1979 Iran Hostage Crisis

[Tigerace117]

No, we were going to go into Iran and get the job done.

Which, again, only a few years after the failure in Vietnam would have led to another bloody quagmire and failure.

 

[VySky]

Which, again, only a few years after the failure in Vietnam would have led to another bloody quagmire and failure.

It is good we did not have to invade Iran I agree. They came to their senses once they realized war was on their doorstep.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

And “ultimatums backed by force” are the exact situation that lead to wars. There is no evidence to suggest that the Iranians would have caved to an ultimatum in the first place.

Furthermore, much like Vietnam, Iran’s terrain is a defender and guerrilla’s wet dream. Only a few years removed from the failure in Vietnam, where the US military practically came apart at the seams, ANOTHER unwinnable war would have been disastrous.

The Iranians proved they would fight for their new regime when Iraq attacked. The US was in no shape to enter what would have been a major war.

Again, you are confused at all levels. A land invasion of Iran would not have been needed. Just a stern ultimatum backed up with an air craft carrier. And your apparent opinion that the Iranians would have wasted the US military is just dumb. Even at the end of the Vietnam War, our military was in far better shape then it was in the lead up to WW2.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

When this happened I was a little tot so I wasnt sure what was going on, and just having seen this, and I sure learned a lot of new things.

- There was a previous hostage taking attempt almost one year prior, and it succeeded before the Iranian radicals left the compound.
- Most of the embassy staff and their dependents left not long after, but 50 or so stayed. Why didnt the State Department evacuate them all by this point?
- The spark that set off the second attempt was when Jimmy Carter allowed the exiled Shah into the US for cancer treatment, and this angered the radicals in Iran.
- When it happened a second time, and the students who engineered it only wanted to occupy the place for 2 days before leaving to demand the Shah's extradition.
- Khomeni originally didnt know about it, but when radicals gathered around the embassy, he decided to let it continue in order to get rid of the political opposition to his rule.
- The Iranians were willing to trade the 50 hostages for the Shah, but Carter refused.
- Operation Eagle Claw was a disaster because of poor planning and ineffective command and control.

What do you think?

The USAs meddling sure does cause a lot of problems. IMO.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Reagan owned up to it, and the public said it was okay.

LMMFAO!

 

[Tigerace117]

Again, you are confused at all levels. A land invasion of Iran would not have been needed. Just a stern ultimatum backed up with an air craft carrier. And your apparent opinion that the Iranians would have wasted the US military is just dumb. Even at the end of the Vietnam War, our military was in far better shape then it was in the lead up to WW2.

Again, there is ZERO evidence to suggest a “stern ultimatum” would make the Iranians do anything. An aircraft carrier in the Gulf is a big ole tempting target. Shades of Austria Hungary blithely assuming Serbia would fall right in line.

Crying “but at least our military wasn’t as bad off as it previously was” doesn’t change the fact that it was far from being in any shape to carry out large scale military occupation.

Furthermore, the Soviets would have been happy to help the Iranians turn the whole affair into a bloodbath.

 

[Tigerace117]

It is good we did not have to invade Iran I agree. They came to their senses once they realized war was on their doorstep.

And Iraq got to find out how hard the Iranians would fight against an invader.

It didn’t go well for Baghdad.

 

[KingLeo]

Yes, Reagan owned up to it, and the public said it was okay. You should really watch the docu since its covered.

So you are saying Reagan 'owned up' to breaking the law?
No he really didn't.
Reagan eventually went on television to tell the American people that it was not an arms-for-hostages deal, but was instead about improving relations with moderate Iranians. Secretary of State George Shultz—who, along with Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, had opposed the operation—reminded the president that it was indeed an arms-for-hostage deal.

 

[Bullseye]

Again, you are confused at all levels. A land invasion of Iran would not have been needed. Just a stern ultimatum backed up with an air craft carrier. And your apparent opinion that the Iranians would have wasted the US military is just dumb. Even at the end of the Vietnam War, our military was in far better shape then it was in the lead up to WW2.

