I believe that there is a link between the Carter administration covertly supplying the Afghan Islamic fundamentalists from JULY 1979, which progressed to the Taliban/al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in the early 1990's, and the fall of the Shah in February 1979. Why? Because the two countries are next to each other? No, not just that. Why did the Carter administration pressurize the Shah to be more democratic and soft around 1977? Why didn't the Carter administration give the same message to the Saudis, many times worse than the Shah? Or the Argentinian military regime which the Americans installed? Or the Brazilian military regime which the Americans installed? Or the Chilean military regime which the Americans installed? Or the Marcos regime in the Philippines which the Americans installed? Why did the Carter administration topple the Democratic government of Bhutto, later executed, and bring in the military in Pakistan, if they believed in Democracy so much? The point is as with the present there was no noble mission for Democracy, but policies to bolster Israel's position vis. Muslim countries.
States often say one thing, but often they can have an hidden agenda for their actions and speeches. The rumour why Carter really wanted the Shah removed are many fold:
1. That the Shah it is alleged gave large sums of money to the American Republican party during the late sixties and early seventies, and when Carter came to power and found out, he wanted revenge. So he destabilized the Shah 1977-79, and humiliated him, an ally of America for 27 years, when he was very ill, by not allowing him to stay in the USA for treatment. There is an element of nasty petty meanness to this, and for me an indication that the Carter administration did indeed topple the Shah.
2. The Shah was instrumental in the oil price rises in the 1970's. During the sixties the Shah resisted pressure to raise oil prices. As the biggest OPEC exporter Iran had a critical role. By the early seventies some of his more well informed advisers started telling him that the oil that was being sold, was way under priced from its real market value. The global oil industry had been for a long time controlled by a the 'Seven Sisters'--Western oil companies, and the Shah's economic advisers told him that the $2.8 a barrel price around 1971, was tantamount to selling the oil at mineral water rates, with the bulk of the profits from the 'mineral water sale' going to Western oil companies. The 1973 Arab/Israeli war, and the Arab defeat again, with the Americans overtly supporting the Israelis, the Arab OPEC producers decided to act, and the Shah for different reasons joined them. In 1971 it was $2.8 a barrel, and by 1979 it was I think around $40 a barrel. A lot of people in the West were not happy with the Shah as the largest OPEC producer--5.5 million barrels.
The British were not very happy especially, as their main oil company BP still managed and sold most of Iran's oil by 1979. A British agent/Foreign Office official/academic/Zionist Professor by the name of Bernard Lewis was sent to Washington to 'soften up' the Americans with his various spurious arguments that Muslims really aren't capable of running their own countries and that they are better off being managed directly by benevolent Western colonial rule, rather like the British Empire.
To help this process you need to use Islamic fundamentalists to destabilise Muslim countries covertly, or overtly, and then go in, invade the country and 'liberate' it from the Islamic fundamentalists (Afghanistan being the perfect example------22 year process, Iran, 28 year process ?). This is called 'The Bernard Lewis plan' and the man who originally coined the false term 'Clash of civilisation'. The plan calls for the Balkanisation of Muslim countries along ethnic lines, whilst Israel is allowed to build its empire of 'Eretz Israel'. The Godfather to the neo-con movement, whose disciples have been responsible for the global security problems around the world. A significant but elusive figure.
http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_02_12/article4.html http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2846b_lewis_profile.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/alam06282003.html http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Ralph_Peters_solution_to_Mideast.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel
The Republican administration obviously were not going to buy this lie as they were close to the Shah, and they had promoted him to the 'Policeman of the Gulf'. The American arms industry wasn't doing to badly selling $30 billion worth of arms to the Shah. The Shah was a good reliable ally in a strategic position, who basically did what he was told by the Americans. The benefits of such a relationship were far greater to the Americans than it was to Iran. Then Carter came in via the Jewish dominated Democratic party and the situation suddenly changed.
http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/10/26/reviews/971026.26gwertzt.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9703.htm
By the way some American oil analysts are now saying that $100 a barrel may be sustainable and possible in the future which will not harm the global economy and the oil industry, as long as it is done gradually. So Iran had some far sighted and good economists. I hope the mullahs have not frightened off any of the modern ones into California who go around earning a living driving taxis, and calling themselves 'Persians'.
3. Iran I believe translated means 'Land of the Aryans'. The Shah may have called himself the 'Light of all Aryans'. Jews who are a little basic and take things literally (Extremist Zionists) believe that the Aryan race caused the Holocaust 1933-45--Hitler/Nazism. Some obviously flushed with American power and unquestioned American backing may want to settle scores. This reminds me of American soldiers shooting on sight surrendering German soldiers in Normandy and saying, 'You nasty Japs'. In fact they were Tartars from the Ukraine. As with the Tartars its a case of mistaken identity.
The term Aryan has very different meanings in Europe and Asia. In Europe the term 'Aryan' is a racial superiority statement. The Master race. An idea/Unfounded myth not based on reality, cobbled together by a regime headed by a fruity megalomaniac without knowledge of the actual facts, a mere 80 years ago, and based on a mishmash of ideas and names from formidable thinkers from Germany, Nietzsche, Hegel and Kant, wrongly taken out of context, and applied with such appalling results.'I am Aryan and I am better than any body else, and further more I can treat others with less respect'.
The Holocaust was the product of European colonialism in the eighteenth and ninetieth century, and is not the responsibility of the real Aryans residing in Asia, the belief that non-Europeans are inferior and to be treated with less respect--Jews, Gypsies and of course Eurasian Slavs. Remember that 50-70 million people died in Asia, Africa and Central and South America when under colonial rule.
