Should US have declared war on Iran during the hostage crisis?

Corbell: did you notice how he used the word "diplomats"? Even the fomer hostages say that only three of those kept the whole 444 Days were connected to the Agency (one was the Station Chief).To the hostage-takers, anyone working in the Embassy was a "spy."

An Embassy that had only 63 employees (and about 12 were running the consulate-issuing visas, helping Americans with lost/stolen passports, etc) wasn't going to be formenting a coup or anything of the sort. The pre-Revolution staff was over 500, btw. Not including the Military Assistance and Advisory Group, which was pulled out in Jan '79.

How's this for a what-if: The militants' original plan was to seize both the U.S. and Soviet Embassies at the same time. (they were about as anti-Soviet as they were anti-American). Want to get both superpowers angry at you and in a mood to forget the Cold War and have a common enemy? That's one move guaranteed to do just that.
 
You seem really bent out of shape over something that happened in 1953. What nation are you from?

And everyone seems bent out of shape over something that happened 34 years ago. Half the population of Iran today simply wasn't alive when it happened. A very big chunk of the remainder hadn't even hit puberty.

Hey, would you like to know the name of the first guy to use poison gas on the Kurds? Winston Churchill. He did it back in the 20's, right after WWII when it was officially considered a crime against humanity. It's almost certainly one of the reasons that the British stay in Iraq was so relatively short, or that the Iraqi military was so anti-british in the thirties and forties. But it was a long, long time ago. Should we hold onto this?

The fact that the CIA overthrew the Mossadegh government and installed the Shah's father in the 1950's is not really a matter for debate. It's a historical fact. The records are there, we can all look it up. It's not actually controversial. And the fact was that after the Shah's father was installed, and while the Shah was in power, the United States and Iran were closely allied and integrated, and as a country the United States at the very least was prepared to turn a blind eye to the Shah's atrocities, and at worst was prepared to facilitate them, support them, enable them, etc. Well, okay.

Calbear earlier in this thread said that letting the ailing Shah into the US was the right thing to do, regardless of the message it would send to the Iranian people, because he was our guy. Okay. Well, he's our guy, I suppose that means America has to take some responsibility for him.

But then there's the point - do they hold onto this forever? Does it justify every single reaction. Maybe they should get over it and move on.

But then, doesn't that cut both ways? If we expect the Iranians to get over Mossadegh and all the evils that followed... Shouldn't Americans themselves be expected to get over a diplomatic incident that occurred 34 years ago, and move on?

And yes, I understand that Embassies are sacrosanct and all that, and it was very very bad. But honestly, the coup the America triggered and the guys that American put in place got people killed. People were murdered and tortured. A lot of them. That's bad too.

Listening to this very angry, very animated debate on both sides, what strikes me is that both the Iranians and the Americans sang the same song - "They don us wrong, and we is furious!"

I dunno. If there is a lesson that we can take from this is that "righteous fury" is a completely shit basis for foreign policy or war. The "righteous fury" that drove the Iranians over the embassy walls and to take hostages was genuine, it was heartfelt, it was rooted in genuine historical wrongs, in death and torture and atrocity suffered. But it didn't make it right. It certainly didn't make it a good idea.

The "righteous fury" felt by Americans over the wrong that was done their embassy was genuine, it was heartfelt, it was rooted in actual wrongs. But it wouldn't have made it right to Nuke Iran, no matter what placards people were holding up. It wouldn't have made it right to go to war. It would not have justified the next round of wrongdoing and atrocity.

Like it or not, I think that the verdict of history is that Carter did the right things. He was a civilized man, not a weak man, and he handled it effectively. He didn't take it as an excuse for righteous fury, he didn't endorse the murder of thousands or tens of thousands of innocent people.

I think that in making his decisions Carter had to take a longer view, had to appreciate and work within the strategic realities of the time. Arnold Shwarzenegger or Rambo are terrific fantasies, but they're not a prescription for real life. Carter was in the middle of the cold war, he was leading an armed forces that still hadn't recovered from Vietnam, the United States was still the richest most powerful country in the world, but it was not omnipotent.

For the record, I don't believe for a second that the Iranian leadership was a bit afraid of Reagan. I don't think that there's persuasive evidence of that. Khomeini and the Mullahs were a group of people who genuinely believed in God in a way that is hard for us to fathom, and they genuinely believed God was on their side. God was right in there helping out first hand, and they had proof of that every which way they looked. No way does that sort of mindset take Reagan seriously.

