How Would Ford or Reagan Have Dealt With Iran?

Ford or Reagan winning in `76 is a popular idea around here, but I`ve never gotten an answer on how either of them would have dealt with Iran in their time as President if elected. So, how would they have, and would they have done a better or worse job than Carter?
 
I think Ford would probably act along the same lines as Carter, but I'm pretty sure his conduct would be criticized to hell and back no matter what he did. If he managed reelection, I would think that popularity would drop off rather fast once the full extent of the energy crisis sets in.
 

abc123

Banned
Ford or Reagan winning in `76 is a popular idea around here, but I`ve never gotten an answer on how either of them would have dealt with Iran in their time as President if elected. So, how would they have, and would they have done a better or worse job than Carter?

IMO it was a disaster for the USA to allow fall of Shah in Iran. So, Reagan could do something to help Shah, maybe even direct military intervention...
Butterlies of such action are enormus...
 
IMO it was a disaster for the USA to allow fall of Shah in Iran. So, Reagan could do something to help Shah, maybe even direct military intervention...
Butterlies of such action are enormus...

I think by the early-mid-70s the Shah was already doomed. He was a brutal as well as a vacillating and indecisive leader, he lacked legitimacy thanks to the events of 1953, he surrounded himself with yes-men who only told him what he wanted to hear (or what they thought he wanted to hear) and the CIA and other national security bodies in Washington were more or less ignorant about the situation building up in Iran.

Carter gets blamed because he was the one left holding the bag, but I can't see Ford or Reagan handling it any better.
 

Thande

Donor
Ford would be pretty much the same as Carter, albeit a bit better informed and organised.

Reagan might be better informed but he would also be more reckless. TBH though the entirety of the western intelligence services had totally the wrong idea about the situation in Iran, so putting a different president on top doesn't change all that much.
 
The Shah couldn't have held on, because by the late 1970s he had alienated every segment of Iranian society, and everyone from liberal reformists to leftists to Islamists wanted him out, they just couldn't agree on what to replace him with.

Reagan probably would have handled it best of the three, but the results still would have been very bad.
 
Note Reagan's actual record, huge attack on tiny Grenada and withdrawing with tail between legs after an attackon US troops in Lebanon
 
IMO it was a disaster for the USA to allow fall of Shah in Iran. So, Reagan could do something to help Shah, maybe even direct military intervention...
Butterlies of such action are enormus...

No one by the late 1970s wanted the Shah to remain in power. It would be incredibly stupid for the US to consider direct military intervention to support a despot. If anything, Reagan would want to support one of the factions in their quest for power and at least leave Iran as a liberal democracy.
 
Kissinger was too close personally to the Shah and imperial Pahlavi family and also socialized with ambassador to Washington Ardeshir Zahedi.
 
Right, Kissinger was one of those urging the United States to give the Shah asylum. And Kissinger would likely have stayed as Ford's SoS. So the Shah would have been admitted sooner, which might have led to an earlier hostage crisis unless all the embassy staff were withdrawn sooner.
 
If anything, Reagan would want to support one of the factions in their quest for power and at least leave Iran as a liberal democracy.
This is the same Reagan who funded the Contras, right?
The liberal democratic faction in Iran was destroyed by Eisenhower.
Reagan could choose to support the Shah, Islamists, or Communists.

Ford probably would've handled it best, despite Kissinger's ties to the Shah. After all, he's still Kissinger. Reagan may have fucked it up even more than Carter. I'd say there's about a 50/50 shot of that.
 
IMO it was a disaster for the USA to allow fall of Shah in Iran. So, Reagan could do something to help Shah, maybe even direct military intervention...
Butterlies of such action are enormus...
I'm always surprised at those suggesting that the US should have supported the Shah by military means. Do they forget that the last such attempt to prop up a foreign dictatorship by means of arms had ended up rather badly just a few years ago?
 
Top