Remember this: Iran gave us Ronald Reagan.

[Laelth]

Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Those who celebrate the recent signs that the United States is moving toward a peaceful relationship with Iran should remember that it was Iran that was principally responsible for Ronald Reagan's election in 1980. Had it not been for the hostage crisis, it is likely that James Earl Carter Jr., the 39th President of the United States and the only Georgian ever elected to that office, would have been re-elected in 1980. If that had happened, it is likely that Ronald Reagan would never have risen to prominence and that we would not have fallen into the supply-side, voodoo-economics disaster into which Reagan led us so gleefully. Morning in America, indeed!

I am not a hawk, and I do not favor or advocate war with Iran, but the map below shows that we have been working on isolating Iran and preparing to fight Iran for a long time:



The fact of the matter is that from 1979-1981 (for 444 days) the Islamic Republic of Iran [font color=red]embarrassed[/font] the greatest Empire the world has ever known, and it appears that we vowed (Democrats and Republicans alike) to avenge this embarrassment.

President Obama has given signs that he intends to back away from our plan to seek revenge, and I applaud that move, even if it means that we have angered some allies, especially Israel and Saudi Arabia. Peace is still better than war, and I welcome this peace, even though it also represents a belligerent move on our part--one that Party loyalists are far too happy to ignore. As I have argued elsewhere, this is part of the "pivot" in US foreign relations toward a greater focus on Asia. Iran sells most of its oil to China, and just as the TPP is a move to isolate China, so this peace deal with Iran is a move to threaten China's oil supply. We are changing focus, for better or for worse.

It's very un-progressive to lack respect for foreign countries and their citizens, and I do respect the younger generations in Iran (who want more freedom and have been unjustly sanctioned for the acts of their parents and grand-parents). That said, I have a special kind of loathing for Iran, and I am skeptical of any plan to make peace with Iran because I still blame them for Ronald Reagan and 30+ years of supply-side economics.

Peace with Iran is a noble goal, but I will never love Iran, and I will always remember the effects their Islamic revolution had on my country. America must share the blame, here, for installing and propping-up the Shah as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. In many ways, we caused Iran's Islamic revolution, but part of me wishes (and many people who actually are hawks agree) that we had used Iran to send a message to the world that it's just not cool to take Americans hostage, and, if you do, you will pay a heavy price.

Perhaps that message has been received, and if it was received without our going to war, all the better. I'll still never forgive Iran for giving us Ronald Reagan, even if I do forgive some Democrats for being hawks in regards to Iran.

-Laelth

[Turbineguy]

1. I don't think it was Iran's intention

to get Ronald Reagan in the White House. But yes, Hitler and the KGB could only dream of harming the US that much.

[zbdent]

3. You sure?

they got plenty of help from Republican operatives in exchange ...

[Turbineguy]

11. I meant when they took the hostages.

Also, I doubt they understood the full effect of helping Reagan.

[zbdent]

46. So was I ...

they got a great reward for either taking those hostages, or for keeping them for so long, to help Reagan ...

[Laelth]

47. It's tricky to place blame, I admit.

There can be no doubt, however, that "some Iranians" (and I don't know who) forged an alliance with some Republicans to insure that the hostages would not be released until after the 1980 election and after Reagan was already in office. Somebody in Iran was working as an agent of the Republican Party, and that cost their country the lingering animosity of Americans for some 33 years because Republicans wanted war, and Democrats didn't trust their government.

I have no way of knowing what the intentions of various Iranians may have been, but I do know the results of the hostage crisis, and I will not pretend that the hostage crisis had no effect on the 1980 election.

-Laelth

[magical thyme]

2. what goes around comes around...

"America must share the blame, here, for installing and propping-up the Shah as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. In many ways, we caused Iran's Islamic revolution."

In other words, we shot ourselves in the foot.

I don't blame Iran for our ending up with Reagan. I blame us.

How many innocent people need to suffer the sanctions and for how long before we've punished them enough for taking hostages in retaliation for our dictating their leadership?