And for the record, I don't think that there was a chance in hell that the USSR and USA would have set aside the cold war to gang up on Iran. That's just a modern fantasy, and I don't think it grasps the realities of the era.

But it seems that other people hold different opinions. Well, we'll all just agree to disagree.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go back to thinking about my next posts for a truly awesome mini-timeline on awesome bear cavalry, full of awesomeness. Feel free to look it up. Or I'm going to see what people are saying about Romans discovering the new world.

Good luck, god bless, have a nice day.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The "History" part of "Alternate History Forum" confuses you, doesn't it?



Hmm. I'm patronizing, sarcastic, and able to see almost anyone's point of view -so that I can use it to manipulate them. When you find that 6 year old child to explain what a war is, and how it alters what you can legally do to foreigners, he should be able to reveal this esoteric secret to you as well.
What is it about civil discourse that turns you off to this degree?

You just came back from a kick. I warned you yesterday that you were already back to the insults, and now this?

You are kicked for a week.

PLEASE take the time to decide if you want to conduct civil conversations while you are gone. You have a lot of interesting views, and it would be a shame to lose you as a poster. In the end, however, it will be your decision.
 
Corbell: did you notice how he used the word "diplomats"? Even the fomer hostages say that only three of those kept the whole 444 Days were connected to the Agency (one was the Station Chief).To the hostage-takers, anyone working in the Embassy was a "spy."

An Embassy that had only 63 employees (and about 12 were running the consulate-issuing visas, helping Americans with lost/stolen passports, etc) wasn't going to be formenting a coup or anything of the sort. The pre-Revolution staff was over 500, btw. Not including the Military Assistance and Advisory Group, which was pulled out in Jan '79.

How's this for a what-if: The militants' original plan was to seize both the U.S. and Soviet Embassies at the same time. (they were about as anti-Soviet as they were anti-American). Want to get both superpowers angry at you and in a mood to forget the Cold War and have a common enemy? That's one move guaranteed to do just that.

Yeah, I love the way that people can see a hundred thousand US troops struggle to hold Iraq, and then turn around and believe that a couple of dozen guys were a threat to a even bigger nation.

I blame spy movies.

This fear would make sense, if one of those guys was James Bond, or Jason Bourne.:cool:
 
And everyone seems bent out of shape over something that happened 34 years ago. Half the population of Iran today simply wasn't alive when it happened. A very big chunk of the remainder hadn't even hit puberty.

Hey, would you like to know the name of the first guy to use poison gas on the Kurds? Winston Churchill. He did it back in the 20's, right after WWII when it was officially considered a crime against humanity. It's almost certainly one of the reasons that the British stay in Iraq was so relatively short, or that the Iraqi military was so anti-british in the thirties and forties. But it was a long, long time ago. Should we hold onto this?

The fact that the CIA overthrew the Mossadegh government and installed the Shah's father in the 1950's is not really a matter for debate. It's a historical fact. The records are there, we can all look it up. It's not actually controversial. And the fact was that after the Shah's father was installed, and while the Shah was in power, the United States and Iran were closely allied and integrated, and as a country the United States at the very least was prepared to turn a blind eye to the Shah's atrocities, and at worst was prepared to facilitate them, support them, enable them, etc. Well, okay.

Calbear earlier in this thread said that letting the ailing Shah into the US was the right thing to do, regardless of the message it would send to the Iranian people, because he was our guy. Okay. Well, he's our guy, I suppose that means America has to take some responsibility for him.

But then there's the point - do they hold onto this forever? Does it justify every single reaction. Maybe they should get over it and move on.

But then, doesn't that cut both ways? If we expect the Iranians to get over Mossadegh and all the evils that followed... Shouldn't Americans themselves be expected to get over a diplomatic incident that occurred 34 years ago, and move on?

And yes, I understand that Embassies are sacrosanct and all that, and it was very very bad. But honestly, the coup the America triggered and the guys that American put in place got people killed. People were murdered and tortured. A lot of them. That's bad too.

Listening to this very angry, very animated debate on both sides, what strikes me is that both the Iranians and the Americans sang the same song - "They don us wrong, and we is furious!"

