1979 Iran Hostage Crisis

[MrWonka]

What do you think?

First, if you know your history it was Republicans who advised Carter to let the Shah into the U.S. He initially didn't think it was a good idea at all.

Second, to understand why Iran hates us so much, you need to google "Operation AJAX."
Iran may be a shitty country, but they have a valid reason to hate us and not trust us.

 

[Cordelier]

First, if you know your history it was Republicans who advised Carter to let the Shah into the U.S. He initially didn't think it was a good idea at all.

Second, to understand why Iran hates us so much, you need to google "Operation AJAX."
Iran may be a shitty country, but they have a valid reason to hate us and not trust us.

What the hell was Carter supposed to do about Operation Ajax?

The way I figure it, the US had been encouraging the Shah to liberalize the country and bring more freedoms and wealth to the people since the early 1960's - the White Revolution had made Iran probably only second to Israel out of all the countries in the region where it came to freedom and prosperity. Of course it wasn't an ideal situation... but it's hard to think of any other country in the region (aside from Israel) that matched it's record. There was every reason in the world to believe that the Iranians - and especially Iranian women - weren't going to allow the White Revolution to not continue... Shah or no.

The argument that the US shouldn't have allowed the Shah into the country to receive medical treatment is, I believe, flawed. It draws a moral equivalence between that action and the hostage taking that ensued. There's no equivalence there whatsoever because there was no justification for attacking our embassy. It was a clearly a gross violation of international law. Full stop. To trade the Shah for the hostages would not only have been shameful on our part - but also set a dangerous precedent moving forward.

 

[PoS]

Why do I hate the concept?? Because if that was the policy that we followed, then all it would take to shut down US foreign policy would be to gather a mob and attack the embassy... then the Americans will turn tail and run. Foreign service carries with it an element of risk. Every member of the military, the intelligence services, and even the State Department is well aware of the risks that are involved.

Embassies are not military units, and even soldiers know when to pull out. This just shows how little you care for their lives. Disgusting, really.

The attack on the embassy in Tehran didn't happen in isolation - we had our Ambassador in Afghanistan kidnapped and murdered in 1978. We had our embassy in Islamabad attacked and burned in 1979. Were we supposed to run away from Afghanistan and Pakistan as well?

We did pull out of Afghanistan. Pakistan was still stable, and order was restored within an hour. You cant say the same with Iran when no one was in charge and there were armed groups with different agendas running around.

Shit happens. But if we ran away every time it did, then not only does it give in to the mobs and not only does it paralyze our foreign policy and our ability to influence events on the ground, but it also compromises our intelligence networks that are primarily run out of our embassies. Our assets trust us with their lives. The first thing that happens whenever we abandon our embassies, is that the mobs move in and ransack our files for intelligence information. So yes, we put our people in harm's way. But it's for a damned good reason.

What good reason was there to retain 50 or so people in Iran? None.

First, if you know your history it was Republicans who advised Carter to let the Shah into the U.S. He initially didn't think it was a good idea at all.

For chrissakes, Carter was the POTUS, he could have decided for himself, but instead he chose to embrace the Shah. The whole fiasco was on him.

 

[Cordelier]

Embassies are not military units, and even soldiers know when to pull out. This just shows how little you care for their lives. Disgusting, really.


We did pull out of Afghanistan. Pakistan was still stable, and order was restored within an hour. You cant say the same with Iran when no one was in charge and there were armed groups with different agendas running around.


What good reason was there to retain 50 or so people in Iran? None.


For chrissakes, Carter was the POTUS, he could have decided for himself, but instead he chose to embrace the Shah. The whole fiasco was on him.

Well, it's pretty obvious you have no concept of what foreign service actually entails, what it means to serve your country, or what it means look out for people whose lives depend on you.

So, go head and keep lobbing your nuggets of 20/20 hindsight at me.

 

[MrWonka]

For chrissakes, Carter was the POTUS, he could have decided for himself, but instead he chose to embrace the Shah. The whole fiasco was on him.

It is a decision that would have abso****inglutely been made had a Republican president been in office.

Anyone to the Left of Carter has a right to bash him for the decision. Anyone to the Right of Carter does not.

 

[Cordelier]

It is a decision that would have abso****inglutely been made had a Republican president been in office.

Anyone to the Left of Carter has a right to bash him for the decision. Anyone to the Right of Carter does not.

I don't think anyone should bash him at all. Whether or not we allowed the Shah into the country in no way, shape or form justified our people being taken hostage like that.

 

[PoS]

Well, it's pretty obvious you have no concept of what foreign service actually entails, what it means to serve your country, or what it means look out for people whose lives depend on you.

So, go head and keep lobbing your nuggets of 20/20 hindsight at me.

LOL OK then, tell us about the time you spent working at US embassies in hot zones.

It is a decision that would have abso****inglutely been made had a Republican president been in office.

Anyone to the Left of Carter has a right to bash him for the decision. Anyone to the Right of Carter does not.

What in the hell are you on about? It happened under Carter's watch and he was the POTUS, so of course everybody can bash him, becauise he did it.

 

[MrWonka]

What in the hell are you on about? It happened under Carter's watch and he was the POTUS, so of course everybody can bash him, becauise he did it.

But people exactly like you were the ones telling him to do it at the time. If you had your way Ford would have been president, and he would have done the exact same thing.
So attacking Carter for a decision that we all know full well you would have supported at the time is just stupid.

 

[PoS]

But people exactly like you were the ones telling him to do it at the time. If you had your way Ford would have been president, and he would have done the exact same thing.
So attacking Carter for a decision that we all know full well you would have supported at the time is just stupid.

