Yes, Nixon didn't abuse them either. All the other presidents take advantage of a foreign relations, for political reasons. Nixon was the grand strategist and possibly cornerstone of America in the 20th century.

That's why they got rid of him

But.. Vietnam....

@@dans9463 LBJ

Who ended America’s armed involvement in Viet Nam? President Johnson, President Carter, or President Clinton? Please let me know, thanks.

what about eisenhower?

Actually What Eisenhower did was absolutely correct to Support Shah of Iran over the Idiocity of Mosadegh. If The Shah was not kept in power the disaster that happened in 1979 was eventuated in 1950s. God Bless the Shah of Iran.

@@soodabhiWhat about him?

@@aldobiglari4575 : I am from India - is the will of people important ? Or does USA get to play GOD ?

Iranians didn't want the shah. Who is the US president to decide. If US had not backed shah, maybe he would have ruled better so people wanted to support. Shah wanted to change Iran culturally too far, he lived a very extravagant life, he was a very poor manager of Iran's finances, he didn't develop iran. He kept buying weapons. The current regime is also bad but they are doing poorly while the west has been trying to crush it relentlessly, they have much less favorable conditions

Well Iranians are generally quite impressive. Even now. That country is launching missiles into space with sanctions. The issue over there, in my view, is the absolutely rampant corruption.

you went to Tehran not Iran, ruling class living luxury life under Shah, people in rural area live miserably. western companies ripped off all the oil income.

As an Iranian I have to say that the US is responsible for what happened in 1979. America betrayed Mohammad Reza Shah and supported the mullahs. America left the Iranian people alone with the radical mullahs

It was terrible under the shah as well, there’s a reason why many wanted him overthrown, the Shah was just as bad as the ayatollahs

Sure he was, buddy

😂 fake as$ account

God Bless his memory

​@@DLZBGMOamen

Nixon's greatest strength was his grasp on Foreign policy matters. And I wish, if not as president, at least as a diplomat or head of foreign affairs or something he could have lended his invaluable advice to shaping the foreign policy of this nation. Doubtless the world could have been very different today had that been so.

@@livethefuture2492 have u ever heard of henry Kissinger

Carter s mistake was listening to GOP who told him to admit a Dictator who abused his people

What 4 years of Democrat rule and damage can do the world ....

Yeah the entire middle east would be at the rule of isis

.​@@victorsamsung2921. Like Biden.

What is conspicuously absent is any explanation from Nixon as to what he could have done to prevent the Iranian revolution or to alter its course. In fact, the ability of the US to influence in Iran was further weakened by its uncritical support for the Shah, who was widely resented in Iran as an instrument of foreign control of Iran dating back to the aftermath of the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh, Iran's only democratically elected leader ever, in 1953 with the crucial support of the CIA under President Eisenhower. And guess who was Vice President at the time?

Same here.🇺🇲

Same Here. I wish I would have Paid more Attention to Him when I was Young. 🇺🇸

Sharp as a tack.

Absolutely 💯

Racist and womaniser too

@@whitestar182 They all are......lol

I always look for positive .i try to eliminate negative thought.@@whitestar182

​@@whitestar182Grow Up.

Thinking back on it now I dont think I was wise enough to make political decisions or even vote at 18. Nixon suffered from a mainstream media onslaught 24/7 directed at young hippies who were just against the man no matter what even though the narrative was created by the man. Somehow Nixon got the blame for Vietnam when LBJ did far more damage than he ever could.

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years. - attributed by Reader's Digest, Sept. 1937. This quote has been attributed to Mark Twain, but until the attribution can be verified, the quote should not be regarded as authentic.

This comment is gold haha. The more I learn about watergate (I was not born yet) the more something smells fishy tbh. Keep in mind, Nixon was pulling out of Vietnam and we remember what happened to the last president trying to do the same. Conspiracy aside, it’s my understanding that Nixon didn’t even have foreknowledge of the break-in, let alone authorize/direct it. Where he messed up is trying to keep it under wraps - which every president in my lifetime has taken part in at least one coverup. The only difference is Nixon eventually took responsibility and resigned unlike the rest. Life certainly would be better if the Shaw never got overthrown

Same here

​@@listfactorsWhether Twain can be properly documented as having said or published the saying, I've little doubt that was how he felt.

James Earl Carter Jr. was a naïve man but not nearly as bad as people think.

He's a professional, and speaks like one. It is inspiring to see someone who has such a strong grasp on Foreign policy and geopolitics to discuss these matters of great global importance in a commanding and knowledgeable tone. He truly speaks like a great statesman.

