1979 Iran Hostage Crisis

[Fledermaus]

It certainly is.

And you doubling down on it doesn’t change that

Doesn't change what?

 

[PoS]

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.

OK, and? What happened then? Did Reagan get punished?

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.

The planning wasnt very good, imo. Too many cooks running the show. JSOC didnt exist back then thats true, but a unified command would have greatly improved its chances. Also, they failed to plan for any contingencies and didnt bring in enough choppers in case something bad happened.

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.

Reagan had his faults, but he was canny enough to realize that Lebanon was going to turn into a quagmire and so cut his losses. Clinton did the same thing in Somalia too, and I admire him for that. Dubya and Obama on the other hand, did the LBJ doubledown thing in Afghanistan, and it failed.

 

[Tigerace117]

Fact of the matter is any attempt to invade Iran would have been a bloodbath, and led to another long, unwinnable war based solely on the idea that they would roll over in the first of a “stern ultimatum”.

 

[KingLeo]

OK, and? What happened then? Did Reagan get punished?


The planning wasnt very good, imo. Too many cooks running the show. JSOC didnt exist back then thats true, but a unified command would have greatly improved its chances. Also, they failed to plan for any contingencies and didnt bring in enough choppers in case something bad happened.


Reagan had his faults, but he was canny enough to realize that Lebanon was going to turn into a quagmire and so cut his losses. Clinton did the same thing in Somalia too, and I admire him for that. Dubya and Obama on the other hand, did the LBJ doubledown thing in Afghanistan, and it failed.

Was Reagan punished? No but he certainly should have been along with Bush Sr and Bill Barr.
Who was punished for Iran Contra?
In the end, several dozen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal. The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the presidency of George H. W.

 

[Cordelier]

Reagan had his faults, but he was canny enough to realize that Lebanon was going to turn into a quagmire and so cut his losses. Clinton did the same thing in Somalia too, and I admire him for that. Dubya and Obama on the other hand, did the LBJ doubledown thing in Afghanistan, and it failed.

That's a pretty broad statement, and if I answer it this discussion is going to go way off the tracks from the OP.

What I will say is this... when you're sending forces into harm's way, clarity matters. You need to be crystal clear what the mission is and what it is not; what resources are going to be available to accomplish that mission and when they're going to be available; and what the rules of engagement are going to be. And then, and only then - once you have established those parameters - then you need to do a serious and unbiased risk assessment as to every conceivable thing that could go wrong.

I think we seriously failed to do this in either Operation Eagle Claw in 1980 or with the Multinational Force (MNF) in Lebanon in 1982-84. Once you start a military operation off on the wrong foot, it then becomes exceedingly difficult - if not impossible - to then correct the problems mid-stream.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

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.

You lack the foggiest clue what you are talking about, Ultimately it was carpetbombing Vietnam that led to the Treaty that ended our participation in the Vietnam War. As for a stern warning putting the hostages in more danger, they were already in more danger. Carter made them far less safe by sitting on his dumb ass writing love letters to the Ayotollah appealing to his religion. It was not just about the 50 hostages. Carter's inability to act placed far more then those 50 hostages in danger. It emboldened radical islamic extremists to take more western hostages. And as for your apparent feeling that the US military was decimated by the Vietnam War, it's based on your utter ignorance. And ahere was the humiliation you speak of?

 

[Tigerace117]

You lack the foggiest clue what you are talking about, Ultimately it was carpetbombing Vietnam that led to the Treaty that ended our participation in the Vietnam War. As for a stern warning putting the hostages in more danger, they were already in more danger. Carter made them far less safe by sitting on his dumb ass writing love letters to the Ayotollah appealing to his religion. It was not just about the 50 hostages. Carter's inability to act placed far more then those 50 hostages in danger. It emboldened radical islamic extremists to take more western hostages. And as for your apparent feeling that the US military was decimated by the Vietnam War, it's based on your utter ignorance. And ahere was the humiliation you speak of?

Laughably wrong.