Except there were two carrier battlegroups on station in the Arabian Sea. I was Operations Officer on a US Navy frigate at the time. Needless to say nobody got much sleep. Our primary concern was that Iran had many ships, aircraft, and weapons we had given them. Our message channels were jammed with orders from higher headquarters and instructions on how to combat our own weapons being used against us.
The only clue most of us had about Eagle Claw going down was a flash message to cease radiating on certain frequencies. We saw three large helos lift off from one of the carriers (brains a little foggy after over 40 years) and head north.
My ship had little "back channel" communications capability so we were pretty much in the dark after that. I've talked to a couple of guys that were on one of the Admiral's staff on one of the carriers and they talk about the CF at Desert One and yelling and screaming in the command module trying to save the guys.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Again, there is ZERO evidence to suggest a “stern ultimatum” would make the Iranians do anything.

Where do you suggest such evidence would come from? It either would have been successful or not. Very silly comback on your part. Have you ever played poker? Is every hand guaranteed? Our odds of success against Iran would have been overwhelmingly good.

An aircraft carrier in the Gulf is a big ole tempting target.

You know nothing about carrier task forces do you?

Crying “but at least our military wasn’t as bad off as it previously was” doesn’t change the fact that it was far from being in any shape to carry out large scale military occupation.

You are ignorantly assuming that a large scale military occupation would be needed. You have no concept of objectives. The objective would not have been a takeover or occupation of Iran. It would have been getting the hostages released or making it very expensive for the Iranians if they harmed them. Threatening to take out their refineries probably would have been enough. The Iranians released the hostages the day Reagan took office. They knew he meant business and would not have hesitated to use military force. The Iranian regime at the time was very shaky.

Furthermore, the Soviets would have been happy to help the Iranians turn the whole affair into a bloodbath.

The Soviets wanted nothing to do with Iran at the time. They were too busy getting bogged down in Afghanistan.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Which, again, only a few years after the failure in Vietnam would have led to another bloody quagmire and failure.

You lack any real sense of history of Vietnam or how the US military works

 

[Tigerace117]

You lack any real sense of history of Vietnam or how the US military works

The US military had to confiscate grenades from units across the country due to soldiers killing their own officers and NCOs with regularity.

That’s not “working”.

 

[Tigerace117]

Where do you suggest such evidence would come from? It either would have been successful or not. Very silly comback on your part. Have you ever played poker? Is every hand guaranteed? Our odds of success against Iran would have been overwhelmingly good.

You know nothing about carrier task forces do you?

You are ignorantly assuming that a large scale military occupation would be needed. You have no concept of objectives. The objective would not have been a takeover or occupation of Iran. It would have been getting the hostages released or making it very expensive for the Iranians if they harmed them. Threatening to take out their refineries probably would have been enough. The Iranians released the hostages the day Reagan took office. They knew he meant business and would not have hesitated to use military force. The Iranian regime at the time was very shaky.

The Soviets wanted nothing to do with Iran at the time. They were too busy getting bogged down in Afghanistan.

Not quite. The war was far from a quagmire in 1980.....and the Soviets helping the Iranians keep the US bleeding would ensure the stability of their Afghan client, as the tap to the Mujahideen would be turned off.

You ignorantly assume the Iranians would roll over for the US simply because we blustered at them. Once again, there’s no evidence to support that contention. And, once again, our odds of success weren’t “overwhelmingly good”, for the simple reason that the Iranians government despised the US and would have been delighted at the chance to kill as many “infidels” as possible.

Here’s a hint: a carrier task force has never, in history, single handedly forced a country “into line”. We bombed the shit out of Vietnam without success only a few years earlier.

A “stern ultimatum“ would have instantly placed the hostages in far more danger. Iran would have strengthened the defenses around them, and likely dispersed many throughout the city in order to defend against precisely the kind of raid that was attempted and failed.

The US would have been utterly humiliated on every level.....even more than we already were.

 

[Cordelier]

No, we were going to go into Iran and get the job done.

That would have gotten the hostages killed, though.

 

[Cordelier]

Reagan talked a good game, but in the end he was more passive than Carter.

Look at what happened in Beirut with the barracks bombing. 241 Marines killed, and how does he respond? He has the New Jersey lob a few shells into the hills and then turns tail and runs.

Say what you will about Carter - call him weak and indecisive all you want - but he didn't get 241 Marines killed for nothing. And he didn't make deals with terrorists.

Oh Yeah, and we should honor the memory of Col. Higgins and CIA Bureau Chief Buckley when we recall that all of the hostages taken during the Carter Administration returned home safely.

 

[Moon]

When this happened I was a little tot so I wasnt sure what was going on, and just having seen this, and I sure learned a lot of new things.