@@johnnotrealname8168 He was in some ways. Hindsight being 20/20 and knowing the despicable deal Reagan made with the Iranians, Carter was the last trustworthy (as much as any POTUS can be) President we have had. Even after Watergate if Nixon was alive and the same age of this interview he would win the election by a landslide. If Nixon had resisted his temptation to overstep and do the wrong things politically he would have a much better legacy. The bad has overshadowed the good he did. In the end though he owned up to his mistakes and resigned,putting country above politics. Can you imagine any politician today doing that?

@@terry2315 Ronald Wilson Reagan did not do any deal with the Iranians in 1980.

@@johnnotrealname8168 BS he didn't. Read your history.

The full Nixon - Gannon interview is on KZfaq, but it's hard to know what each video entails since the title's are just dated and unedited. There's over 30 hours of footage, but it's interesting to listen to. I'm pretty sure a few Universities have a transcript of each part online.

When journalists had common sense.

@@rb98769 not just the journalist. A politician that answered the actual question!

Unlike that swine Mike Wallace

he certainly was the most qualified,,,,,he was given a schalarship to Harvard but could not afford to live away from home......However, lets not forget Nixon took us off the gold standard, the result was 2 cars in every driveway and steak on the table, PLUS the begining of the deficit that is strangling us today !!!!!!

Watergate was about gathering Intel proving the DNC was taking money from the Soviet Union. The Marxists in the CIA bungled it on purpose to STOP Nixon from rooting out Communists in America.

Watergate isn’t even a fraction as bad as the things politicians have done and still do today. They used it as smear campaign to get rid of Nixon.

@@howardkahn4330 Don't blame Nixon for taking the US off the gold-standard that honor goes to de Gaulle who was draining the gold reserve

@@vsgshdg2627 Nixon, NOT DeGauile authorized taking the United States off the gold standard.....The French President had no authority to do this, nor does any other person....Nixon took us off the Gold Standard, you may feel De Gauile caused Nixon to do this, however Nixon was responsible for this change to our systrm, NOT NOT NOT De Gauile....

I've often wondered what the Sixties would have been like had Nixon beaten Kennedy. Nixon was infinitely smarter in foreign policy matters than Kennedy.

Q

As we've seen in the last decade , that is likely the situation..

Yes. President Trump.

It's not about unpredictability, it's about keeping it simple, being consistent, and be decisive

You want to retain the initiative in every engagement.

He was railroaded.

He didn't he supported Pakistan which was commiting genocide in Bangladesh in 1971 moved carriers to threaten india which had invaded to liberate Bangladesh.....it's one of the biggest reason why relations are still bad between usa and india Also 3 million Bangladeshis perished in that genocide on Nixons watch

He shouldn't have listen to everything what the Kissinger has to say

@@leaveme3559 Relations are generally positive between India and the U.S. actually. However India is not an ally of the U.S. just friendly. He supported Pakistan in it's war against India which was definitely wrong although 3,000,000 is an upper bound figure. The U.S. was itself not supporting Pakistan as proved by voting against Pakistan in the United Nations.

​​@@leaveme3559 I assume you are from India...I should know, im from there myself. It is a common problem with Indians in that they have too narrow of a view of the world, and view their position in the world as the only perspective. When of course the reality is that the world is a much more complex place and that India is merely once pawn on the board. It is not surprising, it is a remnant of the continued nationalistic fervor that has misguided Indian's view on Foreign policy for a long time, from the excessive anti imperialist and anti western fervor to the socialist and protectionist policies, to the religious radicalisation and ethnic factionalism. It often much easier for us 'proud' Indians to blame others for our problems than to take initiative and solve those problems ourselves, and realize our own mistakes. At any rate let's just remind oursleves that India is not the center of the world, and that not every calamity or problem in the subcontinent is the result of 'Western Imperialism' or 'Foreign influence'. Such blind nationalistic fervor undermines the argument and it gives a bad name to those Indians who actually understand geopolitics and history and wish to be a serious part of it.

Stay strong miss💪🏻😊

wasn't eveil, not in the way former prez LBJ was but had his personal faults including the inability to make small talk and struggled with making friends. So here's a man who was kind of a loner and was in a world dominated by Ivy leaguers where he felt belittled; his background was wholly blue-collar. Mr. Nixon may not have had many friends but those who were his friends were a solid friend and he had their back which was his Achilles heel. Enter Ehrlichman and Halderman, even when they were knee-deep in bs Mr. Nixon stayed with them, and that was his downfall -- could 'not' cut those ties even though they dis him no favors...

The media told us so ..

I was 10 years old, and I too voted for him in school election. I was disappointed and saddened over his demise two years later.

@@mikebodner1812You voted for Richard Milhous Nixon in '92?

@@johnnotrealname8168 My demise reference was his resignation in 1974, not his death in 1994.

@@mikebodner1812 Oh! My bad. It was sad.

