first of all, it's not the 1970s, but 1979.
and second, it is not Carter to blame -- remember: the universe doesn't necessarily rotate around the US of A. it was a revolution in the making by the different sectors of the Iranian people against the undemocratic installation of the Shah, a US ally who was keen on suppressing dissent with a top priority of keeping foreign monopoly over Iranian oil.
so it wasn't any specific US president, but the whole history of US interventions in other peoples' business to ensure US interests are well served.
why don't you check the following story about a US intervention from an earlier period that may expand on your knowledge:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm
2007-06-07 03:19:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by Arwadese 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
We overthrew the govt of Iran(funded) in the 50's and the Sha was "Installed" and backed in a fairly oppressive regime by the US. The carter Admin- based on Human Rights- stopped supporting the regime and it crashed to a revolt by Ayahtolla khomeni(sp).
It went so fast that they bagged the embassy and the GI's(USAF) barely escaped the country. Benn bad blood ever since and looks to be getting worse.
Too bad because the Iranian students/families I grew up with were great people. The all got assylum since they would be murdered if they went back. That is just sad.
Ret. USAF SNCO
2007-06-07 03:15:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Egyptian coup was sparked by a social network. Egyptians were tired of a Dictator after 30 years while spending 82% of their income on food. We supported the dictatorship, just like we supported the dictatorship of the Shaw of Iran, who the CIA put into power in 1953 after they toppled an elected Iranian government for US Oil companies. Egypt is a secular country, Iran is not. I guess they compare them because we supported both of the dictators in both countries. The big difference is the Pres. of Egypt didn't control his own army.
2016-05-18 23:31:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by laticia 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Iranians were tired of living under the US-backed tyrant, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
And if people think Saddam was bad, they should have seen how the Shah ran things.
2007-06-07 03:29:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
As Ron Paul pointed out in the last Republican debate, it was "blowback" from years of U.S. intervention in Iran and a very repressive government under the Shah. We removed their elected Prime Minister way back in the 1950's, and installed the Shah in power. Finally, the people had had enough, and removed him. Sadly, they brought another repressive regime into power in his place.
Carter didn't cause anything specifically, but he sure didn't help matters any.
2007-06-07 03:08:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by skip742 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Islamofacist nutjobs from Mars used TV to hypnotise the Iranian people into revolting against the Shah of Iran who they loved and who was not a puppet of the Western powers. The chief Martian Islamofacist Libtard Nutjob disguised himself as The Ayatolah Khomeni and murdered the pro American majority in Iran and swore to destroy the world. He pretended to die in 1980 and now lives in a cave with Osama Bin Laden where they torture and eat American babies.
Actually I have realised that my account seems quite credible compared with Stay_fan1
2007-06-07 03:15:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I don't blame Carter. That area of the world has fought since the beginning of time. Do any of those people know "peace"? Is seems they live war.
2007-06-07 03:42:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Lisa 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
Absolutely it was Carter!
I was in HS at the time, and I remember the coverage on Khomeini: "he's a modern day saint"
"his piety and scholarship is without compare"
"he will lead a religious country which will tolerate human rights"
ALL suported by Carter and ALL LIES!!!
of course, they FAILED to point out that Khomeini defined that a man COULD have sex with a goat, if the owner was more distant than his 1 st cousin, or that Khomeini was explicit in his ambition to set up an islamic state (violating freedom of religion? Not a problem for Carter).
The shah could have stomped out the revolution, if the US had supported him. The shah was actually westernizing Iran. He was also imprisoning dissidents, which he got criticized for BUT somehow the Left never criticizes Castro for.
2007-06-07 03:11:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
5⤋
Satan...you have no, I repeat, NO idea what you're talking about. It was the Shah westernization of Iran that caused the Shiite radicals to install Khomeini when the shah was gone. He was the one that gave women the right to vote...
2007-06-07 05:32:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by Cookies Anyone? 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, Carters not backing the Shah was a part of it but the removal of the elected government before that was a bigger part of it.
2007-06-07 03:08:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by booman17 7
·
2⤊
1⤋