How US Aerial Bombing During the Vietnam War Backfired

U.S. aerial bombs did little to further overall strategic objectives.

thediplomat.com

Bombing As a Policy Tool in Vietnam

92nd Congress, 2nd Session Committee Print BOMBING AS A POLICY TOOL IN VIETNAM: EFFECTIVENESS A STAFF STUDY BASED ON THE PENTAGON PAPERS Prepared for the Use of the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Study No. 5 October 12, 1972 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign...

www.history.navy.mil

The campaign not only failed to achieve its aims, it was outright counterproductive in many aspects.

Trying to bomb Iran would effectively be signing the hostages’ death sentences.

Furthermore, seeing as hostage taking was already a common aspect of terrorism, arguing that this was what “emboldened” terrorists to carry out such attacks is laughable.

As you have quite clearly shown, you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[yankintx]

When this happened, I was more than old enough to remember it.

Really sorry that the plan to rescue the Americans was a disaster.

In retrospect, this country should have asked Israel to do the job.

With all due respect, the Iranian leaders have to be treated with an iron fist.

Israel in recent years has sent in agents to, uh, terminate some bad guys.

The Iranian leaders are terrified of Israel.

That's how they have to be treated -- in my humble opinion.

Iran exports arm to terrorist, and will do its best to destabilize the West and Democracy.

We tried being diplomatic in the past, it failed.

 

[Tigerace117]

Iran exports arm to terrorist, and will do its best to destabilize the West and Democracy.

We tried being diplomatic in the past, it failed.

Saudi Arabia has been arming terror groups for decades yet we can’t stop rolling over for them constantly.

 

[PoS]

Was Reagan punished? No but he certainly should have been along with Bush Sr and Bill Barr.
Who was punished for Iran Contra?
In the end, several dozen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal. The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the presidency of George H. W.

OK, so what I said was accurate after all.

That's a pretty broad statement, and if I answer it this discussion is going to go way off the tracks from the OP.

LOL well you did start this tangent by talking about Lebanon, yes?

What I will say is this... when you're sending forces into harm's way, clarity matters. You need to be crystal clear what the mission is and what it is not; what resources are going to be available to accomplish that mission and when they're going to be available; and what the rules of engagement are going to be. And then, and only then - once you have established those parameters - then you need to do a serious and unbiased risk assessment as to every conceivable thing that could go wrong.

I think we seriously failed to do this in either Operation Eagle Claw in 1980 or with the Multinational Force (MNF) in Lebanon in 1982-84. Once you start a military operation off on the wrong foot, it then becomes exceedingly difficult - if not impossible - to then correct the problems mid-stream.

I think mistakes are inevitable when it comes to these things, but what matters is how a leader adjusts to the situation. Clinton and Reagan were right in pulling out. Carter was just helpless from beginning to end, and thats what did him in.

 

[Cordelier]

I think mistakes are inevitable when it comes to these things, but what matters is how a leader adjusts to the situation. Clinton and Reagan were right in pulling out. Carter was just helpless from beginning to end, and thats what did him in.

How much of that was just perception, though? Like I said before, when you compare Carter and Reagan, and their respective hostage crises, Reagan talked a tougher game, but in reality he was even more helpless than Carter was. Carter never tried to trade arms for hostages and he never did something as gutless as turning over the Shah. He stuck to his guns and waited them out. Meanwhile, Reagan signaled weakness by going into Lebanon with an ill thought out and poorly implemented military mission and then pulling out when that mission inevitably met with tragedy. Then that weakness led to his own hostage crisis that had him more over a barrel than Carter was... despite all of his rhetoric to the contrary, he was forced to try to strike deals with terrorists, and when he put on his tough guy act, the price for that was hostages getting killed.

So if you were a hostage, either in Tehran or Beirut, who would you rather have had in the Oval Office? Carter or Reagan?

In Tehran, the hostages were held for 444 days and 100% freed.
In Beirut, the US hostages who were released were held on average, for 1,272 days. 18% managed to escape; 55% were freed; and 27% were killed.

