When Jimmy Carter was elected... worst

[caketastydelish]

... I feel like an idiot. Why would Reagan want the Saudi's to increase the oil price? In what way could that possibly benefit the United States?

 

[onejayhawk]

Giving too much support to an ally is what led to this situation in the first place.

That is debatable. Regardless, jerking the rug out from under the Shah was the worst option. Most would not have consider it an option at all. Its shortsightedness was immediately punished.

He knew the Shah was in poor health and not likely to survive. The diplomatic fig leaf of buying time to let him die in peace was available. Carter made no attempt to even use that. He compounded his blunder by not treating the situation as hostile, although urged to do so by pretty much everyone. Had he done so, the embassy would have been empty of civilians. His conduct was so bad that you cannot say he miscalculated. He refused to learn the rules of the the game.

J

 

[Tee Kay]

True. However, he could at least have tried to mediate the transition to a truly constitutional monarchy. It was completely unnecessary to allow the Shah to be overthrown.

That is debatable. Regardless, jerking the rug out from under the Shah was the worst option. Most would not have consider it an option at all. Its shortsightedness was immediately punished.

You say it like the President of the United States is Super Jesus who can just step into a complex revolutionary situation and make it all better ignoring the interests of everything and everyone else. It's like people blaming Obama for Libya/Crimea/Syria/whatever.

 

[Tahuti]

You say it like the President of the United States is Super Jesus who can just step into a complex revolutionary situation and make it all better ignoring the interests of everything and everyone else. It's like people blaming Obama for Libya/Crimea/Syria/whatever.

I definitely do not think that way. Carter screwed up by being completely indecisive and Obama handled the Arab revolutions in a Super Jesus way by comparison.

 

[Tee Kay]

I definitely do not think that way. Carter screwed up by being completely indecisive and Obama handled the Arab revolutions in a Super Jesus way by comparison.

Carter did not stop old Iranian pro-American regime being overthrown
Obama did not stop old Egyptian pro-American regime being overthrown

Carter did not help liberal elements take power in Iran
Obama did not help liberal elements take power in Egypt

Go on...

 

[Camikaze]

None of those things affected what went on within the USSR.

From what I've read, this is not really true. It seems most historians, as far as I can recall, say that Reagan was fairly irrelevant, but his approach did unwittingly contribute to change. I think it'd be better to adopt a more nuanced argument which acknowledges that although the actions of the US in the 80s were not central to the fall of the USSR, and although if you're looking for an individual to give 'credit' to, it's Gorbachev, Reagan's confrontational approach, although initially slowing down the pace of reform, did militate towards a 'breaking point' where the USSR realised they couldn't keep up. To quote my previous reply on pretty much the exact same topic to you from a few years ago:

Not entirely. Some factions did think it [SDI] was a joke, but others took it quite seriously. Gorbachev included. Not being able to keep up with the rest was one of the key reasons why the drastic change in foreign policy was observed, which inevitably was one of the key reasons why the Soviet Union did fall. The thing is, it wasn't a masterstroke by Reagan, because at the time it was announced, Andropov was still in charge, and you still had to get through Chernenko and the firstly the Korean Airline disaster (and although the US cannot be blamed for it, the USSR's aggression at the time was largely in response to Reagan's) before getting to Gorbachev, who didn't immediately change his policy even then. But once he did change the foreign policy, one of the key reasons was that the USSR could simply not keep up with the US' defence spending. SDI as such a massive program was part of that, whether they believe it feasible (as some of them did) or not (as some of them did).

So the argument that this in itself (or Reagan in general) caused the fall of the Soviet Union is quite absurd, but SDI and defence spending did at least contribute to some sort of change, inadvertently or not.

Stating that Reagan was entirely irrelevant and that his policies had absolutely no impact at all seems to be stretching the bounds of believability.

 

[Tahuti]

Carter did not stop old Iranian pro-American regime being overthrown
Obama did not stop old Egyptian pro-American regime being overthrown

Carter did not help liberal elements take power in Iran
Obama did not help liberal elements take power in Egypt

Go on...

All subsequent Egyptian governments - including that of Morsy - have been Pro-American. However, Egypt wasn't even the only one!

 

[r16]

the Soviets were always acutely aware that they were behind in economy and general "tech" . They were just about to catch up with the West and hence were to change their undoubtedly offensive stance -with regards to a possible invasion of the Western Europe- and take advantage of the new "Defensive" . Reagan's military surge undercut the Reformists starting from Andropov -would have managed to get Gorbachev to replace him when he "retired" but died too early for that to happen .

the break-up of the Soviets was a mental thing , instead of being forced by all sorts of stark economic realities . A couple of years and it would have been an upswing but the Soviets had been usurping the good will and belief of their own population for far too long .

