BBCPersian has found recently declassified documents in US National Archive about secret plan of president Kennedy to overthrow secular government of Pahlavi in favour of Shia clergy led by Ayatollah Khomeini through a coup plot in 1963.
US gov & CIA had formed "Iran 918 Group" consisted of a several Iranian Army commanders to overthrow Shah's government if he resist any Islamic revolution. One of the group members was Mohammad-Vali Gharani who later became Iran Army's Chief-of-Staff after Islamic revolution.
Later on, Carter's administration was also becoming tired with the Shah since he was no longer being an OPEC puppet, and Carter's administration initially backed Khomeini:
It is fairly clear from the linked document and several other declassified papers that elements of the US government were actively conspiring against the Shah from the mid 1970s until his fall. The Shah kept pushing for oil price hikes at a time of economic weakness in the West, and just after the US domestic oil production peaked. With that revenue he was embarking upon ambitious development programmes. Eventually, the US managed to get Saudi Arabia to undercut the official OPEC oil price and therefore undercut the Shah. Revolution came shortly afterwards
The USA began distancing itself from Iran since William E. Simon's 1974 petrodollar deal with Saudi Arabia.
Also, on a funnier note, Carter's ambassador to UN also called Khomeini a saint
lol we've known about that cable and report for fucking ages, the US very obviously has contingency plans for shady shit all around the globe. Doesn't mean they ever actually backed Khomeini in seriousness, like the plans they have for invading canada ffs. the US has always had super close connections with various groups in Iran/the world. Jesus christ is there any critical thinking on this shitty board
Christian Rodriguez
Yes, Khomeini was backed by the USA because the Shah was no longer being an OPEC puppet, hiking oil prices during a time of economic weakness in West, and more.
You're a fucking idiot who lacks critical thinking skills if you can't take all that evidence into account.
NOTE: Here's image of Iran 918 Group being formed around 1963 under Carter. Recently declassified.
Jonathan Johnson
Your gaslighting isn't going to work. If you take together all the evidence provided, then people will come to the definite conclusion that Khomeini was INITIALLY backed by the USA since the Shah was becoming more independent.
Robert Davis
>recently declassified bitch the psychological profile of the Shah and the fact that the US was using him as a puppet and had plans to de-throne him if he got too uppity is in literally every history of modern iran, from Amanat to Abrahamian to Axworthy you utter cuck. It's nothing new or special you goof. Carter's distancing from Iran was seen as one of the major reasons the regime fell, but putting the Iranian revolution as "lol cia depositions" is fucking ridiculous.
Charles Turner
Of course they backed Khomeini, just like they backed Al Qaeda. Everything that brings turmoil to the middle east is good. They also backed ISIS. Israel wants the region as unstable as possible, and the US are doing their bidding.
Elijah Martin
Dude this part of the story is like, in every historiography on Iran. They also backed all non-Tudeh/MEK groups. implying (as the OP does) that the revolution was a result of the CIA's interference is pretty wrong, there's so much more to it that 'muh cia'. Iran (i think, not too certain who else had them) was the only non-US country to have F-14s and a sizable fleet at that, the US was pumping weapons and cash into Iran and it was mainly carter's limp-dick humanitarianism that meant it was so inactive when the protests in 78 got going.
Jackson Jenkins
There is a new document that even JFK was getting close to Khomeini that I shared. Just accept it: The USA was conspiring for the fall of the Shah if he became more independent from OPEC demands, and around the time he was becoming more independent, that's when Khomeini gained power.
Wrong. It has to do with how USA was good OPEC puppets who price oil according to their interests and exclusive in USD. This is because USD is largely backed by petrodollar recycling mechanisms.
Leo Hughes
>USA was good OPEC puppets USA wants good OPEC puppets*
Adrian Ortiz
Khomeini was extremely anti-american from day one. Americans knew that an islamic republic is not going to be an american puppet, like the Shah was. So of course they did not directly support him. At the end of the day the USA had no real options of action. Unlike in 53, there was nobody they could have supported who was liked by the people (the Shah was very popular in 53).
Instead, when Khomeini took power, they basically told their other puppet, Saddam Hussein, to go out and declare war on Iran.
Matthew Jones
They did directly support him, you stupid shill. Do you even take time to read each of the documents? The USA would rather have Islamists in power that are easy to bribe into being OPEC puppets than to have secular leaders who are independent.
Kevin Lee
Yes, the CIA coup'ed a political party to power, whose slogan was "Death to America". That is very plausible and obvious.
Angel Baker
You do realize though Khomeini's supporters chanted "Death to America" while protesting the streets?
