Reagan elected, Iran doesn't release the hostages

Vivisfugue

Banned
One of the strongest tailwinds Reagan got upon entering office was the release of the Embassy hostages in Iran on the day of his inauguration. At a stroke, the Iranian regime removed the most blatant source of negativity (among many) that hobbled the late Carter administration, and freed up Reagan to pursue a proactive rather than reactive foreign policy upon taking office. But what if the hostages remained in captivity?

As the US military had already failed to solve the problem by force in the Desert One fiasco, what would Reagan's options have been vis a vis negotiating with the Iranians? Would a second military strike have been inevitable (perhaps butterflying the Grenada invasion two years later)? Especially in light of the later Iran-Contra scandal (where his administration secretly traded arms for money to finance the Contra death squads in Central America in defiance of the Democratic Congress) would an earlier arms-for-hostages deal have been in the offing, and would an earlier scandal have colored the "sunny" nature of his eventual reputation? Why, in the end, did the Iranians release the hostages when they did? Just a grudge against Carter? Or was the Iran-Iraq War a factor?
 
Last edited:
Why did they released the hostages? Definitely a grudge on Carter, and possibly they made a deal with Reagan.

Either way: Arms for hostages.
 
We were planning a second rescue attempt called either Operation Credible Sport or Operation Honey Badger. I really doubt that Reagan would hesitate to authorize another rescue attempt. Whether or not that second plan would turn out even worse than Eagle Claw, who knows.
 
Why did they released the hostages? Definitely a grudge on Carter, and possibly they made a deal with Reagan.
Think the Reagan deal is a bunch of conspiracy nonsense, but whatever.

It came down to the money and the sanctions. Iran couldn't effectively repair its economy with the restrictions in place, and the size of this problem only multiplied when Iraq decided to invade. There simply wasn't anything to be gained by holding onto the hostages any longer. It only took as long as it did to release them due to the manner in which the negotiations took place; hell, if the Algerians were not forced to be intermediaries by the Iranians I think the hostages could have been released in December of November.

So, you effectively need to produce a reason for Iran to even want to still hold onto the hostages, and one which is even stronger than the desire to remove sanctions.

 
One of the strongest tailwinds Reagan got upon entering office was the release of the Embassy hostages in Iran on the day of his inauguration. At a stroke, the Iranian regime removed the most blatant source of negativity (among many) that hobbled the late Carter administration, and freed up Reagan to pursue a proactive rather than reactive foreign policy upon taking office. But what if the hostages remained in captivity?

As the US military had already failed to solve the problem by force in the Desert One fiasco, what would Reagan's options have been vis a vis negotiating with the Iranians? Would a second military strike have been inevitable (perhaps butterflying the Grenada invasion two years later)? Especially in light of the later Iran-Contra scandal (where his administration secretly traded arms for money to finance the Contra death squads in Central America in defiance of the Democratic Congress) would an earlier arms-for-hostages deal have been in the offing, and would an earlier scandal have colored the "sunny" nature of his eventual reputation? Why, in the end, did the Iranians release the hostages when they did? Just a grudge against Carter? Or was the Iran-Iraq War a factor?

The military did not exactly fail. Carter over ruled the milatary and limited the amount of forces used in the rescue attempt. Reagan was much smarter he told the military what he wanted and for the most part let them decide what was needed to accomplish the goal.
 

Vivisfugue

Banned
The military did not exactly fail. Carter over ruled the milatary and limited the amount of forces used in the rescue attempt. Reagan was much smarter he told the military what he wanted and for the most part let them decide what was needed to accomplish the goal.
Yes, and if the politicians would have untied the military's hands, the US would have won in Vietnam :p.

The failure of the various services to work together cohesively eventually forced the establishment of a new multi-service organization several years later. The United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) became operational on 16 April 1987. Each service now has its own Special Operations Forces under the overall control of USSOCOM. For example, the Army has its own Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), which controls the Army Special Operations Forces (ARSOF). The Air Force special ops units that supplied the MC-130 elements of the rescue attempt were awarded the AF Outstanding Unit Award for both that year and the next, had the initial squadron of nine HH-53 Pave Low helicopters transferred from Military Airlift Command to its jurisdiction for long-range low-level night flying operations, and became co-hosts at its home base of Hurlburt Field with the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC).
I suspect that it was easier in public for the generals and admirals to displace the blame onto a departing politician (technically the overall Commander-in-Chief) while quietly reforming special operations in response to an operational failure that was their responsibility.
 
7 years after? Even by military standards that's a long time to change.

My understanding of the problems with Eagle Claw was that everyone wanted a piece of the glory pie - army, airforce, marines, navy. Some of whom were wrong for the circumstances.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
7 years after? Even by military standards that's a long time to change.

My understanding of the problems with Eagle Claw was that everyone wanted a piece of the glory pie - army, airforce, marines, navy. Some of whom were wrong for the circumstances.
Wasn't the glory pie so much as it was the funding pie.

USSOCOM was just one outgrowth of the failure of Operation Eagle Claw. The other was the increase in priority of Interservice cooperation. And the standardization of equipment so that Navy Choppers could refuel from Air Force Tankers. Stuff like that.

i can't really fault President Carter's conduct in Operation Eagle Claw. Sure it failed, and Carter took the blame for that failure. He was a former Naval Officer, and the tradition is that the Captain is ALWAYS responsible for what happens on his ship --even if it's not his fault.

Carter's actions were actually to the benefit of the strike force. He ran interference to keep political considerations out of the operation. He also met a couple of times with Col. Beckwith to make sure that there would be no problems with political elements. Many times Carter over ruled his own political advisors, such as making sure that there was carrier air cover for the operation.


 
Top