I don't remember Carter doing that in the first few months of his presidency. 

It took him a year.

But by June 1977 he probably already cut intelligence cooperation to the extend that the Shah no longer had access to every information he could have used.

I think he was referring to the Iranian Hostage Crisis.  Which took place in the last 500 days of Carter's administration.

BTW, AD I got your PM.  I just haven't had the time to respond.  The weekend are always packed with things.  I do understand what you're saying and I'll respond to your PM soon.

Ah no worries mate.  I have a tremendous amount on my plate right now as well.  We have some big things happening...I'll indulge you later.

Could be, but I 'wonder' if Leauki is talking about some legislation that began the process of leading up to this situation with Iran?  Kind of like Clinton's legislation that limited CIA and FBI working and talking together (which is arguably why we didn't prevent 9/11).  

Maybe Leauki can indulge me on what legislation he is referring to?

This article explains it best:

http://plateauofiran.wordpress.com/2007/06/21/father-of-the-iranian-revolution/

In his anti-war pacifism, Carter never got it that Khomeini, a cleric exiled to Najaf in Iraq from 1965-1978, was preparing Iran for revolution. Proclaiming “the West killed God and wants us to bury him,” Khomeini’s weapon of choice was not the sword but the media. Using tape cassettes smuggled by Iranian pilgrims returning from the holy city of Najaf, he fueled disdain for what he called gharbzadegi (”the plague of Western culture”).

Carter pressured the shah to make what he termed human rights concessions by releasing political prisoners and relaxing press censorship. Khomeini could never have succeeded without Carter. The Islamic Revolution would have been stillborn.

Gen. Robert Huyser, Carter’s military liaison to Iran, once told me in tears: “The president could have publicly condemned Khomeini and even kidnapped him and then bartered for an exchange with the [American Embassy] hostages, but the president was indignant. ‘One cannot do that to a holy man,’ he said.”

("gharbzadegi"! That's interesting. "gharb" is the Arabic word for "west". Must be a loan word in Iranian.)

Thanks Leauki.

I think it's a bit preemptive to think that Obama has been better than Carter in foreign policy.  While you very well may be correct, we have seen the results of Carters policy with Iran but we have not seen the outcome of Obama's.  I see some things that are very concerning in Obama's foreign policy and quite frankly I hope and pray that Obama is right on some of these issues.  I don't want to see the fall out of him being wrong.

I concur with you AD.  I think Obama's greenness (not pertaining to the environment but being a newbie) is showing especially with the whole lack of foreign policy experience.  I pray we don't have a foreign policy bombschell like what carter had to deal with or what Bush had to deal with, for I don't think Obama would be able to handle it with the time that Bush had, but maybe would be able handle it with the time Carter was given.  Like I stated before he wanted to negioate with all the moderate Taliban which in talk is a nice jester BUT in reality just makes him look like a ninnyhammer.

P.S. AD I sent you a PM.