It is past time to move forward.

"Perhaps that message has been received"

And perhaps *we* have received a message as well.

[Skidmore]

4. This.

Iranian people did not show up to vote in elections in the US.

[JHB]

5. +1

The Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis are a case study in "blowback" of the very sort of ham-handed meddling that the neocons have wet dreams over.

[Laelth]

48. I think I covered our complicity in the OP.

That said, "What goes around comes around" is weak salve for the injury we sustained at the hands of Ronald Reagan.

Somebody in Iran was working as an agent of the Republican Party, and that cost their country the lingering animosity of Americans for some 33 years because Republicans wanted more war, and Democrats didn't trust the Iranian government. Iran helped the Republicans, and that hurt us all immensely. I will not pretend that the hostage crisis had no effect on the 1980 election.

-Laelth

[magical thyme]

50. I still blame us. We had no business propping up the Shah.

Again, what goes around comes around.

We had the fucking gall to decide their government for them, and they suffered immensely for it. Then they returned the favor.

If you want to continue to hate the blame Iran or Iranians for giving us a dose of our own 'medicine' that is your prerogative. I would advise you, though, that those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

I'm just grateful that their new leader decided to approach our current leaders, and that our current leaders decided it is past time to close the door on both sides' misdeeds and find a path forward.

[Laelth]

54. Like you, I am quite glad their current administration decided to pursue peace.

I am also glad that our own administration has decided to pursue peace (even if we ticked off a couple of key allies in doing so).

I still have no love for Iran, and I still blame them for working for the Republican Party and giving us Ronald Reagan.

In my mind, these concepts are not incompatible.

-Laelth

[Octafish]

6. CIA loyalty questioned at the time...

Bush.

[TroglodyteScholar]

7. ...35 years ago.... n/t

[Laelth]

49. Thanks for the response.

Sadly, I am unclear about the intent and purpose of your post. Care to expand?



-Laelth

[TroglodyteScholar]

52. Well, I did leave quite a bit to be inferred

My point is that conditions are very different in both the US and Iran. Yes, we should heed the lessons of history...but they are only truly informative when the context is similar....

That said, I'm no expert, and it's certainly not unreasonable to urge caution in our dealings with Iran.

[FarCenter]

8. On the other hand, it is ironic that we are allied with the sponsors of Sunni terrorism

Over the last two and possibly three decades the main sponsors of Islamic terrorism are the Wahhabi and Salafist branches of Sunni Islam which are supported mainly by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

This includes Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Sunni terrorists in the Balkans, Salafist terrorists in the Caucasus, southern Russia, and Central Asia, as well as the Salfist terrorists fighting in Syria.

Virtually all suicide bombers in recent decades have been Sunnis. Far fewer attacks have been done by Shiites. Even Hezbollah has adopted a mainly defensive posture against Israel.

[NuclearDem]

9. As far as responsibility for a terrible leader in the other's country

We've got far more apologizing to do than Iran.

They threw out a puppet dictator who was installed by a foreign power by ousting a popular democratically elected leader because that power didn't like the cut of his jib. That that was only one of many factors in the 1980 election that Iran had no direct influence in is no reason to hate them for Reagan.

[polly7]

16. I also don't see the reason for any hate towards Iran.

Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2013, 03:09 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8374897 - This is actually a fascinating thread on the history of Iran re the coup, I've just finished reading it all .. Octafish and others did a great job here.

http://www.alternet.org/story/153801/a_brief_history_of_america%27s_dumb_policies_towards_iran?paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark

SAVAK has been described as Iran's "most hated and feared institution" prior to the revolution of 1979 because of its practice of torturing and executing opponents of the Pahlavi regime.[2][3] At its peak, the organization had as many as 60,000 agents serving in its ranks according to one source,[4] although Gholam Reza Afkhami estimates SAVAK staffing at between 4,000 and 6,000.[5]

Sources disagree over how many victims SAVAK had and how inhumane its techniques were. Writing at the time of the Shah's overthrow, TIME magazine described SAVAK as having "long been Iran's most hated and feared institution" which had "tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents."[23] The Federation of American Scientists also found it guilty of "the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners" and symbolizing "the Shah's rule from 1963-79." The FAS list of SAVAK torture methods included "electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails." [24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

[geek tragedy]

10. Reagan returned the favor by serving up 240 Marines as sitting ducks for a truck bomb

and selling them missiles in illegal secret deals.

