A Historical Perspective on Carter's Iran Remarks on frynews.site

When US President Jimmy Carter called Iran an 'island of stability' in a highly tense region

Jimmy Carter and Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi

Article Description

Author, Keyvan Hosseini

Position, BBC News

Not only for Iranians but also for American society and politics, Jimmy Carter's name is more associated with Iran than anything else. An American president who spent a large part of his time in the White House dealing with issues related to Iran and ultimately it was Iran that was the reason for his defeat in the second presidential election.

In the eyes of critics in the United States, Jimmy Carter was the president who lost Washington's most important strategic ally in the Middle East (Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) and, due to a series of mistakes, he also failed to make a deal regarding the American hostages in Iran.

He was accused of never being able to play a decisive role in determining the main features of American foreign policy towards Iran, and perhaps this is why Washington changed its policy towards Iran several times during his presidency.

It is another matter that the most important success of American foreign policy in the Middle East was achieved during Jimmy Carter's term in office, namely, the Camp David Accords, which paved the way for peace between Israel and Egypt.

The Camp David Accords were actually the starting point for justifying and enhancing the legal status of Israel, as well as ending the ongoing series of wars between Arab countries and Israel.

Many observers believe that the mistakes of the Carter administration accelerated the decline of the Shah of Iran and that these same American policies also helped to consolidate the new Islamic government led by Ruhollah Khomeini.

Jimmy Carter’s view of international relations and foreign policy in dealing with Iran was based on two completely different ideas about international relations and foreign policy, which are still associated with the foreign policy of Western countries, especially the United States, to this day: moral politics versus realist politics.

The United States presents itself as the ‘leader of the free world’ and the supporter and champion of fundamental values ​​such as ‘human rights and democracy’ in the world, but does the country’s performance in foreign policy also reflect these slogans? How can a country that makes such a claim befriend dictators in power in other countries, strengthen them, and defend the continuation of oppressive regimes in other countries?

Interest in human rights

Jimmy Carter grew up in rural Georgia, the heart of America’s “Bible Belt.” These are areas where Protestant Christians have great influence and power. Jimmy Carter never forgot this past, and his Christian beliefs remained an important part of his identity.

Drawing on these religious beliefs, he became one of the pioneers of “human rights” and opponents of discrimination and inequality. A significant part of his political career before reaching the White House was dedicated to working against racism.

When Jimmy Carter was sworn in as president in January 1977, he said that “our commitment to human rights must be strong.”

These words were not new to the Shah of Iran (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi). Before Carter, American presidents had repeatedly defended ‘human rights’ and some, like John F. Kennedy, even pressured him to reform. But in the end, all former presidents were guided not by political coercion or human rights abuses in determining their country’s policy towards Iran, but by geopolitical needs and the interests of their country.

This was a tragedy that Jimmy Carter also had to face soon after becoming president. On the one hand, he continued to ignore the political pressure, strangulation, executions and suppression of the opposition in Iran, while on the other hand, he claimed his ultimate commitment to human rights.

In 1953, the Iranian army, with the support of the United States and Britain, overthrew the elected government in the country. By Jimmy Carter’s time, more than 25 years had passed since this coup against the elected government in Iran, but there was no sign of elections or a transfer of power in Iran. This was the period when the Shah of Iran took virtually all matters into his own hands.

The Shah of Iran, accused by his opponents of oppressively suppressing dissent, was America’s most important ally in the Middle East at a time when the world was divided into two competing blocs, East and West, during the Cold War.

The Shah’s supporters in the Western media insisted that he was actually suppressing communists in his country and that if the communists succeeded, Iran would fall into the same category as the Soviet Union.

For this reason, the Jimmy Carter administration’s double standards and attitude toward Iran began in the first year of his presidency.

On the last day of the year, a state dinner party was held at Nirvana Palace. At this party, the Shah spoke for several minutes about the close relationship between Iran and the United States. Then it was Jimmy Carter's turn. His speech was even longer than that of the Shah of Iran.

A policy of selling arms to those who violate human rights

A few months before Carter came to power, the US State Department, headed by Cyrus Vance, prepared a report on human rights from all corners of the world for the first time in history. This was something that Henry Kissinger had not been prepared for a year earlier.

The report included Iran, along with Argentina, Haiti, Indonesia, Peru and the Philippines, among the six countries where human rights were being violated, but these were also countries to which the US was supplying weapons.

Jimmy Carter said that he would change the policy of selling US arms to other countries. Iran was a major buyer of US weapons at that time.

Following this announcement, the New York Times reported in June 1977, citing US officials, that the US had decided to halt the sale of 250 F-18 fighter jets to Iran. According to the newspaper, the four-billion-dollar deal was halted because of Jimmy Carter’s new US arms policy.

At the time, US Secretary of State Cyrus Vance was among the members of Jimmy Carter’s cabinet who strongly supported this arms policy.

Jimmy Carter’s defense of human rights brought the situation in Iran more openly to the attention of Western media and leading human rights organizations than in the past.

The Shah's opponents believed that if the United States had not supported the Shah in the past, as it had in 1953, they would have had a better chance of confronting the Reza Pahlavi regime.

On the other hand, there were figures in Jimmy Carter's cabinet who advocated a realistic foreign policy and believed that the importance of the strategic alliance between the United States and Iran outweighed issues such as democracy and human rights.

Figures such as Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, believed that the United States should never have left the Shah alone because of the Cold War.

