25 Years Ago: How should America have handled the Hostage Crisis

Great Debates
41

The whole “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” bit is grade C bunk.
Did you know that earlier this year a member of Team Bush have raised funds for and several other members support one of the very same Iranian terrosist organizations around the hostage crisis?
Did you know that this very same terrorists organisation fought against US troops during the recent invasion of Iraq? This groups is thought to have incited insurgent actions against US troops and top have harbored Baathis?
This very same international terrorist organization who supported the taking of the hostages and who is supported by Team Bush advisors, were Sadam Hussein’s enforcers against the Kurds and others?
Did I mention that this international terrorists are Islamo-Marxists?
It’s a cult too, you know.

Team Bush negotiates with and Bush advisors support and abet an international, Islamo-Marxist, terrorist cult who have committed acts a terrorism against American citizens and who fought against US soldiers invading Iraq.
I was wrong about the arms for hostages deal being related to this iranian hostage crisis.
It turns out that Reagan traded arms to terrorists for some different hostages taken after this particular Iranian, hostage crisis.

Here we go:

**Iran Hostage Crisis**
"The students justified taking the hostages by claiming that it was a retaliation for the admission of Iran’s deposed Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, into the United States for cancer treatments back in October. The revolutionaries demanded the Shah be returned to be put on trial. In actuality, the hostage-taking was considered by some less based around one specific event and to be instead an act of demonstrating that the new Iranian government was capable of opposing the United States. It was also considered an act of retaliation against the United States’ years of support of the Shah’s totalitarian rule.
In February of 1980, the Iranian government issued a set of demands in return for freeing the hostages. They demanded the return of the former Shah to Iran, and certain diplomatic gestures …
n 1980, the death of the Shah (on July 27) and the invasion of Iran by Iraq in September made the Iranians more receptive to resolving the hostage crisis.
On the day of President Reagan’s inauguration, the hostages were freed in exchange for the unfreezing of Iranian assets. "
Someone needs to edit the above entry to include the threat of Ronnie’s ablazing guns- ray guns no doubt.

42

Given the nasty tendency of nuclear fallout to land in adjacent countries, I’d say that would have been a Very Bad Idea. What I thought should have been done then, and still do today, is Iran should have been bombed with conventional weapons in a manner to cause the maximum destruction, death and misery. I of couse think that they should have been informed well enough in advance about this to back down, release the hostages, and beg for mercy. However, if they instead decided they wanted war, that’s what they should have got. This would have been ugly, as the Iranian death toll would have been in the range of many millions, considering the large numbers of subsequent deaths that would have resulted from famine, spreading of disease with no medical care system intact, etc. However, the Iranians would have had a chance to avoid this, and failing to do so should have been treated mercilessly.

43

SimonX said:

I have no stake in this, and rather uninterested on the whole. But what does this have to do with the Iranian hostage crisisat all? Not harboring some post election hard feelings are you?

Hmmmm. I think the Iran/Contra affair was around 1986ish. I recall seeing the Senate hearings with Oliver North et al. I’ve both heard and read accounts that vary considerably from the account you have above. (Including BBC and NPR stuff I’ve heard recently.)

But here too I’m wondering what the Iran/Contra affair has to do with the Iranian hostage crisis. (Which if my memory is correct was over 5 full years earlier) What does it have to do with the Iranian hostage crisis at all?

As to the hostage crisis itself, the googled up Wikipedia explanation above differs in substance from some of the explanations I’ve heard. I wasn’t there, and I’m not an expert. I don’t know what to believe.

But it’s impressive that in the 40 minutes between posts you went from uninformed to fully, unequivocally informed on the subject.

44

I’m even more impressive IRL.

45

LOL
Alas, I am not.
It just doesn’t get any better than this for me. :frowning:

46

It was too far back for me to hunt it down again, but I know at least one poster mentioned treating the hostages as casualties of war, but didn’t really talk about why. Another also mentioned doing some conventional bombing (no nukes). For the most part, I agree with these posters. And here’s the why:

When someone takes hostages, negotiating with them may have profound consequences for lots of other Americans. Simply put, if I take hostages and you negotiate with me, you have just taught me–and anyone who happened to be watching–that taking hostages WORKS. You’ve turned it into an effective technique.