[Iggo]

12. Iran's Islamic Revolution gave us Reagan.

[Sheri]

13. scary reminder of our past.

not sure whether i should thank you or curse you for this post. i was trying to forget saint ronnie.

[Comrade Grumpy]

14. "I blame Iran." That's just stupid. I blame the CIA. So there.

The CIA overthrew Iran's elected leftist president in 1954 and imposed the shah.

The Iranians threw off the yoke of our imperialism in 1979.

We still can't forgive them for it.

You'll never forgive Iran for giving us Ronald Reagan. I didn't realize Iran voted in our elections. You would be better off directing your ire where it is deserved: at the voters who voted for him.

[Laelth]

15. Iran allied itself with the Republican Party in 1980/81.

It helped insure that the hostages weren't released until after Reagan assumed office.

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that it's a good idea to forge an alliance with Iran.

-Laelth

[Comrade Grumpy]

17. Blaming Iran for Reagan is like blaming Nader for Bush.

It might make you feel better, but isn't very persuasive.

Jimmy Carter lost for a variety of reasons in 1980; the Iran fiasco was just one factor.

And your view of things is very crabbed. Believe it or not, the Iranian revolution was not about who would win the next election in the US.

[Laelth]

18. Crabbed? Cool word.

I think I acknowledged our complicity in the Iranian revolution in my post above.

I still maintain that had it not been for the hostage crisis, Carter would have won.

-Laelth

[cascadiance]

30. A lot of the mess that was Iran and the oil crisis at the time was set in place before Carter...

... was our leader then.

He was a victim as much as a part of the problems of that time period. He tried to constructively deal with it with efforts to encourage solar energy then, which sadly Reagan subsequently tore down that might have changed our role heavily in the future on the world stage for the decades to come had we transitioned earlier to less dependence on fossil fuels in those efforts.

Yes, Carter WAS a victim of the PTB's manipulation of events behind the scenes of the hostage taking crisis, arms deals, Contra aid, etc. where the PTB wanted him out of the way and wanted Reagan in as someone they could use for their games far more then.

How much of this was Iranians' fault? They aren't blameless, but they had entities that knew that it would be hard to hold on to power without the military might they inherited from the Shah and the U.S., which would go to nothing if they had no replacement military parts, etc. that were a part of that deal then. Now, they were trying to have military might to stand up to the heavy military might we were wielding and have wielded so much in recent years. If we weren't about pushing our way militarily every place, there perhaps would have been less incentive for them to do that deal then.

It's interesting to see the comments of Bani Sadr after the movie Argo's success here about how he and many other Iranians had fought against the continued occupation of the American embassy and this deal at that time. So much like internal dissension we have here over other entities having our country do bad things, they had their own dissension as well.

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/07/october-surprise-and-argo/

You could also put some blame on Carter for current world events from what Brezinski and his administration did to fight the Soviets when they were losing power in Afghanistan at the time. Some of that wasn't pretty either, and later would lead to Bin Laden and the Al Queda entities we have working against us today too. Carter did a lot of good things that time in trying to promote human rights, etc. in his fight against the Soviet Union's influence in so many other place where they trashed human rights for power much like we trashed countries for mineral rights for powerful private entities.

[BumRushDaShow]

19. There was no world wide web in 1981.

The world has changed and the young people of the Revolution are grandparents now.

This doesn't mean that one suddenly opens their arms to give them a big group hug. But it means that given the "Cold War" started winding down in 1989, the geo-political map has changed and technology has been the game-changer du jour (queue that Stuxnet virus), not unlike the airplane in WWI or the ballistic missile in WWII.

