
Were they Muslims who celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.
Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution?
Declaration of Independence ? Bill of Rights? Didn't think so.
Did Muslims fight for this country's freedom from England ? No.
Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America ? No, they did not. In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery.
Your own 'half brother' a devout Muslim still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black Muslims as "pug nosed slaves."
Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family's "rich Islamic heritage" doesn't it Mr.Obama?
Where were your Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not
present.
There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King Jr.. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.
Where were Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage era? Again, not present.
In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so that often they are beaten for not wearing the 'hijab' or for talking to a man that is not a direct family member or their husband.
Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights aren't they?
Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler.
The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi's in killing Jews.
Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001?
If they weren't flying planes into the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the middle east.
No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other news networks that day.
Strangely, the very "moderate" Muslims who's asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo , Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11.
To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.
And now we can add November 5, 2009-- the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan .
That, Mr. Obama is "Muslim heritage" in America .
And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here in America .
And you, Mr. Obama, verge on being a treacherous traitor.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
OBA-HUSSEIN-KHOMEINI CLEARLY SUPPORTING THE MULLAHS
Obama is effectively supporting the regime in Iran.
By Mona Charen:
President Obama likes to preen himself on his supposed moral superiority to his predecessor. He announced the closing of Guantanamo in his first week on the job (though, ten months on, it remains open) to advertise the new administration’s disdain for George Bush’s war-fighting tactics. And at every opportunity since, he has stressed that his policies — on taxes, on the Middle East, on health care, on “man-caused disasters,” and on “climate change” — reflect a more refined and elevated morality than has ever before held sway in Washington, D.C.
So you have to wonder how the president slept last Wednesday night.
He has known that critics in the United States regarded his posture toward the Iranian regime as weak. But on Wednesday, he heard this critique from a different quarter — one that will be more difficult to dismiss.
Every year, on November 4, the anniversary of the day in 1979 when Iranian thugs took American diplomats hostage in Tehran, the government has organized a street demonstration outside the former American embassy. In the early days, the rallies may have engaged a certain number of spontaneous participants, but they have long since become utterly stage-managed government shows. The only people the regime could muster this year to chant “Death to America! Death to Israel!” were non-Iranian members of Hezbollah and students bused in from the provinces for that purpose.
But that wasn’t the only demonstration in Tehran that day. Displaying awe-inspiring courage in light of the brutal tactics (including murder) the regime has used to quell opposition, tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets again. Instead of “Death to America,” they shouted “Death to the Dictator,” referring to Ahmadinejad. And they trampled on photos of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Michael Ledeen, of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, reports that demonstrations also erupted in Shiraz, Isfahan, Kermanshah, Zahedan, Arak, Mazandaran, Tabriz, and Rasht. As before, the regime used paramilitary goons on motorcycles to beat, tear-gas, and bludgeon protestors. And again the regime disrupted cell-phone service, text messaging, and the Internet to prevent demonstrators from coordinating their activities.
But this is what should awaken Obama’s conscience: The protestors chanted something new this time. As they dodged the blows of the militia they chorused: “Obama! Obama! Either you’re with them or you’re with us.”
This exquisitely moral White House was unmoved. Incredibly, President Obama released a statement that very day commemorating (!) the 30-year anniversary of the kidnapping of America’s diplomats, taking the opportunity once again to abase himself and us. “Thirty years ago today,” the president recalled, “the American embassy was seized” — he did not say by whom. But because some anonymous agent seized the embassy, it “set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust, and confrontation” that Obama is determined to reverse. He wants to move beyond the past and seek “a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.”
By ostentatiously using the term “Islamic Republic,” Obama tips his hand. He could have expressed his hopes for good relations with the people of Iran. That would have left the door open to a new Iranian regime that might not be politically Islamic. Instead he has signaled his eagerness to placate and, yes, appease the current malevolent Iranian leaders. “We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs,” he assured them. Asked about the demonstrations flaring around Iran, the president’s spokesman Robert Gibbs hoped that “the violence will not spread,” which sounds like something you’d say about rioters. In Iran, the violence is coming exclusively from the government, which is firing upon unarmed demonstrators.
Though the Obama administration has tripled the deficit in just ten months in office, it has found one program to cut — the $3 million to support the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. The tiny research organization, which kept records of the disappearances, murders, and other human-rights abuses in Iran, was abruptly defunded last month, sending a clear message of contempt to the Iranians who are putting their lives on the line to resist this vicious regime.
