Losing Iran, Pt. 3

There's one aspect of the Shah's character I believe you missed in all three parts.

The guy really wasn't, by nature, a tyrant. He truly considered himself an enlightened and westernized leader, trying to install what were, for the region, very liberal reforms. And he was accurate in this assessment.

He modeled himself somewhat along the same lines as King Hussein of Jordan. Don't forget, Hussein had his own problems to deal with at about the same time -- the Palestinians -- and used the same tactics, in his case successfully. He threw the Palestinians out of Jordan after a major massacre of the resisters.

When you look at the big picture, I can't help but think Khomeini successfully played Carter for a fool.

Background: Carter was already a hugely unpopular President, with domestic policies that were killing him. Rampant inflation, soaring oil prices, recession, etc. He needed something to try to boost his popularity.

All the countries in the region, with the exception of Israel, were some kind of despotism or oligarchy. Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Quatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran. But Iran was the most dependant on the US, and therefore the least independant, and most susceptible to our manipulation. It was also the least stable, the other rulers all having secured their countries by force. If Carter could be seen to be *doing something* about our problems, he might resuscitate his presidency. Iran was also a huge source of our imported oil.

I suspect that Khomeini promised Carter that he would continue oil exports to the US at a non-OPEC favored-nation discount rate, and institute Western-style democratic reforms. Carter, being the absolute idiot that he is, bought the lie hook, line, and sinker.

Voila! End of Shah, and installation of theocratic tyranny in Iran.

Khomeini must have been laughing his arse off.

I agree that the Shah was not a tyrant, and the former British ambassador basically says the same thing: "...that he was still indecisive and lacking in the bloody resolution which characterizes the traditional autocrat..." The Shah just did not have the ruhlessness needed to secure his rule.

As for Khomeini, he did play Carter because both were religious men, and I don't think that Carter could concieve of a religious man decieving him. Khomeini did promise to bring democracy to Iran, and Carter naively trusted his word...never thinking that a man being basically worshipped would dare grasp power for himself. That is the same naivete that allowed him to be genuinely surprised that Russia would invade Afghanistan...after promising him they wouldn't! The man was never qualified to lead a Boy Scout troop, much less a superpower!

But at the risk of tooting my own horn, I think that one of the things that I covered was one that very few people ever look at...the economy. I think that had the Shah done a better job of managing his country's economy, he would have cemented his power base. We all know that when people have their bellies full and money in their wallets, they will let just about anything go as far as politics. Mismanaging the economy pretty much started his slide down the hill.

Excellent read, and spot-on about the economy.It is a shame that Carter was ever elected. Just more examples of why his place in history will not be what HE thinks it should be. Bad enough he screwed this country up royally,but do it to an ally,inexcusable,IMHO.

When I was there, the economy simply boomed. People who'd never had anything all of a sudden were moving ahead.

The biggest problem, IMO, was actually education. He never wrested that away from the mullahs, and THAT was his big mistake. He left that in the hands of the fanatics. There was no emphasis on secular aspects, and females were still discouraged, to put it mildly, from attending.

Further, uneducated people have no idea how to take advantage of good economic times.

Whatever education was actually made available was still essentially fundamentalist. Very bad situation.

So what you ended up with was a class that sent their kids to private schools locally available and staffed by Americans or Europeans -- very expensive -- or who shipped their kids out to boarding schools overseas, Europe or America.

But the average Iranian had very few and poor options.




Incidentally, new essay up at the Island.

I do not mean to say that the economy was always bad, because with the huge jump in oil prices times had to get better. My point is that the money coming in was mismanaged in that no soild plans were put into place to sustain the growth they were experiencing. They may have gone overboard when they were flush with cash, but did not properly invest or plan for the time that the oil market may not be booming anymore.

As for education, I agree that it should have been taken out of the hands of the mullahs. The idea of free education for the poor was a fine idea, but like so many things that the Shah proposed was never really brought to fruition. It was done in a half-@ssed fashion which allowed the mullahs to create a generation that hated the Shah and feared any type of democratic reforms.

I agree. Of course, in all those countries the economic purse strings are tightly held by the head honchos; look at Saudi Arabia. The royal family controls all the oil revenue.

But that's not a disagreement, it's a reinforcement of your assertion.

One of the big isssues on the economic scene, of course, is the rampant corruption. That's so common in the ME it's hardly ever commented on, but it really drives the whole game. Baksheesh, an Old Boys Network that makes anything in the West look like Amateur Hour...

I am not familiar with Baksheesh, would you mind getting me up to speed? It sounds like something that would enhance my understanding of the ME.

But we agree on the corruption problem in the region. Just look at the "Palestinians" as a prime example; Arafat and his minions lived high on the hog...so to speak...while the "Palestinian street" lives in squalor. they steal the money set aside for the betterment of their constituents, then blame Israel for the problems in the Palestenian Authority. And as much money is being generated by oil sales, the everday person in Saudi Arabia is not seeing much of that cash either. Yep, the corruption there runs deep.

"Baksheesh" is the equivalent of "La mordida" in Mexico. It means "bribe" or "handout".


In the ME, you see beggars sitting on the sidewalk with their hands out, importuning with the word "bakhsheesh...."

On a higher level, politicians and businessmen.

Thanks for the knowledge! It could very well be the same thing here, only we call it "earmarks"!

Yeah, that needed a Spew Alert!


I'm still laughing aloud! Really!

Except over there it usually goes the other way, from private folks to government officials.


Sheesh! The stupid pols here can't even get THAT right!

I went out back to have a smoke -- I don't smoke in my house -- and just got back, and I'm STILL chuckling over that one.

That was a riot!

Thank you very much, I'll be here all week! ;-)

The Flagwaver's Catskill Resort!

Try the chicken... you'll love it!