Wars are not fought like this anymore -



and it behooves one to look at alternatives to dial a situation down when the opportunity presents itself.

[polichick]

20. Why did the CIA overthrow Iran's leftist prez? (Excuse my ignorance re this.)

[Comrade Grumpy]

21. He nationalized the oil industry. n/t

It had been mainly run by the Brits. The coup was a joint effort of MI6 and the CIA.

[Laelth]

22. Quite true.

I would add that we wanted to form a "bulwark" against the Soviet Union to the north to protect ME oil reserves.

-Laelth

[Comrade Grumpy]

25. Okay, you admit we overthrew their elected government for imperialist reasons...

and you still "blame Iran"? You know, coups have consequences. Maybe you should have a word with the Dulles brothers.

[Laelth]

37. I said we installed the Shah in the OP.

But they also allied themselves with the R party and, in doing so, in refusing to negotiate, in holding the hostages far longer than they needed to, they helped get Ronald Reagan elected.

I do, in fact, blame them for that.

-Laelth

[solarhydrocan]

44. No coup, no revolution. No revolution, no hostage crisis.

It started when the US overthrew the democratically elected Mossadeq.

The "blame" starts and ends with the US and the CIA. Ok, let's add Britain.

And what the hell does the US need a CIA for anyway. All they do is overthrow governments- to make the world safe for the US $.

The United States has been involved in and assisted in the overthrow of foreign governments (more recently termed "regime change&quot without the overt use of U.S. military force. Often, such operations are tasked to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Regime change has been attempted through direct involvement of U.S. operatives, the funding and training of insurgency groups within these countries, anti-regime propaganda campaigns, coups d'état, and other activities usually conducted as operations by the CIA. The U.S. has also accomplished regime change by direct military action, such as following the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 and the U.S.-led military invasion of Iraq in 2003.

2 During the Cold War

2.1 Communist states 1944–89
2.2 Syria 1949
2.3 Iran 1953
2.4 Guatemala 1954
2.5 Tibet 1955–70s
2.6 Indonesia 1958
2.7 Cuba 1959
2.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
2.9 Iraq 1960–63
2.10 Dominican Republic 1961
2.11 South Vietnam 1963
2.12 Brazil 1964
2.13 Ghana 1966
2.14 Chile 1970–73
2.15 Argentina 1976
2.16 Afghanistan 1979–89
2.17 Turkey 1980
2.18 Poland 1980–81
2.19 Nicaragua 1981–90
2.19.1 Destablization through CIA assets
2.19.2 Arming the Contras
2.20 Cambodia 1980–95
2.21 Angola 1980s
2.22 Philippines 1986

3 Since the end of the Cold War

3.1 Iraq 1992–96
3.2 Afghanistan 2001
3.3 Venezuela 2002
3.4 Iraq 2002–03
3.5 Haiti 2004
3.6 Gaza Strip 2006–present
3.7 Somalia 2006–07
3.8 Iran 2005–present
3.9 Libya 2011
3.10 Syria 2012–present

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions

Remember: "The CIA only does wet work in foreign lands"

[solarhydrocan]

40. must see free HULU documentary will answer all questions

http://www.hulu.com/watch/400495?playlist_id=1578

American Coup

“Few, if any, operations are as explosive as this.” CIA discussing the 1953 coup in Iran

AMERICAN COUP tells the story of the 1953 coup carried out by the CIA to topple the popular Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh had nationalized Iran’s oil industry to protect Iran’s chief asset. This enraged Winston Churchill who believed England should continue to control the oil reserves it had originally discovered in Iran.



So Churchill asked Pres. Harry Truman of the United States to help him oust Mossadegh; Truman refused and thought the British should work out a deal with Mossadegh. The Brits waited until Truman left office, and approached the incoming Eisenhower Administration.