A successful overthrow of the nearly nuclear mullahs in Iran would be the greatest boon to world peace and stability since the fall of the Berlin Wall. After this week’s events, it can no longer be said that the Obama administration isn’t doing enough to support the opposition. The people on Tehran’s streets know the truth — he’s effectively supporting the regime.
— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2009 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
By Mona Charen:
President Obama likes to preen himself on his supposed moral superiority to his predecessor. He announced the closing of Guantanamo in his first week on the job (though, ten months on, it remains open) to advertise the new administration’s disdain for George Bush’s war-fighting tactics. And at every opportunity since, he has stressed that his policies — on taxes, on the Middle East, on health care, on “man-caused disasters,” and on “climate change” — reflect a more refined and elevated morality than has ever before held sway in Washington, D.C.
So you have to wonder how the president slept last Wednesday night.
He has known that critics in the United States regarded his posture toward the Iranian regime as weak. But on Wednesday, he heard this critique from a different quarter — one that will be more difficult to dismiss.
Every year, on November 4, the anniversary of the day in 1979 when Iranian thugs took American diplomats hostage in Tehran, the government has organized a street demonstration outside the former American embassy. In the early days, the rallies may have engaged a certain number of spontaneous participants, but they have long since become utterly stage-managed government shows. The only people the regime could muster this year to chant “Death to America! Death to Israel!” were non-Iranian members of Hezbollah and students bused in from the provinces for that purpose.
But that wasn’t the only demonstration in Tehran that day. Displaying awe-inspiring courage in light of the brutal tactics (including murder) the regime has used to quell opposition, tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets again. Instead of “Death to America,” they shouted “Death to the Dictator,” referring to Ahmadinejad. And they trampled on photos of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Michael Ledeen, of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, reports that demonstrations also erupted in Shiraz, Isfahan, Kermanshah, Zahedan, Arak, Mazandaran, Tabriz, and Rasht. As before, the regime used paramilitary goons on motorcycles to beat, tear-gas, and bludgeon protestors. And again the regime disrupted cell-phone service, text messaging, and the Internet to prevent demonstrators from coordinating their activities.
But this is what should awaken Obama’s conscience: The protestors chanted something new this time. As they dodged the blows of the militia they chorused: “Obama! Obama! Either you’re with them or you’re with us.”
This exquisitely moral White House was unmoved. Incredibly, President Obama released a statement that very day commemorating (!) the 30-year anniversary of the kidnapping of America’s diplomats, taking the opportunity once again to abase himself and us. “Thirty years ago today,” the president recalled, “the American embassy was seized” — he did not say by whom. But because some anonymous agent seized the embassy, it “set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust, and confrontation” that Obama is determined to reverse. He wants to move beyond the past and seek “a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.”
By ostentatiously using the term “Islamic Republic,” Obama tips his hand. He could have expressed his hopes for good relations with the people of Iran. That would have left the door open to a new Iranian regime that might not be politically Islamic. Instead he has signaled his eagerness to placate and, yes, appease the current malevolent Iranian leaders. “We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs,” he assured them. Asked about the demonstrations flaring around Iran, the president’s spokesman Robert Gibbs hoped that “the violence will not spread,” which sounds like something you’d say about rioters. In Iran, the violence is coming exclusively from the government, which is firing upon unarmed demonstrators.
Though the Obama administration has tripled the deficit in just ten months in office, it has found one program to cut — the $3 million to support the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. The tiny research organization, which kept records of the disappearances, murders, and other human-rights abuses in Iran, was abruptly defunded last month, sending a clear message of contempt to the Iranians who are putting their lives on the line to resist this vicious regime.
A successful overthrow of the nearly nuclear mullahs in Iran would be the greatest boon to world peace and stability since the fall of the Berlin Wall. After this week’s events, it can no longer be said that the Obama administration isn’t doing enough to support the opposition. The people on Tehran’s streets know the truth — he’s effectively supporting the regime.
— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2009 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
JIMMUH CARTER STARTED IT, JUDGE CARTER LET IT LIVE
GLOBAL DESTRUCTION OF OUR CIVILIZED WORLD
PREZ "the treasonous idiot" CARTER the architect of global terrorism
ON TO "caving judge" CARTER the fearful
ON TO narcissist OBA-HUSSEIN-Khomeini DESTROYER of the USA
From the archives of Iran Expert, Ramin Etebar MD., dating back to 2004.
These articles of mine were lost to me till Ramin resent me his site. They were written before I had my own site and was offering my articles to the Defense & Foreign Affairs
He has just sent me a good analysis on what should be the next regime in Iran and I wil post this once I do some spell checking for him, since Google has removed this capabiilty and Ramin is a very busy doctor.
