Word: mightly
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1970-1979
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...friend Anwar Sadat had invited him to stay in Egypt, as he had when the Shah was first ousted from Iran. But it was most unlikely that he would go to Egypt, partly because Sadat, already much criticized in the Muslim world for signing a peace treaty with Israel, might prove vulnerable to pressures from Iran...
...seemed to be relatively moderate, or at least flexible. He had tried to attend the U.N. debate. Said he: "We want to demonstrate how the U.S. ruled our nation during the Shah's regime." Despite such rhetoric, U.S. officials hoped that private talks in New York might make some progress. Banisadr also opposed any trial of the U.S. hostages. He told a delegation of Western ambassadors that he would "do what I can to prevent it." (His chief accomplishment as minister, in fact, had been the release of 13 blacks and women from the captured embassy.) Last week he joined...
...goal, however, was to make Iran a modern, Westernized state, and if that meant equal rights for women, so be it. He aimed to make Iran one of the world's five great powers, along with the U.S., the Soviet Union, France and Japan. The idea might have seemed laughable initially but, as Western demand for oil kept climbing, the Shah's ambitions began to look more plausible. The Shah, whose country pumped 7% of the non-Communist world's oil imports, led the way in the first huge price increase, from...
...lashed the soles of his feet with electric cable: "The flesh was torn apart, and the bones jutted out. There were multiple fractures." The agents, he says, also held a knife to his throat for hours, making small nicks and telling him to guess "when the blade might go all the way down and sever my head." Amnesty International in the 1970s described other methods of torture: electric shock, burning on a heated metal grill, and the insertion of bottles and hot eggs into the anus. Last spring Anne Burley, an Amnesty International researcher, was shown by the government...
...distinction could be crucial, though it has nothing to do with the potential destructiveness of NATO's new weapons. The critical point is that if war came, the Soviets would not be attacked at first by the monumental weapons that are part of the American strategic arsenal. Moscow might be more likely to retaliate against Europe with its own theater nuclear weapons rather than against the U.S. with strategic weapons. While the destruction from a theater nuclear exchange would be tremendous, it would still fall far short of the nuclear holocaust that would almost inevitably consume East and West...