On the other hand, if I take hostages, and you mourn them as if they were dead and then beat the ever-living shit out of me, then you just taught me, and anyone watching, that taking hostages is a good way to get the shit kicked out of you.

And don’t think that I am discounting the importance of the hostages’ lives. It is exactly because this is such a horrible thing (particularly with civilians) that it is important to do everything in our power to make sure that this sort of thing happens as little as possible.

This new fad where people take hostages and film themselves killing them (while claiming to hold some sort of God in high esteem) is so sickening it causes me to wonder if the human race is worth saving.

-VM

47

A fair question. One that in recent weeks has been much on my mind. Perhaps this will satisfy some of your curiosity.

Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran
(The Organization of Crusaders of the Iranian People)
AKA
Sazeman Monafeqin-e Khalq-e Iran
(The Organization of Hypocrites of the Iranian People)

United States Policy Toward Iran’s Mojahedin
Hon. Lee H. Hamilton | September 29, 1993
Congressional Record
The Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), the Iraq-based Iranian opposition organization, was in full support of the takeover of the US embassy and the holding of our hostages during the 1979-81 hostage crisis in Iran. Their own published statements show that their anti-US position at that time was much more hard-line than that of Iran’s leaders.

Though the Mojahedin now deny a role in that crisis, they advocated a tough hostage policy in several issues of their own official newspaper, Mojahed, published in Persian in Tehran in 1980-81. The MKO’s present leader, Masud Rajavi, was in command of the group at that time.

One commentary in particular (in issue 107, published January 27, 1981–just a few days after the hostages’ release), scores the Khomeini government for releasing the hostages too soon and for too little gain. Among its main points:

–The Mojahedin at the Embassy: The commentary reminds its readers that the Mojahedin were the `first forces that fully stood in support of the occupation of the American house of spies. The organization’s members and sympathizers stood in front of the embassy 24 hours a day for weeks and months . . . and kept the place as a focal point of anti-imperialism.’

–The hostage card:' The commentary derides those monopolizing’ power in Tehran–i.e., the clerical regime–for misusing the hostage card only to benefit themselves in their own internal power struggles. It argues that the card could have been used better for the struggle against American imperialism.

–Iran’s revolutionary leaders: soft on America: The paper mocks the anti-imperialism' of the leaders as insincere, complaining that their calls for the trial and execution of the hostages turned out to be hollow. It says the Mojahedin had regularly warned’ against giving ground on the hostages, which would only `embolden and encourage the imperialists.’

–America the enemy: The commentary declares that the Mojahedin’s policy was to use the hostage crisis to spread anti-imperialistic culture' and to reveal the true face of American imperialism as the fundamental enemy of our people.’ It quotes a letter the MKO sent some fourteen months earlier to Iran’s Revolutionary Council demanding that all treaties and relations with America be cut off without delay. The commentary declares that the Mojahedin still aim `as much as possible to close the path to reconciliation with America.’

I understand it’s quite trendy these days to oppose terrorism; but, I’ve harbored hard feelings for those who support terrorism even before the election.

If you have the inclination, please post the other explanations you’ve found and perhaps we can discuss the differences and similarities. This’s an appropriate place for such things.

I’ve been interested in the MKO for 40 minutes several times now.
I’m suspecting that they will rise to more prominence soon.

48

If I had been the Prez, I would have called the Iranian ambassador into the Oval Office and laid it on the line to him:

The hostages are to be freed, unharmed, within 72 hours. If they are not, we are going to come get them and we will kill anyone who stands in our way.

But I wasn’t the Prez. That gutless wonder Carter was.

49

The response should have been stronger, but it did not have to escalate to a shooting war. The U.S. had a lot of tools at its disposal that weren’t used. Personally, I think a naval blockade would have been the correct response. It’s a commensurate response to the hostage crisis. A naval blockade would have been a reasonable step. If that didn’t work, perhaps VERY limited targeted strikes at military targets would have been warranted.