It's the least I can do to return his favor.
PEANUT FARMER ARCHITECT OF OUR TERRORISTS
BY MY FRIEND ALAN PETERS
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.
Profile In Incompetence: Fourth In A Series
More on this series:
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.
(Alan Note: Actual figure from Amnesty International was closer to 2,400 - mostly Tudeh Communists and Soviet supporting Marxist-Islamists).
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 these 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians.
According to "The Real Jimmy Carter," a book by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: "Khomeini's regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah's Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years."
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.
Alan Note: recently one of the pro-Mossadegh and Tudeh (Communist) party Iranian leaders openly stated: "we were not attacking the Shah for freedoms for the people but for freedom for us to import and install our foreign (Soviet) philosophies without fear and impediment).
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."
(Alan Note: unpublicized intelligence at the time indicated that the hostage taking was arranged by Jimmuh the idiot Carter with Khomeini aides, like Yazdi, Bani-Sadr and Ghotbzadeh, who were U.S. aligned and attached to Khomeini by Carter, to ensure his re-election, when he (Carter) conveniently arranged their release just before voting took place. Ronald Reagan found out about it, blocked the plot and arranged the release AFTER the election).
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 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.
(Alan note: information obtained from post-Shah Iranian military and intelligence sources and more evidence from Americans, who were involved or on scene, all point to the so-called hostage rescue in fact being a failed arms delivery to Afghanistan, ("Green Belt" contain Soviets project) where the Soviets shot and disabled one of the C130's bringing in weapons.
Leaving Carter to either declare war on the Soviets for this act of war or pretend it was something else. Yes, a failed hostage rescue, which was still not operational after something was cobbled together by a cabal of U.S. intelligence and military groups, which all wanted a part in the operation. But whose witches brew was still not fully cooked).
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 spiteful 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 had 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.
(Alan Note: Iraq had tried once before, in the time of the Shah, to invade Iran over the dispute of the Shatt-Al Arab river between the two countries. This lasted all of four days before Saddam Hussein's forces were driven out with their tails between their legs. Nothing like the eight years under Carter's Khomeini).
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.
Carter's 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 Carter's 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 1983.
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.
(Alan Note: the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office sent some 200 observers to monitor the Carter-Reagan election to note whether the Soviets would try to spend enough money to "buy" the election for their "mole" Jimmuh Carter).
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, where 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 (including the Soviets). He was quite simply the worst president we ever had."
Quite simply, we concur. Though he is the best SOVIET president America ever elected!
(Alan Note: And Carter's liberal, to the point of Communist/Socialist leanings, can be seen in his staunch ties and support of Cuba's Castro, Venezuela's Chavez, other South American leftist governments and his anti-America diatribe attacks on anything that confronts he terrorism he stupidly created.
He has a share in all the blood, still on his hands, of all innocents killed by those he actively helped put in place.
Labels: Historical review of the 1979 Iranian Revolution
Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily
Volume XXII, No. 46 Monday, March 15, 2004Founded in 1972 Produced at least 200 times a year© 2004, Global Information System, ISSA
Exclusive:
Role of US Former Pres. Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Exclusive. Analysis. By Alan Peters,(1) GIS. Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carters resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office.
The linkage between the destruction of the Shahs Government directly attributable to Carters actions and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.
Pres. Carters anti-Shah feelings appeared to have ignited after he sent a group of several of his friends from his home state, Georgia, to Tehran with an audience arranged with His Majesty directly by the Oval Office and in Carters name. At this meeting, as reported by Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda to some confidantes, these businessmen told the Shah that Pres. Carter wanted a contract; Previously awarded to Brown & Root to build a huge port complex at Bandar Mahshahr, to be cancelled and as a personal favor to him to be awarded to the visiting group at 10 percent above the cost quoted by Brown & Root.
The group would then charge the 10 percent as a management fee and supervise the project for Iran, passing the actual construction work back to Brown & Root for implementation, as previously awarded. They insisted that without their management the project would face untold difficulties at the US end and that Pres. Carter was trying to be helpful. They told the Shah that in these perilous political times, he should appreciate the favor which Pres. Carter was doing him.
According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, the Georgia visitors left a stunned monarch and his bewildered Prime Minister speechless, other than to later comment among close confidantes about the hypocrisy of the US President, who talked glibly of God and religion but practiced blackmail and extortion through his emissaries.
The multi-billion dollar Bandar Mahshahr project would have made 10 percent management fees a huge sum to give away to Pres. Carters friends as a favor for unnecessary services. The Shah politely declined the personal management request which had been passed on to him. The refusal appeared to earn the Shah the determination of Carter to remove him from office.