I dunno. If there is a lesson that we can take from this is that "righteous fury" is a completely shit basis for foreign policy or war. The "righteous fury" that drove the Iranians over the embassy walls and to take hostages was genuine, it was heartfelt, it was rooted in genuine historical wrongs, in death and torture and atrocity suffered. But it didn't make it right. It certainly didn't make it a good idea.

The "righteous fury" felt by Americans over the wrong that was done their embassy was genuine, it was heartfelt, it was rooted in actual wrongs. But it wouldn't have made it right to Nuke Iran, no matter what placards people were holding up. It wouldn't have made it right to go to war. It would not have justified the next round of wrongdoing and atrocity.

Like it or not, I think that the verdict of history is that Carter did the right things. He was a civilized man, not a weak man, and he handled it effectively. He didn't take it as an excuse for righteous fury, he didn't endorse the murder of thousands or tens of thousands of innocent people.

I think that in making his decisions Carter had to take a longer view, had to appreciate and work within the strategic realities of the time. Arnold Shwarzenegger or Rambo are terrific fantasies, but they're not a prescription for real life. Carter was in the middle of the cold war, he was leading an armed forces that still hadn't recovered from Vietnam, the United States was still the richest most powerful country in the world, but it was not omnipotent.

For the record, I don't believe for a second that the Iranian leadership was a bit afraid of Reagan. I don't think that there's persuasive evidence of that. Khomeini and the Mullahs were a group of people who genuinely believed in God in a way that is hard for us to fathom, and they genuinely believed God was on their side. God was right in there helping out first hand, and they had proof of that every which way they looked. No way does that sort of mindset take Reagan seriously.

And for the record, I don't think that there was a chance in hell that the USSR and USA would have set aside the cold war to gang up on Iran. That's just a modern fantasy, and I don't think it grasps the realities of the era.

But it seems that other people hold different opinions. Well, we'll all just agree to disagree.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go back to thinking about my next posts for a truly awesome mini-timeline on awesome bear cavalry, full of awesomeness. Feel free to look it up. Or I'm going to see what people are saying about Romans discovering the new world.

Good luck, god bless, have a nice day.

Yes, I agree that people are very worked up about something that happened 34 years ago.

But why is that?

Americans generally don't hold on to past issues. OUr lack of historical knowledge has a positive side.

But with Iran, Iran is continually reinforcing the friction between the nations, with it's support of terrorists and inflammatory rhetoric.

I agree nuking Iran was not called for. I agree a land invasion and occupation was not a good idea at that time.

There were plenty of military actions that would have been justifiable, and doable, mostly of an air or naval flavor.

Now whether this would get the hostages released or killed? That's another matter.

To discuss potential responses to a massacre of the hostages? THat would be a different discussion.



As to being afraid of Reagan, I think by that time the Iranian leadership wanted an excuse to get out of the corner they had painted themselves into. They had demonized Carter, to their people, to the world and to themselves. It would be easy to justify screwing Carter and then releasing the hostages before Reagan has a chance to do anything to get credit for it.

And they probably were afraid that Reagan would be more aggressive. Sure, God might be on their side, but by that time they wanted to end the crisis, not wind it up even more.
 
...I dunno. If there is a lesson that we can take from this is that "righteous fury" is a completely shit basis for foreign policy or war. The "righteous fury" that drove the Iranians over the embassy walls and to take hostages was genuine, it was heartfelt, it was rooted in genuine historical wrongs, in death and torture and atrocity suffered. But it didn't make it right. It certainly didn't make it a good idea.

The "righteous fury" felt by Americans over the wrong that was done their embassy was genuine, it was heartfelt, it was rooted in actual wrongs. But it wouldn't have made it right to Nuke Iran, no matter what placards people were holding up. It wouldn't have made it right to go to war. It would not have justified the next round of wrongdoing and atrocity.

Like it or not, I think that the verdict of history is that Carter did the right things. He was a civilized man, not a weak man, and he handled it effectively. He didn't take it as an excuse for righteous fury, he didn't endorse the murder of thousands or tens of thousands of innocent people.

I think that in making his decisions Carter had to take a longer view, had to appreciate and work within the strategic realities of the time. Arnold Shwarzenegger or Rambo are terrific fantasies, but they're not a prescription for real life. Carter was in the middle of the cold war, he was leading an armed forces that still hadn't recovered from Vietnam, the United States was still the richest most powerful country in the world, but it was not omnipotent...