People like me? You dont know me. I never voted GOP, so take your moronic lib partisanship elsewhere.

Carter was your prime lib idol and he screwed up big time. Youre no better than the Trumpers- actually, you probably are one.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I'm just restating facts. If you have an issue with how history played out you can take it up with a historian.

Yawn.....

 

[Jredbaron96]

Yawn.....

If you don't have the ability to debate this subject you can just move to another thread, you don't need to try to attract attention to yourself.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

If you don't have the ability to debate this subject you can just move to another thread, you don't need to try to attract attention to yourself.

Have a wonderful weekend.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Have a wonderful weekend.

Okay.

 

[Oozlefinch]

But Carter and his negotiators kept working through the very end of his presidency, and eventually, at the last possible moment, they succeeded.

The negotiations had nothing to do with that. And the election of President Reagan only incidentally.

The Ayatollah simply wanted to see President Carter fall. So he held them until after the new President was sworn in. It was simple spite, for his allowing the Shah to come to the US for treatment.

No matter what, they would not have been released before President Carter was out of office. And until his death in 1989 he often bragged that he was the man that deposed an American President.

The Ayatollah was actually a very shrewd man, and well educated. Among his studies was Greek philosophy, and he was originally studying to become a lawyer before he went into religion. And he had long been political, and knew how to use one faction against another.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Your version is not entirely correct.
But Carter and his negotiators kept working through the very end of his presidency, and eventually, at the last possible moment, they succeeded. On January 19, 1981, the US and Iran signed the Algiers Accords, an agreement brokered by the Algerian government that secured the hostages' release in exchange for concessions by the US, including sanctions relief, the release of frozen Iranian assets, and the creation of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal that would remove cases against Iran from US courts.
The hostages were released the following day, January 20, 1981 — the day Reagan was inaugurated.

The Republican myth of Ronald Reagan and the Iran hostages, debunked​

The Republican myth of Ronald Reagan and the Iran hostages, debunked

Sorry, GOP candidates. Your favorite foreign policy story about Reagan is a myth.

www.vox.com

I guess a liberal would have a totally different take on it, to save face. The negotiations may well have been going on but it was the threat of a Reagan military action if the hostages were still held after he was in office that scared the shit out of the Iranians. They didn't just happen to negotiate their way to letting them go a day prior to Reagans swearing in. I was an adult by the time this all happened and the country pretty much was sick of carter and his weakness as well as his economic mistakes. Reagan was portrayed as a gunsligner and a war hawk by the democrats during the election but all that did was help Reagan and scare the Iranians. The gave up at the last moment to save their ass. Democrat revisionist history is always strange.

 

[KingLeo]

I guess a liberal would have a totally different take on it, to save face. The negotiations may well have been going on but it was the threat of a Reagan military action if the hostages were still held after he was in office that scared the shit out of the Iranians. They didn't just happen to negotiate their way to letting them go a day prior to Reagans swearing in. I was an adult by the time this all happened and the country pretty much was sick of carter and his weakness as well as his economic mistakes. Reagan was portrayed as a gunsligner and a war hawk by the democrats during the election but all that did was help Reagan and scare the Iranians. The gave up at the last moment to save their ass. Democrat revisionist history is always strange.

What is even stranger is how Republicans forget that Reagan negotiated with terrorists (Iran), secretly and illegally supplied them with arms, the Iran/Contra Scandal.

 

[Cordelier]

I guess a liberal would have a totally different take on it, to save face. The negotiations may well have been going on but it was the threat of a Reagan military action if the hostages were still held after he was in office that scared the shit out of the Iranians. They didn't just happen to negotiate their way to letting them go a day prior to Reagans swearing in. I was an adult by the time this all happened and the country pretty much was sick of carter and his weakness as well as his economic mistakes. Reagan was portrayed as a gunsligner and a war hawk by the democrats during the election but all that did was help Reagan and scare the Iranians. The gave up at the last moment to save their ass. Democrat revisionist history is always strange.

Reagan did SFA when 241 Marines were killed in Beirut. He did SFA when hostages were killed there as well.
No way in hell he would have bombed Iran. He was all hat.

The Iranians just figured they got all the mileage they were going to get from the hostages, pure and simple. That and the fact the Iraqis attacked them in September. They had bigger fish to fry come January.

 

[Integrityrespec]

First, if you know your history it was Republicans who advised Carter to let the Shah into the U.S. He initially didn't think it was a good idea at all.

Second, to understand why Iran hates us so much, you need to google "Operation AJAX."
Iran may be a shitty country, but they have a valid reason to hate us and not trust us.

Long time since 1975. Iran is a shitty country because of it's current oppressive leadership. They've had half a century to make things better and they haven't.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Reagan did SFA when 241 Marines were killed in Beirut. He did SFA when hostages were killed there as well.
No way in hell he would have bombed Iran. He was all hat.

The Iranians just figured they got all the mileage they were going to get from the hostages, pure and simple. That and the fact the Iraqis attacked them in September. They had bigger fish to fry come January.

Reagan did SFA when 241 Marines were killed in Beirut. He did SFA when hostages were killed there as well.
No way in hell he would have bombed Iran. He was all hat.

The Iranians just figured they got all the mileage they were going to get from the hostages, pure and simple. That and the fact the Iraqis attacked them in September. They had bigger fish to fry come January.

Tell that to Gaddafi.

 

[Tigerace117]

Tell that to Gaddafi.

Reagan’s attempt to get Gaddafi was a miserable failure.

 

[Hamish Howl]

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.

Which is an interesting way to say "Reagan bribed them to hold onto the hostages until after the election."