Jimmy Carter

by Eduardo del Buey

Jimmy Carter

I have waited several days to publish a piece on the passing of former President Jimmy Carter because, unlike most, mine will not be a complete paean of praise for the former president.

In some ways, his legacy is remarkable.

His work with Habitat for Humanity is an example of how to help effectively and humanely with deeds rather than words.

The Carter Center, which he founded in Atlanta, has done remarkable work on democratic governance and election monitoring in many parts of the world.

His work on developing countries' medical challenges is remarkable and has significantly impacted many globally.

However, his foreign policy during and after his term in office left a decidedly mixed legacy that still affects us.

On the one hand, his administration’s establishment of diplomatic relations with China and his efforts to bring Israel and Egypt together at Camp David stand out as remarkable historical achievements.

These transcended his administration and continue to be hallmarks of diplomacy.

However, we must not ignore some of his more glaring failures.

The fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, in 1979 marked a significant turning point in Iranian and global politics. The events leading to the Islamic Revolution were complex, involving myriad factors, including internal discontent, economic challenges, and external influences.

Among these influences, the role of the United States, particularly under President Jimmy Carter, stands out as both consequential and controversial. Carter’s policies, characterized by a commitment to human rights and a reluctance to support authoritarian regimes, inadvertently contributed to the Shah’s downfall and reshaped U.S.-Iran relations for decades.

I was serving at the Canadian Embassy when the then-President and his wife

spent New Year’s Eve 1977 with the Shah and told Iranians that the Shah was a leader who represented stability and strength in an unstable region.

Yet, in the 1978 lead-up to the Iranian revolution, the administration sent vastly contradictory messages as an ill Shah began to lose control over the street demonstrations that would eventually rock his administration.

The Shah had long relied on U.S. support to suppress dissent and maintain his grip on power. Carter’s criticism undermined the Shah’s legitimacy and emboldened opposition forces, who interpreted U.S. discontent as a sign that their struggle against the regime was gaining international traction.

As the situation deteriorated, the U.S. sought to broker a transition that would avoid a complete collapse of the Shah’s government but also facilitate a move towards a more democratic regime. However, these efforts proved futile, as opposition groups were not unified and often had divergent visions for Iran’s future.

The turning point occurred in late 1978 when Shah’s government started to lose control over the situation. The U.S. intelligence community, which had previously assured Carter that the Shah was stable, began to acknowledge the severity of the situation.

However, by then, the Shah’s position had become precarious, and the Islamic Revolution was gaining momentum. The U.S. hesitated to intervene decisively and convince the Shah’s military to support him in this existential crisis, leading to criticism that Carter’s administration was too passive in the face of a rapidly changing situation.

In January 1979, General Robert E. Huyser was dispatched to Iran. According to the narrative of Carter's government, Huyser was sent to promise US support for the Shah. However, recently declassified reports show that Gen. Huyser was, in fact, sent to prevent the Iranian military leaders from orchestrating a coup to save the Shah.

In mid-to-late January 1979, according to recently declassified documents, Carter's government de facto admitted that it would have no issues with the abolishment of the Iranian monarchy and its military, who were having daily talks with Gen. Huyser — as long as the eventual result would come gradually and in a controlled way. Khomeini and his entourage now realized that Carter had discarded Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

Jimmy Carter’s role in the fall of the Shah of Iran was characterized by a commitment to human rights that inadvertently weakened the regime he had once supported. While Carter’s intentions were rooted in a desire for democratic reforms and ethical foreign policy and ignored realpolitik, the outcome of his administration's policies contributed to the Shah's downfall. In my opinion, the cure was worse than the illness.

According to the BBC, the recently unclassified documents reveal that Khomeini was far more engaged with the US than either government has ever admitted. Far from defying America, the Ayatollah courted the Carter administration, sending quiet signals that he wanted a dialogue and portraying a potential Islamic Republic as amenable to US interests.

Carter eventually believed the Ayatollah’s lies, and the revolution that followed not only transformed Iran into an Islamic republic but also set the stage for a tumultuous relationship between the United States and Iran that endures to this day.

Carter was also completely blindsided by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, at the same time that Ayatollah Khomeini was crafting his Islamic Republic in neighboring Iran.

Carter’s compulsion to pursue human rights as the main driving force of his administration’s foreign policy ignored the realpolitik of the day: the challenge of the Soviet Union and the nascent globalist Islamist movement, which began in Khomeini’s Iran and was nurtured by Carter’s support for the mujaheddin under leaders like Osama bin Ladin in Afghanistan.

Carter’s legacy in this context serves as a reminder of the complexities and unintended consequences that can arise in international relations when one applies principles against realpolitik and those principles lose to reality.

Facilitating the Ayatollah’s return to Iran in 1979 was a major lapse of judgment with horrible repercussions for Iranians and the global community since.

Mr. Carter made significant contributions to humanity in medical, political, social, and racial fields. However, his preference for a policy of absolutism rather than the relativeness of political expediency led to serious mistakes along the way.

Mr. Carter’s fingerprints are on one of the major ills that plague us today – Iran’s tyrannical regime that murders its own people and supports international terrorism.

And this must be factored into any serious analysis of his life and his impact on history.