Carter subsequently refused to allow tear gas and rubber bullets to be exported to Iran when anti-Shah rioting broke out, nor to allow water cannon vehicles to reach Iran to control such outbreaks, generally instigated out of the Soviet Embassy in Tehran. There was speculation in some Iranian quarters as well as in some US minds at the time and later that Carters actions were the result of either close ties to, or empathy for, the Soviet Union, which was anxious to break out of the longstanding US-led strategic containment of the USSR, which had prevented the Soviets from reaching the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.
Sensing that Iran’s exports could be blocked by a couple of ships sunk in the Persian Gulf shipping lanes, the Shah planned a port which would have the capacity to handle virtually all of Iran’s sea exports unimpeded.
Contrary to accusations leveled at him about the huge, megalomaniac projects like Bandar Mahshahr, these served as a means to provide jobs for a million graduating high school students every year for whom there were no university slots available. Guest workers, mostly from Pakistan and Afghanistan were used to start and expand the projects and Iranians replaced the foreigners as job demand required, while essential infrastructure for Iran was built ahead of schedule.
In late February 2004, Islamic Iran’s Deputy Minister of Economy stated that the country needed $18-billion a year to create one-million jobs and achieve economic prosperity. And at the first job creation conference held in Tehrans Amir Kabir University, Iran’s Student News Agency estimated the jobless at some three-million. Or a budget figure of $54-billion to deal with the problem.
Thirty years earlier, the Shah had already taken steps to resolve the same challenges, which were lost in the revolution which had been so resolutely supported by Jimmy Carter.
A quarter-century after the toppling of the Shah and his Government by the widespread unrest which had been largely initiated by groups with Soviet funding but which was, ironically, to bring the mullahs rather than the radical-left to power Ayatollah Shariatmadari’s warning that the clerics were not equipped to run the country was echoed by the Head of Islamic Iran’s Investment Organization, who said: We are hardly familiar with the required knowledge concerning the proper use of foreign resources both in state and private sectors, nor how to make the best use of domestic resources. Not even after 25 years.
Historians and observers still debate Carters reasons for his actions during his tenure at the White House, where almost everything, including shutting down satellite surveillance over Cuba at an inappropriate time for the US, seemed to benefit Soviet aims and policies. Some claim he was inept and ignorant, others that he was allowing his liberal leanings to overshadow US national interests.
The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office had enough doubts in this respect, even to the extent of questioning whether Carter was a Russian mole, that they sent around 200 observers to monitor Carters 1980 presidential campaign against Ronald Reagan to see if the Soviets would try to buy the presidency for Carter.
In the narrow aspect of Carter setting aside international common sense to remove the US most powerful ally in the Middle East; this focused change was definitely contrary to US interests and events over the next 25 years proved this.
According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, Jimmy Carters next attack on the Shah was a formal country to country demand that the Shah sign a 50-year oil agreement with the US to supply oil at a fixed price of $8 a barrel. No longer couched as a personal request, the Shah was told he should heed the contract proposal if he wished to enjoy continued support from the US. In these perilous, political times which, could become much worse.
Faced with this growing pressure and threat, the monarch still could not believe that Iran, the staunchest US ally in the region, other than Israel, would be discarded or maimed so readily by Carter, expecting he would be prevailed upon by more experienced minds to avoid destabilizing the regional power structure and tried to explain his position. Firstly, Iran did not have 50-years of proven oil reserves that could be covered by a contract. Secondly, when the petrochemical complex in Bandar Abbas, in the South, was completed a few years later, each barrel of oil would produce $1,000 worth of petrochemicals so it would be treasonous for the Shah to give oil away for only $8.
Apologists, while acknowledging that Carter had caused the destabilization of the monarchy in Iran, claim he was only trying to salvage what he could from a rapidly deteriorating political situation to obtain maximum benefits for the US. But, after the Shah was forced from the throne, Carters focused effort to get re-elected via the Iran hostage situation points to less high minded motives.
Rumor has always had it that Carter had tried to negotiate to have the US hostages, held for 444 days by the Islamic Republic which he had helped establish in Iran, released just before the November 1980 election date, but that opposition (Republican) candidate Ronald Reagan had subverted, taken over and blocked the plan. An eye-witness account of the seizure by students of the US Embassy on November 4, 1979, in Tehran confirms a different scenario.
