recent events point to iran funding or sending weapons to other countries to use against the us or israel.
it seems that if one follows the very tangled gorgon knot it appears that the u.s. reaction to the hostage taking in iran may have given some the impression that the u.s. will be soft in retaliation to being poked with a sharp stick.
instead of what was done; what if carter took the stance of an attack on our embassy is a declaration of war? and the response was:
you have attacked the united states of america.
you have xxx amount of time (the time to get various military departments to the region, and start action) to release the hostages unharmed.
should the hostages not be released at xxx time on xxx date, the united states will take military action against iran.
would we have been able to back up that response?
if military action had taken place and the us gone to war against iran, what would have happened with the ayatollah? if he had been killed in the war? was there anyone else who could have taken a leadership role?
the mid-east picture would be very changed, but would it be a good change?
Hard to figure. At that time, the Revolution was new and weak. Pro-American Iranian officers and citizens were comparatively thick on the ground. Further the US has long had a plan to invade Iran (in response to a possible Soviet attack from the north).
A number of Muslim sources have claimed that it was Reagan not Carter who convinced them that America was “soft”. He sent the Marines in to Lebanon in 1982. Terrorist attacks against the American embassy and the Marine barracks in 1983 killed several hundred Americans. Reagan pledged that this would not change America’s commitment but he pulled the Marines out of Lebanon four months later. Osama bin Laden, among others, has said this convinced him that terrorist attacks against America would work.
They seemingly made the same mistaken assumptions that Japan made then. I can sympathize…American’s are odd and you never know what will get their collective peckers up and put them in the mood to fight. Conversely you never know when public opinion will shift…and if you don’t take into account that public opinion is the ONLY thing that counts in the US you are bound to be sitting back scratching your head and wondering what went wrong.
Regardless one should always strive to use capitalization and complete sentences and paragraphs if one can…
frostillicus, no having the hostages die is not something i’m alright with. then again there is that whole “no negotiations” thing that makes it a bit tough to resolve things.
i do remember that the rescue attempt did not work. would it also follow that a large scale military action would not work?
interesting about reagan, though. popular opinion is that he was tough, perhaps that was only against communists.
It’s not for nothing that Reagan was known as the Great Communicator. He was able to say one thing while doing something else - but he sounded so sincere. So a lot of people just took the easy way out and believed whatever he was saying without taking the time to check to see if it was actually true.
Carter was a complete moron, and his handling of the incident was stupid. First, the embassy was invaded twice. The first time, the US personnel were released. Carter was warned (through diplomatic channels) that he should not allow the ex-Shah into the USA. This was ignored, hence the second seizure.
Abolhassan Bani-Sadr (one of the few intelligent Iranian revolutionary leaders). realized the seizure of the hostages was a big mistake. he made a plan (in secret, with the Iranian military), that the prisoners would be releaded to the custody of the Iranian Army. Then, the Army doctors would conclude that the captives were in bad medical shape, and would be released to the Swiss Embassy, and repatriated. Carter’s idots leaked the plan, which almost cost Bani-Sadr his life. also, the US TV media provided nighly coverage of the hostage “crisis”-which is what the Iranian revolutionaries WANTED-Carter played right into their hands.
All of which goes to show-the USA should not elect inexperienced “nice guys” like Carter-he prolonged a minor incident and gave the enemy help and support.
Could you be a bit more specific about “Carter’s idiots”; who (or at what level) leaked the information about the plan?
I can see holding Carter responsible for that, in a the-buck-stops-here fashion. (Would that all administrations be held to that standard.) But how do you blame Carter for the level of media attention at the time?