John Foster Dulles, the new Secretary of State, and his brother Allen Dulles, CIA director, then persuaded Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower to carry out the coup. Kermit Roosevelt was the man on the ground in Iran who led the coup for the CIA that resulted in Mossadegh being tried on trumped-up charges of treason, and Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi assuming power as the strong man in Iran.

http://americancoupthemovie.com/home-2/

It's a great movie and well worth the time.

[polichick]

45. No wonder Eisenhower warned us about the mic...

Here's the link for anyone who hasn't seen that speech:

Thanks for the movie info - looks fascinating. Wish the American people had more to say about things done in our name.

[tweeternik]

29. Exactly ....

Carter was in a weak position in 1980. Teddy Kennedy primaried him. Interests rates were sky high. Gas shortages. Failed hostage rescue attempt. He completely fucked up the debate with Reagan. Iran didn't help, but it wasn't what gave us the Gipper.

[WinkyDink]

23. Gee, maybe we shouldn't have forcibly installed the former Shah.

[Drunken Irishman]

26. Carter deserves a lot of the blame for his handling of the mess.

He handled the entire situation badly.

[Laelth]

35. I don't recall thinking that at the time.

But I was younger. You may be right.



-Laelth

[Scootaloo]

27. And we gave them Shah Reza

Sorry, but in the big scheme of things, if I had to choose, I'd go with Ronnie over that motherfucker any day.

The amount of ignorant self-centered nonsense in your post is simply staggering.

[Laelth]

36. Why, thank you.

I shall grant your opinions the same regard hereafter.



-Laelth

[Scootaloo]

38. Whatever. Your opinions lack the backing of fact

You're entitled to whatever opinion you wish of course, but yo uare not entitled to other people taking it seriously

[Violet_Crumble]

42. You do know what the Shah was all about, don't you?

I think Scootaloo was milding it up a bit because they didn't mention SAVAK (the CIA helped them get off the ground), or a tip of the hat to the US for its involvement in the overthrow of Iranian democracy in 1953.

[malletgirl02]

43. OP US centric

I agree with you. I would add that I find it sad to find the OP U.S. centric nonsense on DU. Also if the OP will never forgive the Iranians for Reagan, then why should the Iranians forgive us imposing the Shah who all so correctly pointed out was far worst?

[cascadiance]

28. It's hard to blame just one entity in this mess... Hell, we could perhaps blame BP the most!

Since it was the company that eventually became BP that was being "threatened" by Iran's democratically elected leader in earlier times who was looking to perhaps nationalize oil company operations at the time that lead to Great Britain getting the U.S. to help them oust that leadership and replace it with an unelected dictator in the Shah with the likes of Savak secret police wreaking havoc on the population of Iran for decades up until they revolved in their revolution.

Do I like who's in charge now of Iran? Hell no. The Ayatollah and his crowd were opportunists that utilized the problems associated with the country having horrendous literacy rates while under the Shah to rally support locally around the country with the mullahs, etc. to help them throw out the Americans then and give them powers they shouldn't have.

The ironic part of the Ayatollah's leadership is that they helped promote literacy a lot to encourage Iranians to read more religious Islamic texts that they sought to control being the staple of what they read. But instead, they got a far more educated and literate populace with the next generation of Iranians who weren't a part of the hostage taking crisis, etc. then that:

1) were able to bypass these restrictions when the internet started to rise to prominence. The internet gave them the view of the rest of the world that previous generations didn't have. And the current Iranian regime's attempts to control access to the internet and information in general is more at odds with the freedoms that they see on the internet and that they want.
2) no longer suffered directly at the hands of the Savak secret police of the Shah, which was the core of many Iranians hatred of the U.S. who worked with that entity a lot during the Shah's time.
3) with the U.S. having no direct complicity after that arms deal in any of the current actions of the government, many of them feel it hard to blame the U.S. for their current problems the way that previous generations blamed the U.S. for the actions of the Shah's regime.
4) have had direct effect through protests and recent elections in the recent changes of Iranian's leadership (even though the reins are still held by the religious elites) to be less inflammatory in its rhetoric on the world stage.

