Reagan And Iran Hostage Crisis

He'd probably try to trade arms for hostages, get caught, and then be impeached. Alternatively, he might order a rescue attempt be made via helicopter, have it fail, then cut and run--not unlike he did in Lebanon--abandoning the hostages in the name of political expediency, and then order a nasty bombing campaign against Iran to appease public opinion.
If elected in 1976, how would Reagan handle this?
 
Now here's some non-partisan analysis. Reagan would have gone to the Joint Chiefs, the Intelligence Community, and his Cabinet for advice. In the end, he probably would have done something similar to Operation Eagle Claw. The plan could have very easily worked, had the training mission not been botched. An variation is to use Army Rangers or Navy SEALS instead of using what was a relatively baby organization in Delta Force. Regardless, I imagine he would have employed a military response similar to Eagle Claw. If it worked, then it improves his chances for reelection in 1980. If it fails, then he suffers a similar fate as Carter depending on the economic circumstances.
 
It should be understood, that Reagan being elected in 1976, doesn't mean that the Iranian Revolution will happen like it did IOTL. I have read an alternate history book entitled "Then Everything Changed," by Jeff Greenfield. In one scenario, in which Gerald Ford wins reelection, Henry Kissinger received a letter that the Shah would've sent to Carter, which stated "If there is opposition in the Congress and in other circles to see Iran prosperous and militarily strong, there are many sources of supply to which we can turn, for our life is not in their hands...Nothing could prove more reaction from us than this threatening tone from certain circles and paternalistic image." Because of this, Ford conveys to Shah unconditional support and gives him all the help he needed to restore order. Because of this strong support, the dying Shah begins to think about succession, along with one other thing.

To Be Continued
 
Why Reagan wouldn't botch an operation that OTL was out of the president's hands to actually execute is beyond me. The OTL rescue was botched by inter-service rivalries and equipment failures. Though for Reagan it might've just been a blemish on a average-to-good reputation, Reagan in 76 won't get the Reagan myth quite as much though, he's elected in the middle of an economic crisis and ultimately the response to stagflation is a choice between fuck ourselves in the short-term to save the long-term or fuck ourselves in the long-term to save the short-term. Doing the former will probably cost Reagan re-election, doing the latter will probably cost him and the Republicans down the line.

Reagan historically axed the guy who saved the economy (Volcker from the Fed) and I can't see him deciding on making that appointment OTL even if Volcker was an inflation-fighter, he also might be a bit of a leftie for some of Reagan's views, either way, probably not going to see a Volcker tenure in the Fed.

However, let's set back the clock a bit to ask the fundamental question: how did Reagan unseat an incumbent (albeit a deeply unpopular one) and somehow redeem the image of the Republican Party that cost Ford the election OTL? As narrow as the OTL 1976 election was, I really find it difficult to think of the GOP to take home a win on that one.
 
First off, the OP presumes that the Iranian Revolution and subsequent hostage crisis occurs as OTL despite a Reagan presidency having a vastly different foreign policy than OTL's Carter administration. In TTL Reagan just might support the military coup that was proposed in OTL to check the power of the Ayatollahs thereby altering the course of the Revolution dramatically.

Secondly, it should be noted that in OTL, IIRC the Hostage Crisis was actually helped Carter a fair bit and buoyed his approval ratings. Had OTL's hostage crisis not occurred I'd wager that Carter would've lost in the Democratic primaries against Ted Kennedy. All of this despite the fact that, from a PR standpoint Carter bungled the response to the crisis.

Reagan wouldn't have agonized over the hostages in the way that Carter did. The fact that all of the hostages knew exactly what they were getting into when they signed on (even the civilians had to sign special contracts I believe after non-essential personnel were pulled out) would be emphasized. Reagan would also undoubtedly put on a stronger face in public and spin the events to his benefit while pursuing all possible options to get the hostages out be that Military or Diplomatic.

Regarding Operation Eagle Claw, Reagan might be willing to give the military a freer reign in TTL (AC-130 Gunships perhaps?) than Carter, which coupled with a weather related butterfly or two could change things dramatically...
 
First off, the OP presumes that the Iranian Revolution and subsequent hostage crisis occurs as OTL despite a Reagan presidency having a vastly different foreign policy than OTL's Carter administration. In TTL Reagan just might support the military coup that was proposed in OTL to check the power of the Ayatollahs thereby altering the course of the Revolution dramatically.

Secondly, it should be noted that in OTL, IIRC the Hostage Crisis was actually helped Carter a fair bit and buoyed his approval ratings. Had OTL's hostage crisis not occurred I'd wager that Carter would've lost in the Democratic primaries against Ted Kennedy. All of this despite the fact that, from a PR standpoint Carter bungled the response to the crisis.

Reagan wouldn't have agonized over the hostages in the way that Carter did. The fact that all of the hostages knew exactly what they were getting into when they signed on (even the civilians had to sign special contracts I believe after non-essential personnel were pulled out) would be emphasized. Reagan would also undoubtedly put on a stronger face in public and spin the events to his benefit while pursuing all possible options to get the hostages out be that Military or Diplomatic.

Regarding Operation Eagle Claw, Reagan might be willing to give the military a freer reign in TTL (AC-130 Gunships perhaps?) than Carter, which coupled with a weather related butterfly or two could change things dramatically...

Eh, I can't see Reagan giving the go-ahead for a coup on Pahlavi, something more along the lines of Khomeini gets quietly struck down by a car in Paris by a man who nobody in the city knows...
 
That's what happened in Then Everything Changed! Besides, can somebody give me examples of Carter "agonizing" over the crisis?
 
That's what happened in Then Everything Changed! Besides, can somebody give me examples of Carter "agonizing" over the crisis?

I liked that book, but found that particular point about Iran very farfetched. The Shah tried quite hard to crack down and despite internal divisions, the primary mode of the Carter Administration WAS to support him. It didn't work.

The only way I can see a Ford or Reagan presidency preventing the revolution is entirely through butterflies. In OTL, in response to Carter's human rights policy, the Shah did release some dissidents and permit some demonstrations. Those dragged on throughout 1977, until the deaths of Ali Shariati and Mostafa Khomeini led to wider demonstrations, escalating into the revolution.

Had there been no human rights policy, and had the Shah not relaxed his regime's controls slightly in '77, maybe the revolution would have been delayed or butterflied. But trying to crack down harder once the ball was rolling was very unlikely to work.
 
Top