You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Terror Networks & Islam
'AMERICA CAN'T DO A THING'
2004-11-02
Hat tip to Glenn
AMERICANS will certainly have 9/11 in mind when they vote today. But they should keep another date in mind, too — one almost exactly a quarter-century ago: Nov. 4, 1979. A clear path runs to 9/11 from the day of the raid on the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the seizure of American hostages. The 1979 embassy attack came at a time when the administration of President Jimmy Carter was trying to prop up the new Khomeinist regime in Tehran. Carter had decided to support Khomeini in the context of the so-called "Green Belt" strategy developed by National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Brilliant. Simply fnurking brilliant.
That strategy was based on the assumption that the United States and its allies were unable to contain the Soviet Union, then expanding its zone of influence into Africa, the Indian Ocean region and, through left-leaning regimes, in Latin America. To counter that expanding threat, Brzezinski envisaged the creation of a string of Islamic allies that, for religious and political reasons, would prefer the United States against the "godless" Soviet empire. The second stage in Brzezinski's grand strategy was to incite the Muslim peoples of the Soviet Union to revolt against Moscow and thus frustrate its global schemes.
Great minds of the 20th Century at work here...
The Bzrezinski strategy had been partly inspired by Helene Carrere d'Encausse, who, in her book "The Fragmented Empire," predicted the disintegration of the Soviet Union as a result of revolts by Muslim minorities. When the Islamic revolution started in Iran, the Carter administration saw it as the confirmation of its assumption that only Islamists could muster enough popular support to provide an alternative to both the existing regime and the pro-Soviet leftist movements. The Carter administration went out of its way to support the new regime in Tehran. A ban imposed on the sale of arms and materiel to Iran, imposed in 1978, was lifted, and a 1954 presidential "finding" by Dwight Eisenhower was dusted off to reaffirm Washington's commitment to defending Iran against Soviet or other threats. Also to symbolize support for the mullahs, President Carter initially rejected a visa application for the exiled shah to travel to New York for medical treatment. Just weeks after the mullahs' regime was formed, Brzezinski traveled to Morocco to meet Mehdi Bazargan, Ayatollah Khomeini's first prime minister. At the meeting, Brzezinski invited the new Iranian regime to enter into a strategic partnership with the United States. Bazargan, concerned that the Iranian left might bid for power against the still wobbly regime of the mullahs, was "ecstatic" about the American offer.
Posted by:Spot

#20  Old Spook and Deacon Blues, my condolences too, sincerely. It doesn't change a thing, but you both have all my sympathy, as do the families of theses kids. God bless them.
Posted by: Anonymous5089   2004-11-02 4:36:49 PM  

#19  OS and Deacon,

My condolences.

After election day, there is a reckoning coming in Iraq. I would be surprised if Fallujah is left standing after today. Drudge reported that a U.S Soldier has been kidnapped. That ups the ante. I saw video the other day, of 155mm howitzers getting ready pound the city. Also, AP is reporting mass exodus from Fallujah.

OS, you just may get yours(and mine)wish, of no mercy and extermination.
Posted by: Poison Reverse   2004-11-02 3:21:51 PM  

#18  I join in the condolences OS. God bless them all and Semper Fi.
Posted by: Sgt.D.T.   2004-11-02 3:02:36 PM  

#17  My condolences OS. I fear that with Kerry we will surpass the idiocy of the Carter administration. If he is elected, we all must persevere and make sure that the idiots who elect him see what a mistake they made. Unfortunately, that may be all too easy.
Posted by: remote man   2004-11-02 2:44:31 PM  

#16  I know how you feel, OldSpook. I burried one of mine 3 weeks ago. Killed by a roadside bomb.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2004-11-02 2:43:11 PM  

#15  Dreadnought: Now that the Cold War is won, there's lots of recriminations about supporting unsavory regimes in Greece, Chile, Turkey, etc., but does anyone today think that we wouldn't be better off with a Pahlavi monarchy as opposed to an Islamic mullaharchy.

Back in the days when I was a lefty, I used to think there was a problem with "supporting" these people. But that was a lie. We weren't "supporting" them. They were supporting themselves. And the Soviets were supporting Communist guerrillas to replace them with regimes unfriendly to us, where the existing governments were at worst neutral. Most of these countries had had authoritarian regimes of one kind or another since they started having governments. For lefties to claim that allying with them was morally inferior to letting Soviet-sponsored communist regimes take over - that is just insane. We took these governments as they were - authoritarian or not - lefties wanted to make sure that Soviet-sponsored or at least unfriendly dictators took over.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2004-11-02 2:25:54 PM  

#14  Remember the day well. I can tell you that Carter's wanting to reason with K was fine, but since it was not backed up with military threats, the denouement was predictable.