Now that being said, if we "teach Iran a lesson" by attacking them, or doing something else that's equally provocative in trying to take them back to the times that they hated under the Shah, we will completely lose the wins that we might have for the future with this new generation of Iranians. We need to utilize this generation as an opportunity to restore some search for more democratic rule there, and hopefully when the new generation can gain more power as the older Ayatollah's elites die off, we might have a decent ally, if we don't have a foreign policy dictated by protecting oil supplies and the corporate entities that control that that have screwed us there and so many other places in the past.

As I said, I don't "love" Iran's government and many of the people there are problematic on the world stage, but there are many people I know personally that have been a direct part of events from then who I do love as good friends, and appreciate their perspective that helps shape my feelings and understanding that I put forth here.

Another country that's going through some of its own crises recently though quite different in many ways, has similar internal tensions and battles for control of their future direction is Turkey, where I lived a good portion of my childhood during the times of the Shah that lead up to the point of the revolution not long after that time. By keeping up with events there, I also see a country that has many problems but many accomplishments, and many good and bad things happening to it that need a more nuanced and detailed look at before making judgements to do some extreme measures to respond to what is happening there too.

What we need to do rather than send Iran a message of not putting up with what happened in the hostage crisis, is to send a strong message that we will come down hard on the Oliver Norths and other corrupt entities in our own government that have screwed both Iran AND the middle class and the American populace in general over the years. If we want more influence in world events and be looked on as a voice of leadership there, fixing the fascist elements in our own government that have been a part of the ills that happened in Iran and other places, and has hurt us as well would be far better than flexing our military force muscle that has gotten us in to trouble more than it has helped us impose our will every where else.

[Laelth]

57. That's an excellent post, and I am happy to let it stand without comment.

Thank you for your contribution to this thread.



-Laelth

[cascadiance]

61. And I want to add one more item that is positive for Iran's new generation. More educated women!

I just spoke to a former neighbor who just escaped the same housing complex that I'm right now in the process of packing and escaping this week as well as I write this. She used to live in Iran back in those days of the revolution, and she noted that today's younger Iranian women are very well educated and placed in society there unlike many other Islamic countries. This also helps immensely their future prospects as well.

[cpwm17]

31. How many of the hostages did Iran kill?: zero

How many Iranians did the US installed Shah murder, torture, and imprison?: many.

What would the US do to a country that overthrows our government and murders, tortures, and kills our citizens?: take a few hostages?: of course not. Look what we did to Iraq and they didn't do anything to us, whats-so-ever.

[AverageJoe90]

32. Good post.

Yes, sadly, these same mullahs that the GOP claim to hate really did help give us Ronnie Raygun and all the shenanigans he pulled.

(Though, TBH, I can't help but disagree with you on just one tiny detail: I'm afraid the TPP will have the exact opposite effect of what you may have thought; instead of isolating Chinese corps., unfortunately, it will actually strengthen them enormously, and very likely at the expense of Japan as well as the U.S., Canada and even Mexico, possibly. We need to isolate China as much as possible, but, again, this will help Beijing, not hurt them, not at all. It's one of the main reasons I oppose the TPP.)

[Laelth]

33. Great post. Thanks.

I am very curious to know why you think the TPP will do the things you suggest. While I don't deny that it's a power grab (and payoff to Hollywood, whose interests Obama must protect), I also think it is designed to shut out certain foreign competition for American goods, specifically food. I could be wrong about that, but, either way, I'd love to know why you think the TPP will help China more than it hurts.



-Laelth

[AverageJoe90]

34. It was obvious to me from the very moment I started looking into it.

I'm not all that good at actually explaining stuff without huge volumes of stuff on hand, but it's where these roads all would logically lead, though, no doubt about it; China did benefit quite a bit from NAFTA btw.

If we squelch the TPP, or at least defang it's nastier aspects, it's one less avenue that the GOP and Beijing can use to blackmail us, the 99%.