- There was a previous hostage taking attempt almost one year prior, and it succeeded before the Iranian radicals left the compound.
- Most of the embassy staff and their dependents left not long after, but 50 or so stayed. Why didnt the State Department evacuate them all by this point?
- The spark that set off the second attempt was when Jimmy Carter allowed the exiled Shah into the US for cancer treatment, and this angered the radicals in Iran.
- When it happened a second time, and the students who engineered it only wanted to occupy the place for 2 days before leaving to demand the Shah's extradition.
- Khomeni originally didnt know about it, but when radicals gathered around the embassy, he decided to let it continue in order to get rid of the political opposition to his rule.
- The Iranians were willing to trade the 50 hostages for the Shah, but Carter refused.
- Operation Eagle Claw was a disaster because of poor planning and ineffective command and control.

What do you think?

One caveat about Eagle Claw. The planning of the mission was fine for the capabilities we had at the time. The problems were in the execution and timing. Pentagon leaders wanted all services represented so the Marines were tasked with the helo portion, even though that kind of flying wasn’t typical for them. The mission also launched too late in the year, it should have been authorized a couple of months earlier. One positive that came out of it is our special ops capability now is far superior to what it was in 1980.

 

[Cordelier]

One caveat about Eagle Claw. The planning of the mission was fine for the capabilities we had at the time. The problems were in the execution and timing. Pentagon leaders wanted all services represented so the Marines were tasked with the helo portion, even though that kind of flying wasn’t typical for them. The mission also launched too late in the year, it should have been authorized a couple of months earlier. One positive that came out of it is our special ops capability now is far superior to what it was in 1980.

I agree that our Special Forces capabilities are far and away better today than they were in 1980.

I still doubt that we'd be able to successfully carry out Operation Eagle Claw today. That plan was ludicrously ambitious. I think we were lucky it failed when it did... the casualties would have been a lot higher if the operation were allowed to proceed to Eagle Two or Tehran... or Manzariyeh, for that matter.

 

[Moon]

I agree that our Special Forces capabilities are far and away better today than they were in 1980.

I still doubt that we'd be able to successfully carry out Operation Eagle Claw today. That plan was ludicrously ambitious. I think we were lucky it failed when it did... the casualties would have been a lot higher if the operation were allowed to proceed to Eagle Two or Tehran... or Manzariyeh, for that matter.

Perhaps. We’ll never know. I knew some of the air planners and got to meet Col Kyle who was the air mission commander, and while it wasn’t a sure thing, they were all pretty confident it could have been done.

 

[Cordelier]

Perhaps. We’ll never know. I knew some of the air planners and got to meet Col Kyle who was the air mission commander, and while it wasn’t a sure thing, they were all pretty confident it could have been done.

I don't see it. Too many moving parts, and they all got more and more intricate the closer you got to Tehran. There doesn't seem to be any allowance for surprise anywhere along the line.

All credit to the guys who left the deck morning - they were as gutsy as hell - but when I read the outlines of this plan and everything that had to come together in just the right way and in just the right sequence, it reads like a suicide mission to me. I give it less than a 5% chance working in 1980... maybe 20-25% today?

 

[Moon]

I don't see it. Too many moving parts, and they all got more and more intricate the closer you got to Tehran. There doesn't seem to be any allowance for surprise anywhere along the line.

All credit to the guys who left the deck morning - they were as gutsy as hell - but when I read the outlines of this plan and everything that had to come together in just the right way and in just the right sequence, it reads like a suicide mission to me. I give it less than a 5% chance working in 1980... maybe 20-25% today?

I don’t know what the actual success estimates were, but they never would have launched if it were only 5%.

 

[Cordelier]

I don’t know what the actual success estimates were, but they never would have launched if it were only 5%.

Never underestimate the power of self-deception, especially when it comes to groupthink. Just look at Cy Vance - he was the Secretary of State and former Deputy Secretary of Defense. But they knew he was against military action and so they cut him out of the decision-making on Eagle Claw. If they're willing to cut out the Secretary of State, what are they going to do to some two-bit Colonel from J-2 when he says a negative word?

 

[Fledermaus]

Only a few years removed from the failure in Vietnam, where the US military practically came apart at the seams

 

[Tigerace117]

Giggle fits can’t change the facts.

 

[Fledermaus]

Giggle fits can’t change the facts.

It isn't giggling.



ROFLMAO

 

[Tigerace117]

It certainly is.

And you doubling down on it doesn’t change that