Jason Bell
Stop gaslighting, you stupid piece of shit. As I've explained: "The USA would rather have Islamists in power that are easy to bribe into being OPEC puppets than to have secular leaders who are independent."
Also, I said Khomeini was INITIALLY backed.
Jace Baker
Khomeini was initially backed by the USA, and then he somewhat went rogue.
Jordan Perry
wait which document? wikileaks one is just on how they thought the Shah was a nut (he was) and I literally used that report in my dissertation, it's not new. BBC persian points out that even though Kennedy and senior US ppl wanted Shah out, state workings and other elite groups balanced that out, and the BBCpersian even points out that they were only going to do this in case there was a pivot to the USSR (which, come on, Reza wasn't THAT dumb) and doesn't even mention Khomeini.
opec was definitely a tool for the US to stretch it's muscles over the middle east but by the 70s they'd pretty obviously lost most of their sway over it.
I'm sorry but I just don't see the evidence for linking the Iranian revolution and OPEC pricing, the structural issues of the Iranian state and the phenomenally important anti-imperialist ideology that Iranian leftists, clerics and bazariis shared was a lot more important in how the revolution went down, and Khomeini was merely the most politically savvy and one of the biggest figureheads in the post-revolutionary government.
Noah Fisher
>he doesn't know Khomeini was so popular with the people because he called the Shah an american puppet and promised to free Iran from american imperialism
keep screeching, Autist, your knowledge on the matter is obviously extremely limited.
Jose Sanchez
You're arguing with different people friendo OPEC wasn't exactly a US stooge in the 70s in case you'd forgotten.
Matthew Morgan
Stop gaslighting and manipulating the narrative. If you take EVERYTHING into account I am saying, then it is obvious how the USA was preparing for the contingency of the Shah becoming more independent in the 60s. Then when he did become more independent by the late 70s, Carter's administration backed Khomeini and helped orchestrate the Revolution.
Anyone who reads all these documents will come to this conclusion, and you are not going to hold back the truth anymore.
Stop gaslighting, you stupid faggot.
Levi Parker
>every counter argument is "gaslighting"
REEEEEEEEEE
Christopher Nguyen
Prior to the Revolution, UK/USA were spreading lots of propaganda demonizing the Shah, but this was just pretext covering the fact the USA wanted him gone due to becoming more independent.
Everything fits together if you read all these documents and take all the evidence into account: The USA had set a plan and executed for when the Shah became independent. The USA had pivoted to Saudi Arabia by the time of William E. Carter's 1974 petrodollar deal too.
Jace Young
>If you take all the unsubstantiated theories i'm spouting without evidence >using gas lighting incorrectly >un-ironically arguing that the revolution was CIA in origin and direction
I'm honestly unsure whether you're dumb, crazy or just messing.
Ryan Mitchell
You are a PIECE OF SHIT. THERE IS NOTHING UNSUBSTANTIATED HERE.
THESE ARE LITERALLY DECLASSIFIED CIA DOCUMENTS.
KHOMEINI WAS BACKED BY THE USA, AND IT IS FALSE TO SAY IRANIANS, BY THEIR OWN VOLITION, REVOLTED FOR AN ISLAMIST REGIME.
Hudson Green
crazy and dumb it is
Mason Watson
You rely on distorting the implications of the primary sources in order to perpetuate the narrative most suited to your interests. You are scum of the Earth, and I can go get even more sources to show how USA backed Khomeini. Wait.
Michael Brooks
The Shah had visions of grandeur, and believed that oil prices could only continue to rise and based Iran's budget on that assumption.
The Shah wanted to become independent and no longer an OPEC puppet near the end of his reign, which lead to massive expansion in military spending (based on the assumption in the budget that oil prices would never stop rising), which entailed the arrival of tens of thousands of American contractors, who inflamed anti-American tensions in Iran through their boorish behaviour.
The Shah wanted to see Iran become a great power before he died, resulting in unsustainable military spending.
Carter gave millions to Khomeini, his UN representative called him a saint, and supported him as an alternative to the Shah.
The USA constantly changes alliances whenever it is convenient and in its economic interests. This is insane. Kissingerian realpolitik needs to be abandoned for the possibility of any rapprochement.
Honor and integrity is something most Americans know nothing about.
) USA is supporting an even worse alternative than the IRI, and they are called MEK/NCRI (parent groups). They are Islamist cultists influenced by Marxism; they killed many Americans, gassed Iran's own people, and have a history of molestation and being cultish. USA supports Islamist extremists when they align with their geopolitical and economic interests.
Juan Bailey
ALSO, prior to the Revolution, UK/USA were spreading lots of propaganda demonizing the Shah VIA THE RADIOS, but this was just pretext covering the fact the USA wanted him gone due to becoming more independent.