[spanone]

39. remember: reagan sold arms illegally to iran and funneled the money to the contras

fuck reagan

[Laelth]

51. Hear, hear! n/t

-Laelth

[spanone]

56. an act that would have a Democrat impeached & imprisoned.

[Major Nikon]

41. There was more to it than that

You could just as easily say Ford and Poppa Bush gave us Saint Ronnie. In fact, I give them far more credit for undermining Carter's presidency. You can also thank Lee Atwater for the Southern Strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_b

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

[A-Schwarzenegger]

53. Could you elaborate on this part?:

"...part of me wishes (and many people who actually are hawks agree) that we had used Iran to send a message to the world that it's just not cool to take Americans hostage, and, if you do, you will pay a heavy price."

[gopiscrap]

55. don't foget, that Reagan's staff stole stole the debate plan book from Carter

[pansypoo53219]

58. i blame ted koppel + nightline.

[Orsino]

59. American addiction to fake cowboy machismo gave us both Iran and Reagan.

Two symptoms, one cause.

[Xolodno]

60. Way too many generalizations...

Carter didn't lose because of Iran....it was just the final nail...there were plenty of issues going on aside from Iran. The Republicans could have run a "B" movie star from Hollywood and won......oh wait....

And Iran didn't hold the hostages that long just to mess with the election alone (although I would admit, it was a bonus). Iran knew the appetite of "American Intervention" via influence and by direct intervention. The taking of hostages was in a way "spontaneous" due to the massive anti-American rhetoric that was going on (as the leadership fully expected the US to intervene and needed to keep up the fever against.....and why would they think that would happen?....).

The Iranian leadership also could not release the hostages, otherwise, they would appear "sympathetic" to the United States. They also knew they couldn't keep them for too long, lest they risk war...and lets face it, they knew even if they won, their deputies would be in charge afterwards as they would all be dead. This was just as much a quagmire for them.

Carter wasn't willing to go to war as he knew the hostages would be toast. Thus even more incentive by Iran to hold the hostages. But then came Regan. Who implied he didn't give a shit if the hostages died and would go to war, something the Iranian leaders played to their populace to give them cover to release them. So, they released them...depriving Regan (and former CIA guy, Bush) of an excuse to go to war.

The USA was played...it no longer had an excuse to go to war, but at the same time...had no influence. Achieving exactly what Iran wanted the whole time....no war...and no US influence. This was further evidenced during the Iran Contra affair...when the US sold Iran arms....to buy influence in releasing hostages from a front group...as opposed to strong arming them as was usually done. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more instances of where the USA payed them off for something.

And there was never any love between Iran and the USA. The US Government encouraged and supplied (even with chemical weapons) Iraq in its war with Iran (Saddam's sin was failing to take out Iran). And lets not forget Iran Air flight 655...Plus the crippling sanctions aren't there because the US Government felt all Cuba like all of sudden.

Also, lets not forget Iran's biggest sin in the eyes of the US. Forcing it to cuddle up with Sunni's instead of the less radical Shiites. With Iran in its back pocket the US could push influence in the Mid-East for more "secular" governments. But when Iran said it wouldn't play ball, the US had to suck up to the princes of Saudia Arabia....knowing full well they would get rich off of US money and funnel some of it against US interests. If Iran was still under American control...OPEC would not have the teeth it does. Why do you think that the recent thawing of relations has been met with so much opposition from the Saudis? The Saudis will lose influence and bank if Iran and the USA open up to each other. They don't want that happening.

This whole Iran gave us Regan...Regan cooperated with Iran, etc. memo is tired and worn. Its insulting the Iranian people, insulting to the American people and insulting to the world. The CIA, in its anti-communist paranoia, over reached. A populace wouldn't take it anymore and fought back...screwing up "the best laid plans of the CIA".

And that's it. I may not convince you or others who love the Republican-Iran conspiracy theory...but as someone who had to jump through a lot of hoops to help get my wife a passport when we planned to travel abroad...just because her father was born in "Persia"....I'm going to have a different perspective.