Word: shahs
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Perhaps the trickiest question about U.S. policy is whether or not the Administration should have allowed the Shah to come to New York, the act that brought about the seizure of the American embassy. This was a serious Carter mistake, believes Richard Bulliet, a member of Columbia University's Middle East Institute, who thinks the decision reinforced Iranians' fears that the U.S. planned to restore the Shah to power, as it did in 1953. Says he: "Those currently running Iran could only interpret the decision as hostile. The admission of the Shah to this country sort of confirms...
Should the Administration have anticipated Iran's violent reaction to admitting the Shah? With the clarity of hindsight, there is agreement among many experts on this point: a resounding yes. A good deal can be said in Carter's defense, however. Three times the Bazargan government assured the Administration that it could protect the embassy against attack. One of the assurances came after the Shah was admitted to the U.S. and the demonstrators started shouting in Tehran's streets. There was an encouraging precedent. Last February when anti-American protesters seized the embassy, Iran's government...
...fortress. There are no embassies anywhere in the world that can long withstand the attack of a mob, if the mob has the support of the host government itself." The U.S. had already greatly reduced the number of personnel affiliated with the embassy, from about 1,500 during the Shah's reign to 73. Fewer staffers would not have been able to maintain normal relations in a country where there were still some 500 Americans and substantial business interests. What was more, the Administration reasoned, reducing personnel to a handful would hardly help. Their capture would be equally outrageous...
...Administration can be criticized for failing to anticipate the extent of the trouble that would arise, but its actions since the fall of the Shah seem generally to have been prudent and reasonable...
...matter what the Iranians say, there is ample historical precedent for the U.S. to give sanctuary to the Shah, even on a temporary basis. Largely because of the vagaries of extradition treaties, which vary from country to country,* even the most hated of deposed rulers has usually managed to find a safe haven somewhere in the world. Egypt's decadent King Farouk luxuriated in Italy after his deposition by the army in 1952. Argentina's Dictator Juan Perón was a resident of Spain between 1960 and 1973, when he returned home to reclaim power. Uganda...