The ousted Shah and not the United States under Jimmy Carter was responsible for the the rise of the Islamic Republic, a senior aide delivering a eulogy at the late president's funeral said on Thursday.
"Jimmy Carter did not lose Iran, the Shah did," Stuart Eizenstat, Carter’s chief domestic policy adviser, told luminaries gathered at Washington DC's national cathedral.
"The hostage crisis was a major factor in denying him a second term, despite his support for the Shah, because he placed the safe return of the hostages above his own political fortunes."
President Joe Biden, President-elect Donald Trump and all other living former US presidents were in attendance.
Carter and Shah met twice during Carter's presidency, in Washington DC and Tehran, in November and December of 1977. In Tehran, Carter famously toasted the Shah, praising Iran as "an island of stability" in a turbulent region.
Two years later the Shah was forced to leave Iran as revolutionaries led by Ruhollah Khomeini gained control, storming the US embassy in Tehran and holding more than 50 Americans hostage.
The 444-day hostage crisis was an excruciating political liability for Carter, who was painted as weak by his Republican successor Ronald Reagan. A US military raid to free the captives failed, deepening Carter's humiliation.
It crystallized US domestic debates on how forceful US policy abroad should be and put Iran and Washington on track for nearly half century of mutual enmity.
"(Carter) took full responsibility for the failure of the hostage rescue mission and worked tirelessly even after his bitter re-election defeat to Ronald Reagan, securing their release on the last day of his presidency," Eizenstat added.
The US role in the 1979 events remains hotly contested by Iranian critics of the country's Islamic rulers, some of whom say Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was let down by Washington and long for a renewed monarchy under his US-based son, Reza.
Other Iranian dissidents say the late Shah's authoritarianism and mismanagement of the country deprived key ally Washington of an effective partner.
Hossein Taeb, an advisor to the IRGC Commander-in-Chief, made the comments on Wednesday during a speech discussing Iran's so-called operation True Promise 3, an attack promised by Iranian officials on Israel.
"The operations of True Promise (1), 2, and 3 should be executed when they are strategically effective," Taeb said in comments carried by state media, referring to earlier Iranian attacks against its regional arch-enemy.
Operation True Promise 1 was Iran's first ever direct military strike against Israel, conducted on April 13, 2024.
In retaliation for an Israeli air strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus two weeks earlier, which resulted in the deaths of two Iranian generals, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched a coordinated assault involving over 300 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones targeting Israeli military installations.
Operation True Promise 2, conducted on October 1, 2024 saw the IRGC launched approximately 200 ballistic missiles targeting Israeli military facilities in response to the assassinations of high-ranking Iran-aligned militant leaders.
"Speeding up a war does not mean achieving success," Taeb added. "Strategic weapons must be used at the right time and in a timely manner."
The unprecedented attacks marked a significant escalation in Iran-Israel tensions, transitioning from proxy engagements to direct confrontation. But Israel's advanced air defense systems, with support from US and allied forces, intercepted the majority of the incoming projectiles, minimizing casualties and damage.
Taeb’s remarks follow months of speculation about why Iran has delayed another retaliation to Israel after it battered Tehran-backed armed groups in the region.
Two senior IRGC generals said earlier that Iran's loss of its ally in Syria and lack of sufficient funding meant the time was not right to hit Israel anew.
Aoun, who was backed by factions seeking to reduce Hezbollah's dominance, signals a shift away from Lebanon’s political dominance by Iran via the militia.
His election marks the end of a prolonged political vacuum and a decisive moment in Lebanon's complex political landscape, raising questions about the country's future alignment in a shattered Middle East.
Former chief of Lebanon's army, Aoun has distanced himself from Hezbollah. His election, after two rounds of voting, followed years of political paralysis exposing the deep divide between Lebanon's pro-Western factions and a pro-Hezbollah bloc.
In his first address to parliament, Aoun called for the Lebanese state to reclaim control over its military, signaling a possible challenge to Hezbollah.
His presidency, he added, would strive toward giving the state the exclusive right to carry arms, a statement likely aimed at Hezbollah and its vast array of weapons.
His words were met with the longest applause of the speech, though Hezbollah parliamentarians remained seated and silent, marking the national tension between Aoun’s vision and the group's interests.
In a diplomatic message, Iran's embassy in Beirut congratulated Lebanon on Aoun's election, expressing hope for stronger cooperation between the two nations.
“We congratulate brotherly Lebanon for the election of General Joseph Aoun,” the embassy said, emphasizing the importance of cooperation to serve mutual interests.
The statement did not address the status of Hezbollah's arms.