I think this is a good summary of the situation. As wrong as the taking of the Embassy was, it was not worth fighting a war over that would have been very bloody for both sides.
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
What is it about civil discourse that turns you off to this degree?

You just came back from a kick. I warned you yesterday that you were already back to the insults, and now this?

You are kicked for a week.

PLEASE take the time to decide if you want to conduct civil conversations while you are gone. You have a lot of interesting views, and it would be a shame to lose you as a poster. In the end, however, it will be your decision.

What did he say that was insulting?
 
Yes, I agree that people are very worked up about something that happened 34 years ago.

But why is that?

Americans generally don't hold on to past issues. OUr lack of historical knowledge has a positive side.

But with Iran, Iran is continually reinforcing the friction between the nations, with it's support of terrorists and inflammatory rhetoric.

I agree nuking Iran was not called for. I agree a land invasion and occupation was not a good idea at that time.

There were plenty of military actions that would have been justifiable, and doable, mostly of an air or naval flavor.

Now whether this would get the hostages released or killed? That's another matter.

To discuss potential responses to a massacre of the hostages? THat would be a different discussion.

This is the same nation that refuses to apologize in any meaningful way for 1953 or the suffering that followed it, this is the same nation that has painted Iran as on a ludicrous "Axis of Evil", this the same nation that is supporting several regimes that are brutally oppressing the co-religionists of the vast majority of Iranians. In contrast, Iran has been pretty quiet in the last third of a century (Ian has pointed out, repeatedly, that Hezbollah's objectives are rather more limited than the Israelis like to present them as) It seems to me that only the US is stirring the pot at the moment...

teg
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
I had no intention of being a douche and I certainly apologize to anyone who took that impression. I was trying to make a point fairly and comprehensively in a nonjudgmental fashion. The situation was complex, the responses seemed glib. I did not assume that someone was being a douche to me. I did not assume that I was being mocked or insulted.

I felt that there was a reasonable prospect that the problem was that the geopolitics of the age were simply not being appreciated, and that historical matters were being viewed through a modern lens. A lot of my undergraduate work focused on the geopolitics of the cold war, which in many ways was its own reality and mind set. There's a lot of things then that don't necessarily make sense from our perspective today, that were perfectly logical for its time. Any time period has its own logic, and the fact that it may be outmoded doesn't mean it wasn't valid then. Assuming that tried to engage politely and to lay out the situation.

If I had intended to be a douche, I wouldn't have bothered trying to write a long careful post. I am doing my best to keep the discussion civil and balanced and I am saddened if people have taken a different view.

The long careful post essentially started off by patronizingly explaining the basic facts of the Cold War. It was a passive aggressive implication of ignorance.

At any rate, a war with Iran would not have been an appropriate response regardless of the mindset at the time. "Any time period has its own logic" is an argument that stops the discussion. By the logic and mindset of ancient Rome, they "should" have kept slaves. I don't even mean that as a reductio ad absurdum; the Romans thought slavery was okay, and had I been born into their society and raised with their views, I might have owned slaves as well. It's the mindset itself that's fucked, not every single Roman who ever lived. I do not dispute that many Americans at the time would have supported military action; I do not dispute that this might have been the logical conclusion of the prevailing attitudes and values of the time. But those people would have been wrong. We cannot conclude that we should have declared war on Iran because circumstances dictated we would want to do so. We operated under the assumptions of the Cold War; we no longer do so now.

If you're saying to me, "Looking back, I still think we should have declared war on Iran," that shows a reckless disregard for human life. Such an action would not have improved the lives of people in Iran or America. You repeatedly mention the 'realities' of the Cold War, but (especially by this point), the conflict between the United States and the USSR was very much influenced if not dictated by public perception. The most important reality that politicians had to face in America was that the electorate had certain concerns, and those concerns needed to be addressed irrespective of their actual validity. Reagan used that reality to his advantage, while Carter famously failed to do so.

In terms of sheer rational calculus, I still don't believe that a war was justified. A conflict with Iran might have served the interests of certain politicians - both warmongering and the inevitable peace movements that follow have advanced the careers of many a Senator - but the United States as a whole would not have derived geopolitical benefits significant enough to justify such an expenditure. That, surely, is one of the primary reasons there was no war to begin with. What would we have accomplished? I can only imagine that in the long term, it would have affected our international standing; a country can only get involved in so many quagmires, and Vietnam had already and (greatly) impacted how the world saw us. Our ability to project power and our much vaunted moral superiority over the Soviets had been tested less than a decade ago, and suffice it to say that people weren't impressed. (Don't want to get into a "Could we have won Vietnam?" debate; I'm addressing how the Vietnam War was viewed, not how it was conducted).