I tell folks I'm for W because he has been the one to bend back the straight line that started 11/04/79 and ended on 9/11/01. K's wanting to go back "where we were" is pure denial, as the article so well shows.
Posted by: chicago mike   2004-11-02 2:13:04 PM  

#13  ZF,

Your analysis also highlights one reason I would never consider voting for Kerry. Sometimes difficult decisions must be made. Do you ally with the Soviet devil to counter the Nazi demon? Do you play nice with thugs like Pinochet to stop even bigger Marxist thugs? Kerry isn't the sort who could make decisions like that.

Now that the Cold War is won, there's lots of recriminations about supporting unsavory regimes in Greece, Chile, Turkey, etc., but does anyone today think that we wouldn't be better off with a Pahlavi monarchy as opposed to an Islamic mullaharchy.
Posted by: Dreadnought   2004-11-02 2:01:55 PM  

#12  OS: Screw Jimmy Carter. He ver comes near me I'm going to pimp slap him and spit in his face.

And he'd deserve it.

OS: His funeral is tomorrow.

My condolences.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2004-11-02 1:39:43 PM  

#11  Screw Jimmy Carter. He ver comes near me I'm going to pimp slap him and spit in his face.

I will be out the rest of the day and probably tomorrow to help out a Marine. He's one of "my kids" that I helped in youth group (as a drill intructor then later as a Big Brother). He is coming home from Al Anbar province in Iraq. He was one of the best and brightests kids I have ever known, someone who made the world a better place.

His funeral is tomorrow.

I know I shouldnt post when I'm this messed up. But,

KILL EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THOSE MONSTERS!

DROP THE DAMNED BOMBS UNTIL THE RUBBLE BOUNCES. THEN SALT THE GROUND. THEY DESERVE NO QUARTER, NO MERCY. ONLY EXTERMINATION.
Posted by: OldSpook   2004-11-02 1:02:48 PM  

#10  What ZF said. The other aspect of Brzezinski's strategy was arming the Afghan mujahiddin against the Soviets, which was the correct move at that time and which helped greatly to weaken the SU.
Posted by: lex   2004-11-02 12:18:32 PM  

#9  DPA: This article made me so angry I'm shaking.

I don't actually see this maneuvering as a problem. The reality is that the mullahs had a choice - they could align with the Soviets, or they could align with the US. We tried to make their choice the US. The real foreign policy blunders were the Iranians' - they chose to fight everyone at the same time. Carter's major mistake was in not supporting the Shah, not in trying to align with the mullahs once the Shah was overthrown. He was trying to make an omelette after the eggs were broken.

The reality is that the Soviets engaged in proxy wars that killed 100,000 Americans. All the terrorist acts fomented by various Islamic movements and countries put together have killed way less than 10,000 Americans. The reality is that during the Cold War, the Iranians were preferable to the Soviets, just as during WWII, the Soviets were preferable to the Nazis. A Soviet-controlled Iran does not bear thinking about - this was why we prevented the Soviet-controlled Mossadegh from launching his coup against the Shah in the 1950's.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2004-11-02 12:13:25 PM  

#8  ...and Hamilton Jordan and Jody Powell, who's main functions in the administration as I remember were to hang out at Studio 54 and do lots of coke.
Posted by: tu3031   2004-11-02 12:07:16 PM  

#7  Don't forget Burt "Audit me harder" Lance and his Budgeteers.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2004-11-02 11:58:56 AM  

#6  The 1979 embassy attack came at a time when the administration of President Jimmy Carter was trying to prop up the new Khomeinist regime in Tehran. . . .

That's gratitude for you!
Posted by: Mike   2004-11-02 11:47:56 AM  

#5  I think this might put Carter in first as worst president of all time.
Posted by: Ol_Dirty_American   2004-11-02 11:46:32 AM  

#4  This article made me so angry I'm shaking.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American   2004-11-02 11:23:52 AM  

#3  Anymoose-The notion that if they click their heels three times and pray to the Gods of altruism and moral equivalency, the bad guys will go away. ;)
Posted by: Jules 187   2004-11-02 11:19:26 AM  

#2  What is it about democrats that makes them incapable of grasping foreign policy?
Posted by: Anonymoose   2004-11-02 11:14:00 AM  

#1  Wow. This is like a stroll down the memory lane of incompetence. Jimmah, Cy Vance, Andrew Young, Zbiggie...
Posted by: tu3031   2004-11-02 10:56:07 AM  

00:00