The mostly rent-a-crowd group of students organized to climb the US Embassy walls was spearheaded by a mullah on top of a Volkswagen van, who with a two-way radio in one hand and a bullhorn in the other, controlled the speed of the march on the Embassy according to instructions he received over the radio. He would slow it down, hurry it up and slow it down again in spurts and starts, triggering the curiosity of an educated pro-Khomeini vigilante, who later told the story to a friend in London.
When asked by the vigilante for the reason of this irregular movement, the stressed cleric replied that he had instructions to provide the US Embassy staff with enough time to destroy their most sensitive documents and to give the three most senior US diplomats adequate opportunity to then take refuge at the Islamic Republic Foreign Ministry rather than be taken with the other hostages. Someone at the Embassy was informing the Foreign Ministry as to progress over the telephone and the cleric was being told what to do over his radio.
The vigilante then asked why the Islamic Government would bother to be so accommodating to the Great Satan and was told that the whole operation was planned in advance by Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan’s revolutionary Government with Pres. Carter in return for Carter having helped depose the Shah and that this was being done to ensure Carter got re-elected. He helped us, now we help him was the matter-of-fact comment from the cleric.
In 1978 while the West was deciding to remove His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi from the throne, Shariatmadari was telling anyone who would listen not to allow Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his Velayat Faghih (Islamic jurist) version of Islam to be allowed to govern Iran. Ayatollah Shariatmadari noted: We mullahs will behave like bickering whores in a brothel if we come to power ... and we have no experience on how to run a modern nation so we will destroy Iran and lose all that has been achieved at such great cost and effort.(2)
Pres. Carter reportedly responded that Khomeini was a religious man as he was and that he knew how to talk to a man of God, who would live in the holy city of Qom like an Iranian pope and act only as an advisor to the secular, popular revolutionary Government of Mehdi Bazargan and his group of anti-Shah executives, some of whom were US-educated and expected to show preferences for US interests.
Carter’s mistaken assessment of Khomeini was encouraged by advisors with a desire to form an Islamic green belt to contain atheist Soviet expansion with the religious fervor of Islam. Eventually all 30 of the scenarios on Iran presented to Carter by his intelligence agencies proved wrong, and totally misjudged Khomeini as a person and as a political entity.
Today, Iranian-born, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the dominant Shia leader in Iraq faces Shariatmadari’s dilemma and shares the same quietist Islamic philosophy of sharia (religious law) guidance rather than direct governing by the clerics themselves. Sistanis Khomeini equivalent, militant Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was gunned down in 1999 by then-Iraqi Pres. Saddam Hussein’s forces. Sadr’s son, 30-year-old Muqtada al-Sadr, lacks enough followers or religious seniority/clout to immediately oppose Sistani but has a hard core of violent followers biding their time.
According to all estimates, the young Sadr waits for the June 2004 scheduled handover of power in Iraq, opening the way for serious, militant intervention on his side by Iranian clerics. The Iranian clerical leaders, the successors to Khomeini, see, far more clearly than US leaders and observers, the parallels between 1979-80 and 2004: as a result, they have put far more effort into activities designed to ensure that Reagan’s successor, US Pres. George W. Bush, does not win power.
Footnotes:
1. © 2004 Alan Peters. The name Alan Peters is a nom de plume for a writer who was for many years involved in intelligence and security matters in Iran. He had significant access inside Iran at the highest levels during the rule of the Shah, until early 1979.
2. See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, March 2, 2004: Credibility and Legitimacy of Ruling Iranian Clerics Unraveling as Pressures Mount Against Them; The Source of Clerical Ruling Authority Now Being Questioned. This report, also by Alan Peters, details the background of Ayatollah Khomeini, the fact that his qualifications for his religious title were not in place, and the fact that he was not of Iranian origin.
PREZ "the treasonous idiot" CARTER the architect of global terrorism
ON TO "caving judge" CARTER the fearful
ON TO narcissist OBA-HUSSEIN-Khomeini DESTROYER of the USA
From the archives of Iran Expert, Ramin Etebar MD., dating back to 2004.
These articles of mine were lost to me till Ramin resent me his site. They were written before I had my own site and was offering my articles to the Defense & Foreign Affairs
He has just sent me a good analysis on what should be the next regime in Iran and I wil post this once I do some spell checking for him, since Google has removed this capabiilty and Ramin is a very busy doctor.
It's the least I can do to return his favor.
PEANUT FARMER ARCHITECT OF OUR TERRORISTS
BY MY FRIEND ALAN PETERS
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.
Profile In Incompetence: Fourth In A Series
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.
