# Why didn't then-Pres. Carter do more to rescue the Iranian Embassy Hostages? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 13, 2009, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-then-pres-carter-do-more-to-rescue-the-iranian-embassy-hostages/492938 "2009-04-13T13:26:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![No\_Wikipedia\_Cites](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@No\_Wikipedia\_Cites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/No_Wikipedia_Cites)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-then-pres-carter-do-more-to-rescue-the-iranian-embassy-hostages/492938/61 "2009-04-14T19:58:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You are aware that there is no canonical list of what constitutes an act of war, right? There may be no canonical list, but that is a petty objection – you know very well when the line has been crossed. Holding an embassy’s staff hostage for 444 days is beyond merely taking over an embassy, or even assasinating an Archduke. It is a continuing wrong, lasting well over a year, against all international norms and civilized behavior. Your other examples of embassy attacks are not appropos–rock-throwing by protesters, or burning an empty embassy building, or even bombings pale in comparison to what happened in Tehran. You are seriously compared rocks to holding diplomats hostage under the point of a gun, in harsh conditions, for 444 days? > [@Ravenman](#): > > That’s a great policy. I’m thinking of running for president under the platform, “I’ll never let war or economic recession happen in the first place!” . . .If you don’t know your history, at least you could look it up on Wikipedia. Now the straw man comes out: you are deliberately oversimplifying of my original statement. Again, a strong and effective President’s administration is far more likely to avoid having its embassies occupied and its diplomats held hostage. This is the response to your challenge that I provide a solution to the crisis. Of course, there is no _easy_ solution (as other posts in this thread have stated). But that is no excuse for the Carter administration, which let the Middle East situation develop to that point. The president is in charge and needs to take responsibility. So it was a coincidence that the Iranians let out the hostages just as Reagan was being inaugurated? The timing is extremely revealing, and the simplest explanation is that the Iranians knew a strong leader from a weak one. And finally, yes, Reagan’s inauguration was the following day, and considering the hostages were kept 444 days before hand, your final point is quibbling, insulting, and absurd. I can try your style of argument too: If you don’t know what a logical fallacy is, at least you could look it up on Wikipedia. Check out “false comparison” and “red herring”. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-then-pres-carter-do-more-to-rescue-the-iranian-embassy-hostages/492938/62 "2009-04-14T20:16:09Z")
> [@sassyfras](#): > > So it was a coincidence that the Iranians let out the hostages just as Reagan was being inaugurated? The timing is extremely revealing, and the simplest explanation is that the Iranians knew a strong leader from a weak one. Read Bowden’s book. The radicals hated Carter, and deliberately held up the release of the hostages as a final slap in the face to him. Reagan had nothing to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-then-pres-carter-do-more-to-rescue-the-iranian-embassy-hostages/492938/63 "2009-04-14T20:23:37Z")
> [@sassyfras](#): > > But that is no excuse for the Carter administration, which let the Middle East situation develop to that point. The president is in charge and needs to take responsibility. How is Carter responsible for previous’ administrations’ mismanagement of Iran? ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-then-pres-carter-do-more-to-rescue-the-iranian-embassy-hostages/492938/64 "2009-04-14T20:24:29Z")
I was reading at lunch today about Tom Ahern’s experiences as a hostage. He was one of three CIA officers in the embassy during the takeover. He was placed in solitary confinement almost from the get-go and to relieve the boredom, among other things, he considered what he would do if he were president. He considered a rescue mission infeasible. Instead he thought that he would summon the Iranian defense attache and inform him that B-52s would be launched in five hours. It would take them 14 hours to reach their targets and if the hostages were not safely out of the country at that time, they would bomb Ishafan, Qom, one other city whose name eludes me or the oil fields. I am not saying that I endorse that policy, but that was his suggestion. I don’t know how well it would have worked in a country obsessed with martyrdom. FWIW, Rob ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-then-pres-carter-do-more-to-rescue-the-iranian-embassy-hostages/492938/65 "2009-04-14T20:34:33Z")
> [@sassyfras](#): > > Again, a strong and effective President’s administration is far more likely to avoid having its embassies occupied and its diplomats held hostage. If that administration had toasted the shah while he was in power, admitted him after the revolution and engaged in secret negotiations with members of the new government, the students would have reacted in the same way. What difference would a strong and effective president have made? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-then-pres-carter-do-more-to-rescue-the-iranian-embassy-hostages/492938/66 "2009-04-14T20:41:44Z")