 

[PoS]

How much of that was just perception, though? Like I said before, when you compare Carter and Reagan, and their respective hostage crises, Reagan talked a tougher game, but in reality he was even more helpless than Carter was. Carter never tried to trade arms for hostages and he never did something as gutless as turning over the Shah. He stuck to his guns and waited them out.

Perception is everything. When Carter allowed the Shah into the US, the Iranians thought the US was going to do another coup and put the Shah back in power, like what happened to Mossdadegh in 1953. That's one of the reasons why the US Embassy was stormed. Everything that happened in Iran were a direct result of Carter's personal actions.

So if you were a hostage, either in Tehran or Beirut, who would you rather have had in the Oval Office? Carter or Reagan?

In Tehran, the hostages were held for 444 days and 100% freed.
In Beirut, the US hostages who were released were held on average, for 1,272 days. 18% managed to escape; 55% were freed; and 27% were killed.

Apples to oranges fallacy. Lebanon and Iran were completely different affairs, so to even compare the two is just silly.

 

[Cordelier]

Perception is everything. When Carter allowed the Shah into the US, the Iranians thought the US was going to do another coup and put the Shah back in power, like what happened to Mossdadegh in 1953. That's one of the reasons why the US Embassy was stormed. Everything that happened in Iran were a direct result of Carter's personal actions.



Apples to oranges fallacy. Lebanon and Iran were completely different affairs, so to even compare the two is just silly.

Seems to me what you're saying is that they were a direct result of Eisenhower's actions.

Lebanon and Iran may have been different, but it was the same people calling the shots. The same threads ran between the two. The chief organizer behind the Barracks Bombing was Iranian Defense Minister 2013-17.

 

[PoS]

Seems to me what you're saying is that they were a direct result of Eisenhower's actions.

Lebanon and Iran may have been different, but it was the same people calling the shots. The same threads ran between the two. The chief organizer behind the Barracks Bombing was Iranian Defense Minister 2013-17.

Where's your proof of that? Even historians disagree whether Iran was in on it, and Hezbollah denied their involvement, claiming it was splinter groups. The embassy hostages on the other hand, were not only admitted to by Khomeni, their captivity is still celebrated in that country to this day.

Also, it wasnt just Americans who were kidnapped in Lebanon. Brits, Germans, French, even Russians were kidnapped. Are you gonna blame Reagan for them too?

 

[PoliSciPulse]

I was working midnight at UPS to put myself through school when the rescue attempt failed. I still remember that night.

The Shah was a brutal dictator whose secret police (known as the SAVAK) tortured and murdered thousands of Iranians and other people. Carter lost the '80 election to Ronnie because he was seen as weak. It's a shame we can't come to some type of agreement with the Iranians. The middle-east would be better off if we did.

Interestingly, Ross Perot's rescue attempt succeeded.

As far as the Shah, I don't know much about him, but it does not surprise me. The United States has a history of backing just really shady dictator-like people. In South Vietnam, if you remember, it was Ngo Dinh Diem, who took very similar actions to the description you have of the Shah.

 

[Fledermaus]

Fact of the matter is any attempt to invade Iran would have been a bloodbath, and led to another long, unwinnable war based solely on the idea that they would roll over in the first of a “stern ultimatum”.

Please share the source of your vast military knowledge.

 

[Tigerace117]

The fact that the US military had failed miserably when confronted with a guerrilla war in Vietnam only a few years earlier.

The fact that when Iraq actually tried to invade Iran it turned into a complete bloodbath for them.

Amongst other facts.

Duh.

 

[Fledermaus]

The fact that the US military had failed miserably when confronted with a guerrilla war in Vietnam only a few years earlier.

The fact that when Iraq actually tried to invade Iran it turned into a complete bloodbath for them.

Amongst other facts.

Duh.

Opinion noted.

Please share the source of your vast military knowledge.

 

[post]

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?

Rockefeller "fixer" also found himself on the seven member Warren Commission in late 1963 in which he exerted outsized influence.