(Alan Note: Actual figure from Amnesty International was closer to 2,400 - mostly Tudeh Communists and Soviet supporting Marxist-Islamists).
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 these 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians.
According to "The Real Jimmy Carter," a book by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: "Khomeini's regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah's Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years."
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.
Alan Note: recently one of the pro-Mossadegh and Tudeh (Communist) party Iranian leaders openly stated: "we were not attacking the Shah for freedoms for the people but for freedom for us to import and install our foreign (Soviet) philosophies without fear and impediment).
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."
(Alan Note: unpublicized intelligence at the time indicated that the hostage taking was arranged by Jimmuh the idiot Carter with Khomeini aides, like Yazdi, Bani-Sadr and Ghotbzadeh, who were U.S. aligned and attached to Khomeini by Carter, to ensure his re-election, when he (Carter) conveniently arranged their release just before voting took place. Ronald Reagan found out about it, blocked the plot and arranged the release AFTER the election).
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 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.
(Alan note: information obtained from post-Shah Iranian military and intelligence sources and more evidence from Americans, who were involved or on scene, all point to the so-called hostage rescue in fact being a failed arms delivery to Afghanistan, ("Green Belt" contain Soviets project) where the Soviets shot and disabled one of the C130's bringing in weapons.
Leaving Carter to either declare war on the Soviets for this act of war or pretend it was something else. Yes, a failed hostage rescue, which was still not operational after something was cobbled together by a cabal of U.S. intelligence and military groups, which all wanted a part in the operation. But whose witches brew was still not fully cooked).
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 spiteful 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 had 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.
(Alan Note: Iraq had tried once before, in the time of the Shah, to invade Iran over the dispute of the Shatt-Al Arab river between the two countries. This lasted all of four days before Saddam Hussein's forces were driven out with their tails between their legs. Nothing like the eight years under Carter's Khomeini).
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.
Carter's 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 Carter's 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 1983.
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.
(Alan Note: the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office sent some 200 observers to monitor the Carter-Reagan election to note whether the Soviets would try to spend enough money to "buy" the election for their "mole" Jimmuh Carter).
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, where 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 (including the Soviets). He was quite simply the worst president we ever had."
Quite simply, we concur. Though he is the best SOVIET president America ever elected!
(Alan Note: And Carter's liberal, to the point of Communist/Socialist leanings, can be seen in his staunch ties and support of Cuba's Castro, Venezuela's Chavez, other South American leftist governments and his anti-America diatribe attacks on anything that confronts he terrorism he stupidly created.
He has a share in all the blood, still on his hands, of all innocents killed by those he actively helped put in place.
Labels: Historical review of the 1979 Iranian Revolution
Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily
Volume XXII, No. 46 Monday, March 15, 2004Founded in 1972 Produced at least 200 times a year© 2004, Global Information System, ISSA
Exclusive:
Role of US Former Pres. Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Exclusive. Analysis. By Alan Peters,(1) GIS. Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carters resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office.
The linkage between the destruction of the Shahs Government directly attributable to Carters actions and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.
Pres. Carters anti-Shah feelings appeared to have ignited after he sent a group of several of his friends from his home state, Georgia, to Tehran with an audience arranged with His Majesty directly by the Oval Office and in Carters name. At this meeting, as reported by Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda to some confidantes, these businessmen told the Shah that Pres. Carter wanted a contract; Previously awarded to Brown & Root to build a huge port complex at Bandar Mahshahr, to be cancelled and as a personal favor to him to be awarded to the visiting group at 10 percent above the cost quoted by Brown & Root.
The group would then charge the 10 percent as a management fee and supervise the project for Iran, passing the actual construction work back to Brown & Root for implementation, as previously awarded. They insisted that without their management the project would face untold difficulties at the US end and that Pres. Carter was trying to be helpful. They told the Shah that in these perilous political times, he should appreciate the favor which Pres. Carter was doing him.
According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, the Georgia visitors left a stunned monarch and his bewildered Prime Minister speechless, other than to later comment among close confidantes about the hypocrisy of the US President, who talked glibly of God and religion but practiced blackmail and extortion through his emissaries.
The multi-billion dollar Bandar Mahshahr project would have made 10 percent management fees a huge sum to give away to Pres. Carters friends as a favor for unnecessary services. The Shah politely declined the personal management request which had been passed on to him. The refusal appeared to earn the Shah the determination of Carter to remove him from office.