And suppose that we win a quick decisive war with limited and justifiable goals. There would still have been accusations of imperialism, and they would have some credence. It's not as though some drunk Iranians decided to kidnap innocent diplomats for fun one day. They were addressing legitimate grievances, using methods that offended our sensibilities, of course, but surely no more than our actions had offended theirs. The Soviets would have called us out. After the Southeast Asian debacle, cooling it for a while was the sensible (and I think right) decision. Let the Soviets wear themselves out in Afghanistan; it makes no sense to surrender more of our moral high ground for a pointless war when our enemy's already on the brink of collapse. I speak with the benefit of hindsight, of course, but the topic is "Should the US have declared war", not "Did people 30 years ago think we should have declared war".
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What did he say that was insulting?
Read the quoted post. Stating that you need a six year old to explain something to you was just the last straw. Review his posts in other threads as well.

BTW: Calling someone a douche is out of line as well. Just a heads up.
 
I don't feel the need to engage the rest of your post, and I am not sure it would be productive.

I am sorry that you thought I was a douche. I apologized to you. I had no intention of being a douche, and I was trying to be as civil as I could.

I am sorry that you thought I was patronizing. I had no intention of being patronizing. You seem to have felt that I was being condescending in explaining 'basic facts.' I'm sorry, but when two people have trouble communicationg, one approach is to try and go back to first basic principles and work your way outwards to try and figure out where you are breaking down. That's what I was doing. That's the entirety of my intent. I reject your assertion that I was patronizing. If you saw it that way, well, I apologize for that. But that's your issue.

I was at a point where I was not clear that the person I was talking to understood the history of the cold war or had an appreciation of the specific geopolitics of the era. I felt that was a reasonable apprehension. I wasn't calling him names, I wasn't insulting him, I wasn't screwing with him or condescending or anything. I was trying to explain something that I sincerely was uncertain that he appreciated. That's not passive aggressive anything.

I don't like being called a douche, I don't appreciate it. I try very hard to be civil, and sometimes I don't do so well on that. But I try really hard. I do my best to deal with an argument rather than a person, and even when dealing with an argument, I try not to let it get out of hand. Maybe from time to time, things go overboard, but I fucking try. And you know what... I'm not seeing that effort around me. I don't believe I've ever called anyone on this board a douche, I don't think I've ever used that word on anyone in my life. I don't think I've ever offered anyone on this board a direct personal insult, never called anyone an asshole or an idiot or anything like that. I've got a lot of posts, I could be wrong on that, but its something I really attempt to avoid. I try.

I'm really offended by your treatment of me, by calling me a douche, and frankly, your response seems to boil down to the fact that you decided I deserved to be treated like that because in your mind I was patronizing and passive aggressive, and arrogant and said things that you seem to disagree with and philosophically reject outright, going by the rest of your response. Well, I don't like that. If I was inadvertently rude, well you're deliberately rude.

I don't see the point in trying to have a conversation or discussion with you, because to be completely honest about my feelings, I feel like I'll just be sitting there waiting for your to call me a douche again. I don't like that feeling. That's not me being passive aggressive or any kind of tactic or rhetoric That's what I'm honestly feeling right at this moment.

So goodbye. You have a nice night or whatever your time zone is, but goodbye.
 
The long careful post essentially started off by patronizingly explaining the basic facts of the Cold War. It was a passive aggressive implication of ignorance.

In all honesty, I've seen posts on this site, and others, from people born after the cold war ended that show an astonishing lack of knowledge about what it was like.

I've seen people say that the US could send troops into any country they pleased during the cold war, because "Russia couldn't do jack". There are a number of people who grew up with America as the sole Hyperpower, who really do not understand what a world with two opposed Superpowers was like. It is similar to some people not understanding that the British Empire for a long time was more powerful than the USA.

A clear explanation of basic facts can then be required. Many people chose the "vitriolic scorn" option instead.

Since this is a web forum, we can't really see the grey hairs of experience or wrinkles of struggle, and it is not always easy to determine how much experience someone is speaking from.
 
Top