Pres Carter and Iran Hostages

Foaming Draught

The RIP thread is not a place for controversy. So I'd like to pick up here on a popular myth which even @mousethief fastens on to that Pres Carter "made some mistakes, such as his handling of the Iran hostage situation." Mousethief is old enough to remember - I certainly am - that Reagan did a dirty, illegal, and arguably treasonous deal with the Mullahs behind the US Government's back to not release hostages until after the 1980 election. And it wasn't Reagan's only illegal dealings with that régime, think Iran/Contra. Sure, the attempted helicopter-borne rescue of the hostages didn't come off, but Reagan had already ensured that they weren't going to be released in the normal diplomatic way. This was not a "mistake in Pres Carter's handling of the hostage situation", it was treachery of the highest order by his successor.

Martin54

Prove it.

Ruth

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/29/us/politics/jimmy-carter-dead.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lE4.6foX.RXWtwW59_eqF&smid=url-share - free link to the NY Times obituary.

In his book “October Surprise: America’s Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan” (1991), Gary G. Sick, a specialist on Iran as a member of the National Security Council during the crisis, asserted that William J. Casey, a World War II spymaster and Mr. Reagan’s campaign manager, had promised massive arms shipments to Iran as part of the deal. A congressional investigation produced suspicions but no hard proof, and the Reagan team adamantly denied any such plot.

But last year, more than four decades later, new testimony implicated Mr. Casey. Ben Barnes, a former lieutenant governor of Texas, told The Times that he joined a trip to the Middle East in the summer of 1980 with former Gov. John B. Connally of Texas, a Republican hoping to serve in a future Reagan cabinet. According to Mr. Barnes, Mr. Connally told multiple regional leaders to urge Iran to hold the captives until after the American vote. Mr. Connally later reported to Mr. Casey about his trip, Mr. Barnes said. “History needs to know this happened,” he said, explaining why he came forward so many years later.

Not absolute proof, but support for the claim.

Arethosemyfeet

Another reminder that the myth of a past where Republican politicians were decent people who just disagreed about how to run things is just that - a myth. From Nixon on there are countless examples of this amoral scumbaggery, and the alliance between the GOP and fundamentalists has always been a match made in hell.

Crœsos

Foaming Draught wrote: »

Sure, the attempted helicopter-borne rescue of the hostages didn't come off, but Reagan had already ensured that they weren't going to be released in the normal diplomatic way. This was not a "mistake in Pres Carter's handling of the hostage situation", it was treachery of the highest order by his successor.

Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive positions. Carter chose to listen to National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wanted a military solution, over Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who warned that Operation Eagle Claw was a terrible idea. That was a mistake Carter made. The planning and execution of the operation was a Bay of Pigs level fiasco, which also ultimately goes back to Carter. While the president may not be directly planning every detail, they are responsible for the the overall success or failure of plans they authorize, so that's another mistake.

Martin54

As William Safire said at the time, beware the daring of a cautious man.

Cf. Ford and the Mayaguez.

mousethief

Arethosemyfeet wrote: »

Another reminder that the myth of a past where Republican politicians were decent people who just disagreed about how to run things is just that - a myth. From Nixon on there are countless examples of this amoral scumbaggery, and the alliance between the GOP and fundamentalists has always been a match made in hell.

As Republican Barry Goldwater saw coming and decried.

mousethief

Crœsos wrote: »

Foaming Draught wrote: »

Sure, the attempted helicopter-borne rescue of the hostages didn't come off, but Reagan had already ensured that they weren't going to be released in the normal diplomatic way. This was not a "mistake in Pres Carter's handling of the hostage situation", it was treachery of the highest order by his successor.

Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive positions. Carter chose to listen to National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wanted a military solution, over Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who warned that Operation Eagle Claw was a terrible idea. That was a mistake Carter made. The planning and execution of the operation was a Bay of Pigs level fiasco, which also ultimately goes back to Carter. While the president may not be directly planning every detail, they are responsible for the the overall success or failure of plans they authorize, so that's another mistake.

This whas what I was thinking of.

stetson

I'm just gonna drop into this thread and say that I, personally, find the more controversial issue around Carter's foreign-policy to be what Brzezinski described as encouraging the Chinese to help the Khmer Rouge.

(Well, that, and US involvement in the suppression of the Gwangju Uprising. Speaking as a former resident of Gwangju, it's a somewhat epiphanic topic for me, and I will observe that, among most Koreans I've spoken to, Carter himself is generally not given direct blame for what took place, but US chicanery is definitely known about. People can think what they want about the incident, though I do recommend Bruce Cumings on the uprising and the dictatorships generally.)

Gramps49

I wonder if the recent failed martial law attempt by the Korean government can trace its roots back to Gwangju, in that the government thought it could get away with the action, and the push back of the parliament and people said was not going to happen again.

stetson

Gramps49 wrote: »

I wonder if the recent failed martial law attempt by the Korean government can trace its roots back to Gwangju, in that the government thought it could get away with the action, and the push back of the parliament and people said was not going to happen again.

Well, military coups in Korea go back alot farther than 1980. And "Gwangju Uprising" refers to the reaction against the coup a few months earlier, not the coup itself.

The impression I get from personal experience, contact with friends still in Korea, and media accounts, is that Yoon must have been totally hubristic to think he'd get away with a coup in 2024. To the extent that he was thinking of any previous dictator as a model, I'd SPECULATE it was the still somewhat admired Park Chung-hee, not the widely despised Chun Doo-hwan. But I really don't know.