Lost In Transition

To a President-elect, staffing a new government looks easy next to the challenge of getting elected, but a number of circumstances—some structural, some historical, and some quasi-magical in character—combine to make it an undertaking fraught with risk

www.theatlantic.com

To a President-elect, staffing a new government looks easy next to the challenge of getting elected, but a number of circumstances—some structural, some historical, and some quasi-magical in character—combine to make it an undertaking fraught with risk
By Carl Brauer
NOVEMBER 1988 ISSUE

"Carter came to office with considerably less experience in foreign affairs than most new Presidents have, but he was interested and willing to learn. In the early 1970s he had been an enthusiastic member of the Trilateral Commission, which had been founded by David Rockefeller to promote cooperation among North America, Western Europe, and Japan. There Carter met Cyrus Vance and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who became his Secretary of State and national-security adviser, respectively. First on the campaign trail and then in the White House, Brzezinski served as Carter’s tutor. “I was an eager student, and took full advantage of what Brzezinski had to offer,” Carter guilelessly wrote in his memoir. “As a college professor and author, he was able to express complicated ideas simply. We got to know each other well.".."

Operation Eagle Claw - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"..The crisis had reached a climax after diplomatic negotiations failed to secure the release of the hostages. Facing elections and with little to show from negotiations, the Carter government ordered the State Department to sever diplomatic relations with Iran on 7 April 1980. Cyrus Vance, the United States Secretary of State, had argued against a push by National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski for a military solution to the crisis. Vance left Washington on Thursday 10 April for a long weekend vacation in Florida. On Friday 11 April, cc held a newly scheduled meeting of the National Security Council where he insisted that it was time to "lance the boil", and Carter said it was "time for us to bring our hostages home". It was during this Security Council meeting of 11 April, that Carter confirmed that he had authorised the mission. He did however continue to entertain the planning for a concurrent punitive air-strike, but this was finally rejected on 23 April, one day prior to the commencement of the mission. The rescue mission was code named Operation Eagle Claw. .."

 

[Tigerace117]

The fact that the US military had failed miserably when confronted with a guerrilla war in Vietnam only a few years earlier.

The fact that when Iraq actually tried to invade Iran it turned into a complete bloodbath for them.

Both historical facts.

No matter how much that triggers you

 

[Fledermaus]

The fact that the US military had failed miserably when confronted with a guerrilla war in Vietnam only a few years earlier.

The fact that when Iraq actually tried to invade Iran it turned into a complete bloodbath for them.

Both historical facts.

No matter how much that triggers you

Hyperbolic opinion noted.

Hyperbolic opinion is rarely in the same Zip Code as the truth.

Calling Vietnam a bloodbath is accurate in the NVA and Vietcong case. US casualties - 58,281
NVA & Vietcong - 600,000-950,000 dead and 230,000-300,000 missing.

Calling Iraq a bloodbath is only accurate in the Iraqis case. 2003 invasion.
US dead 196
Iraq dead 45,000

Occupation
US - 4,431 deaths
Insurgents - 26,000-27,000



Please share the source of your vast military knowledge.

 

[Tigerace117]

I called the IRAN IRAQ War a bloodbath. Learn how to read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

Nevertheless, Vietnam was a clear cut US failure, and one which inflicted a price in lives the US was unwilling to pay.

Please share why anyone should take your ravings seriously when you apparently can’t even comprehend basic English.

 

[Fledermaus]

I called the IRAN IRAQ War a bloodbath. Learn how to read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

Nevertheless, Vietnam was a clear cut US failure, and one which inflicted a price in lives the US was unwilling to pay.

Please share why anyone should take your ravings seriously when you apparently can’t even comprehend basic English.

I stand corrected on the Iran/Iraq war.

Which leaves Vietnam where the VC by their own words destroyed in the South. And the NVA stopped.

 

[Tigerace117]

The NVA stopped…..when their tanks rolled into Saigon.

 

[Fledermaus]

The NVA stopped…..when their tanks rolled into Saigon.

Years after the US left in accordance with the Paris Peace Accords.

A fact you can't seem to grasp.