 

[peter grimes]

... I feel like an idiot. Why would Reagan want the Saudi's to increase the oil price? In what way could that possibly benefit the United States?

Low OPEC oil prices depress the profits of US oil interests.

 

[Cutlass]

... I feel like an idiot. Why would Reagan want the Saudi's to increase the oil price? In what way could that possibly benefit the United States?

Why would Reagan have acted to benefited the United States? The reality of Reagan is that he never saw the good of the country at all. Or, to be fair, he could not distinguish whether there was a difference between the good of the country and the good of the business elite. So if the businesses wanted it, they got it. And low oil prices were hurting the domestic oil industry.

 

[Gucumatz]

Carter was better than Reagan, GW Bush, Nixon, and at least a dozen others. He wasn't all that good. But he was a long way from the worst. As it true of Obama as well.

Nixon is sooo underrated.

 

[Traitorfish]

All Presidents summarised in a single line:


Link to video.

 

[onejayhawk]

You say it like the President of the United States is Super Jesus who can just step into a complex revolutionary situation and make it all better ignoring the interests of everything and everyone else. It's like people blaming Obama for Libya/Crimea/Syria/whatever.

Nixon is sooo underrated.

Exactly. Nixon showed how it is supposed to be done, so Carter had a recent example.

J

 

[Tee Kay]

All subsequent Egyptian governments - including that of Morsy - have been Pro-American. However, Egypt wasn't even the only one!

Well please explain how Obama have been decisive wrt say, Syria.

 

[Tahuti]

Well please explain how Obama have been decisive wrt say, Syria.

Considering Syria was already deeply Anti-American to begin with, I don't see how Obama has made it any worse. Besides, keeping Egypt in the Pro-US bloc in spite of its many revolutions. Carter could have prevented Iran from becoming Anti-American, in a very big way. He didn't even try, however.

 

[Cutlass]

How could Carter have stopped the Iranian Revolution? People say he could have, no one ever says how. It was going to happen no matter what. The Shah was too weak to be propped up any longer.

 

[useless]

Did i mention ronald reagan's brain

 

[onejayhawk]

If it's a 50 foot drop to Truman, he must have RR three floors up.

Strange list. Ford ahead of Carter I can understand, but ahead of Clinton? I would put Carter dead last in that group.

Eisenhower is another President with a deft touch in foreign policy. In spite of the height of the Cold War, his much publicized golf projected, "Everything is under control." Carter exemplified out of control and wondering what happened.

J

 

[Tahuti]

How could Carter have stopped the Iranian Revolution? People say he could have, no one ever says how. It was going to happen no matter what. The Shah was too weak to be propped up any longer.

It may have well been unstoppable, though Carter could have done much, much, much more to prevent the revolution from going into an Anti-American direction. However, the Shah might have been in ill health - a contributing factor to the success of the Iranian revolution - though a more proactive policy could have prevented his downfall anyway, possibly allowing him to preside over Iran's transformation into a parliamentary monarchy (which it de-jure already was).

I'm inclined to, you know, not agree with that.
I suppose you are referring to US participation in WW2?

Ok, so let me do a very rough estimation here:

Then on the other hand we have those 3 million dead Vietnamese, mostly on LBJ's watch. And many women and children - not SS tank commanders or Japanese carrier crews.
And neither the pig from Missouri nor the RAF had anything to do with it.

LBJ it is then.

 

[Cutlass]

It may have well been unstoppable, though Carter could have done much, much, much more to prevent the revolution from going into an Anti-American direction. However, the Shah might have been in ill health - a contributing factor to the success of the Iranian revolution - though a more proactive policy could have prevented his downfall anyway, possibly allowing him to preside over Iran's transformation into a parliamentary monarchy (which it de-jure already was).

The reality is that whenever a despot that was heavily supported by a foreign power is deposed, the group overthrowing that despot is pretty much always going to see the supporters of the former despot as their enemies. Those people who overthrew the Shah already saw the US as their enemy. Nothing could have been done on Carter's part to make people who had seen the US as enemies for decades and turn them into friends. Nor was there an alternative anti-Shah movement which was pro-American or pro-Western that had a hope in hell of taking power in the wake of the Shah's leaving. And nor was there any chance of the Shah's regime remaining in power for any extended period of time longer than it did. The Shah died a year and a half after leaving power.

So Carter did not have an option where Iran would remain on friendly terms with the US. No possible outcome could have made that happen. The Shah was done for. And any successor regime was going to be anti-American.