But I would also have expressed sympathy for the government, since they claimed that they were not controlling those radicals. So make it clear that prompt return of the hostages will result in an immediate withdrawal of forces with no other repercussions, except for a demand that the Iranian government compensate the citizens for their hardship. Perhaps 1 million dollars each. Peanuts for a government, and fitting with the custom of paying blood money for damages.

Also, we should ask whether Reagan screwed up in pulling the Marines out of Beirut after the bombing. Of course he screwed up. One of the biggest mistakes of his presidency. The U.S. knew that Hezbollah was involved. There should have been swift retaliation.

50

It’s easy to talk about what somebody should or shouldn’t have done 25 years ago. But one factor some commentators have noted is that the government of Iran itself was unstable. The Ayatollah had just taken over, and various factions within the government were competing with one another. Some posters here have noted that the U.S. tried to work out a secret deal with a moderate faction. Carter’s mistake was that he put his personal prestige and the prestige of his Presidency on the line, which gave the students and the Ayatollah an incentive keep the hostages no matter what. Carter gave away all his bargaining cards, and handed Iran a tool that they could use to humiliate him. Carter actually made statements to the effect that the hostages were all he thought about all the time, and in many ways U.S. foreign policy was paralyzed during that period of time.

There is an argument to be made that if U.S. public statements had been issued at a much lower level–if, say, the White House referred all questions to the State Department, where some deputy assistant secretary of state said things like “the government of Iran is in flux at present, but we believe that when the Ayatollah consolidates his authority he will demonsrate it by ordering the release of our diplomats…” the whole thing would have been over much sooner. The Iranians would have had no reason to keep our people. I think that’s why they released them on Reagan’s inauguration day. It’s not that they were terrified of being blown up, but rather that the Iranians’ beef was with Carter, and with him gone the hostages were no use to them.

As to the sabre rattlers, the question is whether you wanted the hostages home alive or dead. Invading, bombing etc. might have made the stateside couch potatoes feel good, but it would have guaranteed the deaths of all of those people, as well as a lot of our troops and Iranian civilians who had nothing to do with anything. I’d like to think that the U.S. is better than that.

51

I don’t know… If that was indeed the first shot in the war on terror, as some say it was, then we missed an opportunity to end this conflict before it really started. But the feckless western responses to terrorism from 1979 on led Bin Laden and his ilk to believe that the will to win was lacking on the part of the west, and his moment of Jihad had come.

Appeasement of tyrants has led to wars time and again. A strong response then might or might not have cost a few lives. Bud it might have saved tens of thousands of lives since.

52

And let’s not forget the twin issues of oil and Russia. The US attacking a country bordering Russia for whatever reason would have been seen as a threat by the extremely paranoid Soviet regime, and there would have been some sort of repercussions (probably just saber rattling on the Soviet side, but it’s hard to say). And of course the price of oil would have gone up at a time when oil prices (and OPEC relations) were already a sensitive topic.

Carter may have been too soft, but a full and overt military response would have been too much. Bush’s behind-the-scenes negotiations (done, let’s not forget, for the benefit of the GOP as much as (if not more) for that of the hostages) were much more effective than Carter’s handwringing, rhetoric about negotiating with terrorists notwithstanding.

53

Of course, we could have ended the conflict before it ever began by supporting Iranian democracy in the first place, rather than overthrowing it an supporting tyranny instead.

Appeasement like unfreezing Iranian assets upon release of the hostages?

54

And so have other things that are good ideas in some circumstances.
There are few things in international relations that are always good or always bad. Most actions and policies are best when considered as context specific. Rules of thumb like the above aren’t always useful guidelines for use in the idiosyncratic situations of the world.

55

I would have given Iran 24 hours to release the hostages. Or else Tehran would be turned into radioactive rubble. And mean it!!

56

TLC1. You already expressed the same opinion on post # 26 of this thread. gyrate responded to you on post # 28, I responded on post # 29, and rfgdxm responded in post # 42. You did not debate any of those three responses. Instead you are repeating your post # 26 again in your post # 55.