Carter subsequently refused to allow tear gas and rubber bullets to be exported to Iran when anti-Shah rioting broke out, nor to allow water cannon vehicles to reach Iran to control such outbreaks, generally instigated out of the Soviet Embassy in Tehran. There was speculation in some Iranian quarters as well as in some US minds at the time and later that Carters actions were the result of either close ties to, or empathy for, the Soviet Union, which was anxious to break out of the longstanding US-led strategic containment of the USSR, which had prevented the Soviets from reaching the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.
Sensing that Iran’s exports could be blocked by a couple of ships sunk in the Persian Gulf shipping lanes, the Shah planned a port which would have the capacity to handle virtually all of Iran’s sea exports unimpeded.
Contrary to accusations leveled at him about the huge, megalomaniac projects like Bandar Mahshahr, these served as a means to provide jobs for a million graduating high school students every year for whom there were no university slots available. Guest workers, mostly from Pakistan and Afghanistan were used to start and expand the projects and Iranians replaced the foreigners as job demand required, while essential infrastructure for Iran was built ahead of schedule.
In late February 2004, Islamic Iran’s Deputy Minister of Economy stated that the country needed $18-billion a year to create one-million jobs and achieve economic prosperity. And at the first job creation conference held in Tehrans Amir Kabir University, Iran’s Student News Agency estimated the jobless at some three-million. Or a budget figure of $54-billion to deal with the problem.
Thirty years earlier, the Shah had already taken steps to resolve the same challenges, which were lost in the revolution which had been so resolutely supported by Jimmy Carter.
A quarter-century after the toppling of the Shah and his Government by the widespread unrest which had been largely initiated by groups with Soviet funding but which was, ironically, to bring the mullahs rather than the radical-left to power Ayatollah Shariatmadari’s warning that the clerics were not equipped to run the country was echoed by the Head of Islamic Iran’s Investment Organization, who said: We are hardly familiar with the required knowledge concerning the proper use of foreign resources both in state and private sectors, nor how to make the best use of domestic resources. Not even after 25 years.
Historians and observers still debate Carters reasons for his actions during his tenure at the White House, where almost everything, including shutting down satellite surveillance over Cuba at an inappropriate time for the US, seemed to benefit Soviet aims and policies. Some claim he was inept and ignorant, others that he was allowing his liberal leanings to overshadow US national interests.
The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office had enough doubts in this respect, even to the extent of questioning whether Carter was a Russian mole, that they sent around 200 observers to monitor Carters 1980 presidential campaign against Ronald Reagan to see if the Soviets would try to buy the presidency for Carter.
In the narrow aspect of Carter setting aside international common sense to remove the US most powerful ally in the Middle East; this focused change was definitely contrary to US interests and events over the next 25 years proved this.
According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, Jimmy Carters next attack on the Shah was a formal country to country demand that the Shah sign a 50-year oil agreement with the US to supply oil at a fixed price of $8 a barrel. No longer couched as a personal request, the Shah was told he should heed the contract proposal if he wished to enjoy continued support from the US. In these perilous, political times which, could become much worse.
Faced with this growing pressure and threat, the monarch still could not believe that Iran, the staunchest US ally in the region, other than Israel, would be discarded or maimed so readily by Carter, expecting he would be prevailed upon by more experienced minds to avoid destabilizing the regional power structure and tried to explain his position. Firstly, Iran did not have 50-years of proven oil reserves that could be covered by a contract. Secondly, when the petrochemical complex in Bandar Abbas, in the South, was completed a few years later, each barrel of oil would produce $1,000 worth of petrochemicals so it would be treasonous for the Shah to give oil away for only $8.
Apologists, while acknowledging that Carter had caused the destabilization of the monarchy in Iran, claim he was only trying to salvage what he could from a rapidly deteriorating political situation to obtain maximum benefits for the US. But, after the Shah was forced from the throne, Carters focused effort to get re-elected via the Iran hostage situation points to less high minded motives.
Rumor has always had it that Carter had tried to negotiate to have the US hostages, held for 444 days by the Islamic Republic which he had helped establish in Iran, released just before the November 1980 election date, but that opposition (Republican) candidate Ronald Reagan had subverted, taken over and blocked the plan. An eye-witness account of the seizure by students of the US Embassy on November 4, 1979, in Tehran confirms a different scenario.
The mostly rent-a-crowd group of students organized to climb the US Embassy walls was spearheaded by a mullah on top of a Volkswagen van, who with a two-way radio in one hand and a bullhorn in the other, controlled the speed of the march on the Embassy according to instructions he received over the radio. He would slow it down, hurry it up and slow it down again in spurts and starts, triggering the curiosity of an educated pro-Khomeini vigilante, who later told the story to a friend in London.