In Asia where the real Aryans originate from, Central Asia, and where 80% of all 'Iranians' live, it is an ethnic statement; 'I am Iranian' , ' I am Vietnamese' " I am Chinese" etc. No better than any body else. Now of course most Aryans refer to themselves as Indian, Pakistani, Afghan, Central Asian, Ukrainian etc. In Asia the long term existence of Aryan's is a historical fact and not merely an idea. Persia has been called Iran for at least four thousand years. The same with Afghanistan (Ariana) and the Subcontinent. When Aryan's in significant numbers move into an area they make their presence felt naturally, in various ways. Thus when Aryan's moved into India they called their new land 'Aryavarta' a term a few thousand years old. In Afghanistan the land was called 'Ariana' over a thousand years ago. They write poetry and other thousand year old scriptures such as the 'Mahabhrata' 'Rig Veda' or the 'Shahname'. They build fire temples or the like found in Iran and Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan . Such basic facts don't exists in Europe.
But some Jews with simple minds may have taken a different message when they read about Iran's Aryan background, and so they toppled the Shah, and installed mullahs in his place, the primary purpose of the mullahs is the propagation of what is essentially an Arab/Jewish religion--Islam. The same in neighbouring Afghanistan "Ariana'. Two steps behind the Jews on this issue are a very small number of Europeans who do believe what Hitler said that Aryans are in certain parts of Europe only-----a historical fact not provable, beyond the fact that certain Iranian tribes crossed from the Ukraine into Hungary and Bulgaria . Iranians as a race are not tall, blond and blue eyed.
The greater Islamic and thus Arabic Iran and Afghanistan become the more satisfaction is gained by a few Europeans and the Jews for two different reasons. In small pockets of the West it is to do with the male ego and racism. With the Jews it is to do with religious fantasy, and the desire to expand Israel's boundaries, and vengeance. Israel was always a little geographical strip throughout history, and 'Eretz' Israel was an idea.
The Jew confident that he controls America now feels strong enough to turn this religious fantasy into reality via America and Europe (NATO troops are doubling in Afghanistan---getting into a permanent mode). But ultimately this mad Jewish idea must fail because you can't conquer states after states, and Lebanonise them without a fight. Hence the Jews propaganda that fighting 'terrorism' will take many years, perhaps a century. What they are really saying is attacking more Muslim states one by one will take a long time, because the Americans and the Israelis obviously need to catch their breath, after attacking another MUSLIM COUNTRY: Afghanistan 2001; Iraq 2003; Somalia 2006.....................Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt,...........and so on.
The facts are simple, Aryans did not cause the Holocaust. Nearly all Aryan countries are dirt poor and quite unremarkable. Their existence in Asia should not cause any insecurities or unwarranted anxieties elsewhere, though I appreciate that certain groups are experts at creating animosity out of nothing, diversion and playing groups against each other whilst they carry out their own real interests uninterrupted and unhindered.
What educated Iranian's have to ask are three small questions:
1. Why are the mullah in power with such a poor record of government? Why did they come into power in 1979? Why is Iran the only country in the world run by religious figures when 192 other UN general assembly countries are not? Iran is not a Democracy, but has the facade of a Democracy. Real power resides with the politically inept/disastrous mullah's via the Guardian Council, The Expediency Council, and the Supreme Leader. Controlling who is a candidate in elections is tantamount to controlling elections outcomes. Of course because of the Israelis, real Democracy could not function in the Middle East and one has only to look at Iraq, the situation in Palestine where they have captured a whole democratically elected cabinet, and finally Lebanon where they are destroying a democracy to be replaced by splinter groups of extreme groups running a none state without infrastructure. Once you have asked yourself this question then ask the next.
2. Are Iranians by nature very religious? Are they fervently more Muslim than say Arabs who do not have mullahs running their country? The answer is of course no! Iranian females have more freedom than their Arab female counterparts even under mullah rule.
3. Then you must ask yourself how on earth the mullahs came to power in the first place in Iran? who helped them into power? For what purpose? Who sustains them in power now with such crazy policies? Fidel Castro spent many years in political and armed struggle before he came to power in 1959. The Communists in Russia spent many decades in political and armed struggle before they finally controlled most of the former Russian empire in 1921. The Communists in China spent many years in political and armed struggle before they came to power in 1949. How did the politically inexperienced mullah's, without any political organisation come to power in Iran suddenly in 1979, without shedding any of their blood , and defeat the TUDEH and the various other anti-SHAH GROUPS.
My articles published in the Tehran Times http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=7/11/2006&Cat=14&Num=001 and Mehran News http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=351191
tried to differentiate between foreign backed insurgency groups and those that are domestic and home grown. Perhaps my conclusions were a little too simple.
Have a read of this excellent article by Justin Raimondo,"Hamas, Son of Israel" published in 01/27/2006 at Antiwar.com http://antiwar.com/justin/archives.php?offset=60, and think again if Hamas is really home grown, or the creation of Israel. Also this article at the excellent antiwar.com by Johnathan Cook, Israel's Disproportionate Violence No Surprise: J. Cook , http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9390 .
Thus if the Israelis created Hamas in the 1970's, could not they have also been behind the backing of Fundamentalists in Afghanistan from 1979, and Iran 1979, with the help of the American's, as a long term strategy to destabilise and attack Muslim countries. Hence my theory that the Israelis have been at this covert backing of fundamentalists since the seventies. Initially as a tactical move to counter Nasser's Pan Arabism, and then later to undermine the Socialist PLO, within whose ranks were many prominant Christian's. Then it developed into something wider in Iran and Afghanistan.
