Thursday Quote
Dave Price
“...a miracle in the whole history of human kind, there has never been a leader who could compare, and I do not think there will be another one. He had made the most beautiful moment in the history of Islam come true, the model of a peaceful revolution without a bloodshed, the example of a humanist government.”
Richard Falk, adviser to Jimmy Carter, describing the Ayatollah Khomeini
Related Posts (on one page):
- Paying for Past Sins
- Thursday Quote
I'm hard-pressed to come up with any other President whose aides not only heaped praise on a fascist who was viruently anti-American, but also played a pivotal role in bringing that fascist into power.
But wouldn't Thomas Paine have supported the revolution against the tyrannical Shah
Of course, just as he would have opposed the autocracies in South Korea and Taiwan before they reformed. But Paine, a Deist who was reviled by the Church, would certainly have recognized the greater evil in the Ayatollah, and was not stupid enough to advocate replacing a bad secular regime with a far worse religious one.
He is.
"Anti-American" is your addition. Most presidents had aides who fawned over pro-American fascists, and some even helped bring those to power, as in the case of Pinochet.
The liberals who supported the Iranian revolution, as I said, did not advocate putting the Ayatollah in power, they just wanted the Shah gone, and formed an ally of convenience with the Khomeinists. Paine would have been just as naive as them -- for how can one man control the direction of a revolution?
"Anti-American" is your addition.
It's not an insignificant difference.
Pinochet, like the leadership in Taiwan and South Korea, liberalized the economy and eventually ceded power to democracy.
Iran, meanwhile...
He would not. The man who wrote The Age of Reason was painfully aware of the danger of religious tyranny.
alliance of convenience with the Khomeinists
Convenient for whom? What did liberals achieve, besides replacing a moderate tyrant with an extreme one? More accurate to say they were duped, used, and discarded by the Khomeinists.
You have the luxury of hindsight that Iranian liberals did not have -- of course they were "used and discarded by the Khomeinists." But you are assuming that the Iranians knew what they were putting in place. Again, the liberals did not support the religious tyranny of the Ayatollah, but they lost the post-revolution struggle to define the new face of Iran. Did the author of the Age of Reason also own a crystal ball?
Again using your hindsight. I would argue, however, that American administrations who supported the Shah's (pro-American) tyranny did more to bring about the eventual Iranian revolution than any support given to Khomeini's forces by Carter aides.
I'm not blaming them either. I'm blaming the American liberals who so foolishly put their faith in Khomeini.
Did the author of the Age of Reason also own a crystal ball?
Nope, but he wouldn't have needed one for the Ayatollahs; their religiosity was self-evident.
American administrations who supported the Shah's (pro-American) tyranny did more to bring about the eventual Iranian revolution than any support given to Khomeini's forces by Carter aides.
That's fairly ridiculous.
His White Revolution, a series of economic and social reforms intended to transform Iran into a global power, succeeded in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources and extending suffrage to women, among other things. However, a partial failure of the land reform, the lack of democratization as criticized by some of his opponents, as well as the decline of the traditional power of the Shi'a clergy due to parts of the reforms, increased opposition to his authority.
...
The Carter administration followed "no clear policy" on Iran
...
Many Iranians believe the lack of intervention and sometime sympathy for the revolution by high-level American officials indicate the U.S. "was responsible for Khomeini's victory."[118]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
Paine, like the other Iranian liberals, would have likely supported a revolution against the Shah only to be brushed aside and even imprisoned by Khomeini.
Though we sometimes have to deal with autocrats, we should never give them extensive support. This goes for the Shah, as well as Khomeini, Mubarak, Pinichet, Papadopoulos...
Revolution against the Shah did not mean an even nuttier dictator had to replace him; a transition to democracy (as happened with Pinochet and other pro-American dictators) could have been managed with U.S. intervention. Those fawning statements by Carter's people show why that didn't happen.
For Paine, it would have been enough. For Carter's people, clearly it wasn't.
I know we're often blamed for his coming to power in the first place but as with many such accusations our involvement in that was exaggerated (as it was in the case of Pinochet).
In hindsight I think it's fair to say that simply yanking support from under the Shah resulted in something horrible for the Iranian people: a regime that was far, far worse. In other words, we betrayed those people. Which we're known to do now and then.
What I find most frustrating is knowing what the right approach is to take with some of our dictator friends of today, such as Mubarak in Egypt and Musharaaf in Pakistan. Should they simply be abandoned? Do you think that would be the right policy? That doesn't strike me as a good idea.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.