When asked by the vigilante for the reason of this irregular movement, the stressed cleric replied that he had instructions to provide the US Embassy staff with enough time to destroy their most sensitive documents and to give the three most senior US diplomats adequate opportunity to then take refuge at the Islamic Republic Foreign Ministry rather than be taken with the other hostages. Someone at the Embassy was informing the Foreign Ministry as to progress over the telephone and the cleric was being told what to do over his radio.
The vigilante then asked why the Islamic Government would bother to be so accommodating to the Great Satan and was told that the whole operation was planned in advance by Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan’s revolutionary Government with Pres. Carter in return for Carter having helped depose the Shah and that this was being done to ensure Carter got re-elected. He helped us, now we help him was the matter-of-fact comment from the cleric.
In 1978 while the West was deciding to remove His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi from the throne, Shariatmadari was telling anyone who would listen not to allow Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his Velayat Faghih (Islamic jurist) version of Islam to be allowed to govern Iran. Ayatollah Shariatmadari noted: We mullahs will behave like bickering whores in a brothel if we come to power ... and we have no experience on how to run a modern nation so we will destroy Iran and lose all that has been achieved at such great cost and effort.(2)
Pres. Carter reportedly responded that Khomeini was a religious man as he was and that he knew how to talk to a man of God, who would live in the holy city of Qom like an Iranian pope and act only as an advisor to the secular, popular revolutionary Government of Mehdi Bazargan and his group of anti-Shah executives, some of whom were US-educated and expected to show preferences for US interests.
Carter’s mistaken assessment of Khomeini was encouraged by advisors with a desire to form an Islamic green belt to contain atheist Soviet expansion with the religious fervor of Islam. Eventually all 30 of the scenarios on Iran presented to Carter by his intelligence agencies proved wrong, and totally misjudged Khomeini as a person and as a political entity.
Today, Iranian-born, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the dominant Shia leader in Iraq faces Shariatmadari’s dilemma and shares the same quietist Islamic philosophy of sharia (religious law) guidance rather than direct governing by the clerics themselves. Sistanis Khomeini equivalent, militant Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was gunned down in 1999 by then-Iraqi Pres. Saddam Hussein’s forces. Sadr’s son, 30-year-old Muqtada al-Sadr, lacks enough followers or religious seniority/clout to immediately oppose Sistani but has a hard core of violent followers biding their time.
According to all estimates, the young Sadr waits for the June 2004 scheduled handover of power in Iraq, opening the way for serious, militant intervention on his side by Iranian clerics. The Iranian clerical leaders, the successors to Khomeini, see, far more clearly than US leaders and observers, the parallels between 1979-80 and 2004: as a result, they have put far more effort into activities designed to ensure that Reagan’s successor, US Pres. George W. Bush, does not win power.
Footnotes:
1. © 2004 Alan Peters. The name Alan Peters is a nom de plume for a writer who was for many years involved in intelligence and security matters in Iran. He had significant access inside Iran at the highest levels during the rule of the Shah, until early 1979.
2. See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, March 2, 2004: Credibility and Legitimacy of Ruling Iranian Clerics Unraveling as Pressures Mount Against Them; The Source of Clerical Ruling Authority Now Being Questioned. This report, also by Alan Peters, details the background of Ayatollah Khomeini, the fact that his qualifications for his religious title were not in place, and the fact that he was not of Iranian origin.
OBA-HUSSEIN ANTI-ISRAEL PRO-ISLAM CHOICES STRIKE AGAIN
US President Obama has named retired Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) to co-chair the President's Intelligence Advisory Board.
Hagel, who will co-chair the board with former Sen. David Boren (D-Oklahoma) was considered a critic of Israel by many pro-Israel activists during his two terms in the Senate, which ended early this year.
He told an Arab-American group in 2007 that his support for Israel was not "automatic," and in an interview for Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller's book said that "the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people" on Capitol Hill.
He also was one of a handful of senators who frequently didn't sign AIPAC-backed letters related to Israel and the peace process during his time in the Senate and opposed additional sanctions on Iran.
http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1256799045938
Hagel, who will co-chair the board with former Sen. David Boren (D-Oklahoma) was considered a critic of Israel by many pro-Israel activists during his two terms in the Senate, which ended early this year.
He told an Arab-American group in 2007 that his support for Israel was not "automatic," and in an interview for Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller's book said that "the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people" on Capitol Hill.
He also was one of a handful of senators who frequently didn't sign AIPAC-backed letters related to Israel and the peace process during his time in the Senate and opposed additional sanctions on Iran.
http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1256799045938
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
