(09-21-2022, 09:55 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(09-21-2022, 09:18 AM)mikesez Wrote: Right.  Carter's administration decided to play both sides for a time because they had already assessed that it was more likely than not that Khomeini would end up in a powerful position.  They were trying to salvage a bad situation.  Their naivete and ineptitude could be noted, but, regardless, the Shah's power was going to reduce and the Ayatollah's power was going to increase.

Nonsense, keeping the Shah was immaterial. Had the US simply supported the Iranian military then military would've replaced the Shah in a bloodless coup, Khomeini would've been arrested and most likely executed, and a local strongman in the Hussein model installed. Instead Carter Fubar'd the situation because his of his naivety and horrifically bad foreign policy positions and we ended up with the worst possible outcome.

I'd argue that Carter's mistake was being too idealistic. He urged the Shah to be reform and show restraint against opposition. To be fair, this wasn't exclusive to Carter. The West had been basically forcing Iran to modernize since WWII, but Carter's administration was definitely hamstringing the Shah, which is what kept him from being the local strongman. Playing both sides of the fence was a HUGE political blunder that was brought about by democratic foreign policy. The conservative policy at the time was to encourage growth while allowing him to maintain military strength.

---