> [@sassyfras](#): > > There may be no canonical list, but that is a petty objection – you know very well when the line has been crossed. There’s no doubt it is an offense. The question of whether it is a casus belli is (a) whether we wish to use it as a reason to go to war and (b) whether the offense would pass the test of international law as being a valid use of force. We can decide that something offensive doesn’t require the response of war. Secondly, a large scale attack on Iran at that point probably would fail the test of legitimacy under international law. What you seem to be suggesting – some kind of large scale attack – would most likely fail the test of being proportional to the threat at hand, which is a test of legitimacy of a war that was categorically defined by Secretary of State Daniel Webster. (He was an American, don’t you know.) > [@](#): > > Again, a strong and effective President’s administration is far more likely to avoid having its embassies occupied and its diplomats held hostage. If a strong president deters evildoers from attacking us, then why the f— did 241 Marines get murdered after Reagan sent them to Lebanon? I’m really curious, which act outrages you more: 52 hostages being held for 15 months, or 241 Marines being killed outright? > [@](#): > > So it was a coincidence that the Iranians let out the hostages just as Reagan was being inaugurated? The timing is extremely revealing, and the simplest explanation is that the Iranians knew a strong leader from a weak one. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because Reagan became president doesn’t mean he was responsible for the hostages being released. There is ample historical evidence of the course of negotiations and how the Algiers Accords came to be signed, but you are apparently both unaware of it and uninterested in it, preferring instead to think, Reagan must have done it! ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-then-pres-carter-do-more-to-rescue-the-iranian-embassy-hostages/492938/67 "2009-04-14T21:09:53Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > If a strong president deters evildoers from attacking us, then why the f— did 241 Marines get murdered after Reagan sent them to Lebanon? > > I’m really curious, which act outrages you more: 52 hostages being held for 15 months, or 241 Marines being killed outright? To be fair, once the Marines were killed, that was it. The hostage situation dragged on. Military might would not have prevented the attack, but it might (and I am not saying that it would) have forced the gov’t to force the students to cough up the hostages. Better intel might have prevented the Lebanon situation, but I digress… FWIW, Rob ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-then-pres-carter-do-more-to-rescue-the-iranian-embassy-hostages/492938/68 "2009-04-14T21:13:20Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m really curious, which act outrages you more: 52 hostages being held for 15 months, or 241 Marines being killed outright? Not to derail the thread, but definitely the incarceration of the embassy hostages. The Marines are soldiers, and as such, a legitimate military target. The embassy hostages were not. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-then-pres-carter-do-more-to-rescue-the-iranian-embassy-hostages/492938/69 "2009-04-14T21:38:17Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > We can decide that something offensive doesn’t require the response of war. Secondly, a large scale attack on Iran at that point probably would fail the test of legitimacy under international law. What you seem to be suggesting – some kind of large scale attack – would most likely fail the test of being proportional to the threat at hand, which is a test of legitimacy of a war that was categorically defined by Secretary of State Daniel Webster. (He was an American, don’t you know.) I rather like the way it was phrased in an episode of _Yes, Minister_ (regarding a planned speech of the President of Buranda urging the Scots and Irish to fight against English oppression). > [@](#): > > JIM HACKER: Humphrey, do you think it is a good idea to issue a statement? > > SIR HUMPHREY: Well, Minister, in practical terms we have the usual six options: One, do nothing. Two, issue a statement deploring the speech. Three, lodge an official protest. Four, cut of aid. Five, break off diplomatic relations. And six, declare war. > > JIM HACKER: Which should be it? > > SIR HUMPHREY: Well, if we do nothing we implicitly agree with the speech. Two, if we issue a statement we’ll just look foolish. Three, if we lodge an official protest it’ll be ignored. Four, we can’t cut of aid because we don’t give them any. Five, if we break off diplomatic relations we can’t negotiate the oil rig contracts. And six, if we declare war it might just look as if we’re over-reacting. ---
**Author:** ![FallenAngel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@FallenAngel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FallenAngel)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-then-pres-carter-do-more-to-rescue-the-iranian-embassy-hostages/492938/70 "2009-04-16T23:52:34Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > There was little that could be done. Tehran was a long way from any potential staging area and it was next to impossible to land helicopters there without them being noticed and the Iranian forces being alerted. > > No one in the military had any solutions for freeing the hostages.(snip) That’s not entirely true. The operation that ultimately turned into Eagle Claw was severely hamstrung by the Administration’s liaisons, including Warren Christopher (yes, that one) recommending to the Delta Force commander and the SEAL officer who was co-advising that the troops shoot the Iranians in the shoulders so as not to generate an actual body count. (See Richard Marcinko’s autobiography Rogue Warrior for more detail.) The original plan was much more aggressive and dynamic and called for a larger and better equipped force than the one the Administration signed off on. There’s no way to know if it would have worked or if it simply would have resulted in even more American casualties, but Team Carter’s dedication to peace and love mentioned in the OP had a significant impact on the operation’s planning and performance. Factor in the economy of the times and general erosion of the U.S.’ sense of identity and national pride, and Reagan had a fairly easy time of it after the last debate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-then-pres-carter-do-more-to-rescue-the-iranian-embassy-hostages/492938.md?page=3)