Seven years had passed since Britain's withdrawal from the Persian Gulf, and Iran was the dominant military power in the region, effectively securing the vital waterway. Brzezinski insisted that the United States should not allow the region to fall into the hands of the Soviet Union or its dependent governments, and that close ties between the United States and the Shah were therefore essential to Washington's strategic interests.

As the prospect of a challenge to the Shah's rule in Iran became more serious, the US government decided to abandon the Carter-era policy and stand by the Shah of Iran as it had done before Jimmy Carter.

Carter's Middle East Visit

As the prospect of a challenge to the Shah's rule in Iran became more serious, the US government decided to abandon the Carter-era policy and stand by the Shah of Iran as it had done before Jimmy Carter.

In the summer of 1977, shortly after the controversial New York Times report, the US government sent a proposal to Congress to sell Iran seven modern AWACS aircraft. It seemed that the 'ideal' president had retreated from his ideals and values ​​in international politics.

Jimmy Carter was accused of duplicity and, like other US presidents, of being a close friend of the Shah. Such criticism did not change Carter's policy, and despite the Iranian regime's undemocratic behavior, political repression, and human rights violations, the United States officially welcomed the Shah and his wife to the United States.

During this trip, demonstrations by opponents of the Shah of Iran in front of the White House turned violent, and American police tried to push the protesters back and used tear gas.

But due to the direction of the wind, the tear gas reached the ceremony being held at the White House, and the Shah of Iran also had to wear a handkerchief over his eyes.

For the opposition, this was a crucial moment to demonstrate the intensity of public dissatisfaction with the Shah's government in Iran.

As the protests grew, the Shah's government in Iran weakened day by day, and the American establishment had to decide how to deal with the situation in Iran.

The end result was the decline of leaders with idealistic ideas and the rise of realists. Jimmy Carter continued to vociferously support the Shah of Iran and even traveled to Tehran during his tour of the Middle East.

On the last day of the year, a state dinner party was held at Nirvana Palace. At this party, the Shah spoke for several minutes about the close relations between Iran and the United States. Then it was Jimmy Carter’s turn. His speech was even longer than the Shah’s.

Jimmy Carter devoted a large part of his speech to praising the Shah of Iran and his achievements and concluded his speech by saying that ‘Thanks to the Shah’s brilliant leadership, Iran is an island of stability in a very tense region.’

These words were interpreted as strong American support for the Shah. Exactly one week after the event, an article titled ‘Iran and the Red and Black Colonial System’ was published in the newspaper, which severely attacked Ruhollah Khomeini. The reaction of Khomeini’s supporters was the beginning of a new era of street demonstrations and international anti-Shah propaganda.

Nevertheless, the Shah of Iran faced increasing protests on the streets of his own country. A situation that puzzled Washington politicians.

In view of this situation, two different views gradually emerged in the US government. One of these two views, which Brzezinski supported, was that the US should support the Shah of Iran with all its might. Brzezinski even suggested that the US try to maintain the Shah's rule for a second time through an internal coup.

The opposing group, led by US Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, had a completely different point of view and was more concerned with designing US strategy for the post-Shah era.

This group believed that the US should not intervene in Iran again because such intervention would only make things worse.

Official US documents published years later show that during this time politicians in the US were deeply divided and even the US ambassador in Tehran, William Sullivan, ignored many orders from Washington.

They finally came to the conclusion that the Shah of Iran should leave the country in order to calm the situation in Iran. In one of his reports, William Sullivan concluded that the Shah's work in Iran was finished.

‘Stab in the back’

From here the Carter administration, apparently a staunch supporter of the Shah, sent General Robert Heiser to Tehran for an operation that significantly weakened the Shah’s position and government.

General Heiser’s mission in Tehran effectively proved to be the final nail in the coffin of the Pahlavi regime in Iran. An event that has never been forgotten by the admirers of the monarchy and the Shah himself.

In effect, the Jimmy Carter administration sent General Heiser to stab the Shah in the back and ensure that the military in Iran remained neutral in the situation.

The subsequent fall of the Shah in mid-winter did not end the shaky position and strategic differences in Washington.

During this period, Cyrus Vance believed that diplomatic relations with the new Iranian government should be established as soon as possible, and based on messages he had received from Ruhollah Khomeini and his associates, he believed that the new revolutionaries in Iran had no problem with the United States.

But at the same time, Khomeini made it clear in these messages how concerned he was about the possibility of American intervention and the return of the Shah to power.

When a group of radical Islamic students attacked the American embassy and took more than 50 American employees hostage, Khomeini stood behind them.

This actually turned out to be the most important turning point of Jimmy Carter's presidency.

Jimmy Carter was under pressure to release the hostages, but this time it was not clear which path the American government would take: diplomacy and negotiations to free the hostages or military action?

During the 444 days of the hostage-taking, the United States took a wide range of measures, including freezing Iranian assets, imposing the first round of trade sanctions against Iran, expelling Iranian students from the United States, and sending Yasser Arafat to Tehran to mediate.

Jimmy Carter was finally entering his final year as president, and he was struggling domestically with his rival Ronald Reagan. His Secretary of State Cyrus Vance had resigned in an unusual move in opposition to Operation Eagle Claw, and Jimmy Carter was re-election-bound, with almost all of his efforts having failed.

The Algerian-mediated talks for the release of the American hostages were moving slowly, and there were rumors that Reagan had asked Iran to release the hostages after the election.

Carter said in an interview that "I can wipe Iran off the map with the weapons I have."

He lost the election, and the hostages were released as soon as Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president.

Jimmy Carter spent the rest of his life preaching the Bible and teaching civics.

Related Topics

#Iran #Politics #United_States