I see that you joined SDMB as a Guest on November 8 and have already made 42 posts. Your time will be up, as a guest participant, by next Wednesday, December 8 at 12:26 p.m

We’ll see if you pay up and become a chartered member. If you decide to do so, would you please consider the protocol of “debate”, rather than ignoring people’s responses to your posts, and merely repeating what you said before.

Thank you for your consideration.

57

I apologize for any of my indescretions here. I intially had difficulty navigating my way through the many threads and finding my way back in the beginning. I am now catching on as to where to find the many different comments I have made. I will certainly make all effort to refrain from any future bad conduct, if I decide to continue here. In all honesty, I had forgotten my post #26 had been introduced, but did repeat it rather arrogantly in post #55. It won’t happen again.

58

Probably not, but no one can be sure. One drastic demonstration just might be all that would be required, one way or the other. We have learned the hard way that “hiding under the bed” is certainly not respected by those dedicated to destroying us all. You and me.
Well, we didn’t do it. Carter did try a minimal conventional military method of rescuing the hostages, that we all know failed. Had the rescuers made it into Tehran, killing many Iranians in the process, this would have changed history also. I can imagine the rescuers being pinned down in firefights that most certainly would have brought in additional American forces as well as insurgents from Afghanistan and other areas. The possible escalation in this scenerio would have us in the same mess we are in today. Only it would have happened then and just maybe the dream of middle east peaceful resolve could have been accomplished by now. The conditions that we are striving to achieve today would already be in place. I know, hindsight is 20/20.

Very possibly, the turmoil we have today in the middle east, and are in the process of engaging the U.S. haters on their turf, would have come to a head 25 years ago. Our pitiful reluctance to resolve and destroy this terrorism towards the U.S. in those times did nothing but to extend the inevitible clash between east and west. Like a festering sore, the longer we waited, the worse it got. Remember 9/11? Do you honestly think for even a fleeting moment, that the likes of Bin Laden would hesitate to use a nuke on the U.S.? Now this God Damn Iran is working feverishly on a nuclear weapon.

Russia? Their witnessing us roll through Afghanistan like a locomotive with no brakes, after their pitiful failure there, opened their eyes as to the resolve the U.S. now has. Russia needs U.S. aid ( $$$$$$$ ) in the worst way and would never benefit from confronting us in any manner, let alone destroying New York City.

I hope to God that we have caught and stopped this menace before there is a mushroom cloud over Chicago. If and when this happens, I hope you remember my thoughts on the subject. The firm stand that we are now implementing against our enemies, had it been 25 years earlier, possibly could have thwarted 3000 deaths on 9/11.

Please accept my apologies for not responding to your post in a timely manner.

Very concerned in a complex world.

TLC

59

By nuking 9 million innocent people? Are you out of your mind?

Presumably you also meant to mention the covert arming and training given to the self-same terrorists by the CIA, and the supply of arms to Iran by the Reagan government. Furthermore, the really nasty Jihadist philosophy began in Egypt due to a strong-arm crackdown on extremists, which only hooked up with Bin Laden later.

60

First of all, please accept my sincere apology for not responding to your post in a timely manner. I have been properly scolded by the powers that be here.

Oh, I think that there are those in the 49% that are just as frustrated at this complex world and it’s seemingly lack of ability to utilize a civilized manner to solve the many conflicts. Hawks and doves are on both sides of the aisle.

Do you honestly feel that negotiations are part of a terrorist’s vocabulary? Like it or not, we are confronting a mentality that does not comprehend, for a moment, the modern western concept of peace through talking.

This is a brand new type of enemy, of which our past experiences with former enemies will not always help us. Their extreme dedication to our destruction is going to require, sometimes and reluctantly, extreme measures on our part. Would our enemies hesitate to produce a mushroom cloud over Chicago? Of course not, and that is where we are.

If such a catastrophic event ever takes place, I guarantee that you too, will become a hawk. We all hope this scenerio never takes place.

The world as a whole should pray everyday that the U.S. with all it’s destructive power does not lose it’s patience after such an event. Why do you think Russia and China are so buddy buddy with us these days?

The times are more complex than most realize. Youthful 60s style liberalism and views are hardly in vogue today. They will only get us killed.

Again, my apology,

TLC