Who are you to pretend you know what's best for the Iranians? They revolted against the Shah because life wasn't good. The legit government was unfairly, illegally and undemocraticly overthrown by US - backed partisans in 1953. Why ? Just because Iranians want to have control of THEIR natural ressources on THEIR territory.

Lol I don’t know about that. The Nixon administration has been labeled an outlaw under federal statute. They won’t even name a navy vessel after him(which he was entitled, having served during ww2). But, I am sure Nixon won’t be written out of the history books, his life story will always intrigue the younger generations.

I like him but that statement is absolutely untrue. Many others rank before him.

The 2% of Iran that was benefitting from the Shah rule, maybe. The Shah was a US puppet.

biggest mistake he ever made,, not propping up iran. now we have terrorists worldwide, wars and WW3 1

The media did not adore Carter either.

No that was Reagan

@@gmanlive5764 No, because Reagan was launched as a rebound from the shackles of Carter to a time of prosperity. Reagan took Nixon's introduction to trading with China and the economy got too much of a boost, and now we're paying the sacrifice, but Nixon opened relations on a contingency with China. It's easy to love Reagan. For instance everyone thinks of Neil Armstrong and walking on the moon and talking to the president they always think JFK but it was actually Nixon. I do criticize mixing on the decoupling of gold and dollar, but maybe I do not understand it fully.

really!! Better than FDR? or Truman?

@@mkatzfive5 Yes - FDR and Truman were presidents of consequence, and are inadmissible to a ranking.

@@mkatzfive5It’s not that hard to be better than FDR, most presidents are lol.

He did rescue the hostages?? They were rescued on the day of Reagan’s inauguration.

@@shivumganesh Securing their release as the tough guy whom the Iranians were scared of was being sworn in as president is not the same thing as rescuing them. Carter tried to rescue them militarily, but failed.

@@nickcurran3105Didn’t we make a deal with Reagan to keep them hostage until Reagan got into presidency?

@@AR-rg2en That's of course what Carter apologists have said since 1980 and would like you to believe today.

@@nickcurran3105 That's what they say in Iran too.

Excellent analysis of the man,the myth that was "tricky Dick Nixon" He was always one of my favorite Presidents despite all of his flaws.

@@markberryhill2715he was called Tricky Dick by the left (and eastern establishment) because they hated him for exposing Alger Hiss and beating Helen Douglas in 1950. The left controlled the universities and most journalism in the 1960s and 1970s.

Nixon was indeed a grand strategist extraordinaire and I very much admire much of that legacy. But sadly, he also had a paranoid streak, and Watergate was the most conspicuous manifestation of that aspect. History has not and never will exonerate Nixon's actions in Watergate and the subsequent coverup which led to his being the first President ever to resign his office. Nixon understood this better than anyone.

Nixon was set up by the leftist cabal in conjuction with neo-cons in his own party. Watergate was a media manifestation and sadly he bit.

Indeed. He was caught between the “Yankees” and the “cowboys” able to please none. One of the biggest mistakes was Carter caving to the demands of Kissinger and Rockefeller to allow the Shah to enter the U.S. after the Iranian Revolution.

​@@meta4101True. His resignation, however damaging to his legacy, was the right thing to do. Much more honorable than Mr. "... depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Spoken like a true slimeball lawyer.

@@meta4101 it’s amazing when you think about it…Nixon won in a landslide in 72 but all he had to do was let the watergate investigation play out without interfering since there’s no evidence that he actually ordered the break in

Didn't Joe learn that from his old boss? Just asking.

Don't worry, by the time Joe comprehends what he's doing, it's already been done.

exactly!

No, his understanding of foreign policy and especially the Middle East was always impeccable.

Let me ask you a question, few pop media types ever ask. What was the motive of the Watergate office burglary in 1972? It is not like Nixon had any real opposition in the 72 election. He won it by a bigger margin of electors than the first two FDR campaigns. Nobody would topit till a decade later with Reagan's reelection carrying 49 states. So what was the motive?

History is full of "woulda,shoulda,coulda"moments that could have sent things in a totally different direction.

That’s not how it works

Uh, Nixon resigned the Presidency in 1974; Carter was elected in 1976.

I was just thinking that same thing. The fall of the Shah came after his term would have ended. My guess is that '76 would still have been Ford/Carter with Cartier winning. given that the economy wasn't exactly stellar at the time, and the gas crisis would still have been fresh in people's minds. I don't think that Reagan would have been as big an influence in the '76 race either, which might change the 80 result. The true crime of the hostage crisis was that the US had maintained such a large presence at the Embassy after the fall of the Shah, and we didn't destroy or move most of the classified documents out sooner. If the embassy had been overrun and there had been nothing of value to exploit, it likely would have petered out in hours or days.

@@l4c390 A thoughtful reply -notwithstanding all the counterfactuals.

@@BGTuyau Its an interesting exercise to see what the alternate future might be.