Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Giuliani, Reagan, and Kissing up to Ayatollahs with fancy Cakes

I just saw this campaign ad for Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign. He says that Iran held US embassy hostages for 444 days. Then they were released within one hour. That was the hour after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as president, succeeding Jimmy Carter. Giuliani goes on to tell us that this incident shows how you deal with "Islamic terrorists." You get tough on them and don't back down.

The problem with this assertion is that it is not true, and indeed the opposite is true. Gary Sick showed in October Surprise that:


' Piercing the shadowy netherworld of international espionage, Sick has written one of the most controversial and disturbing accounts of political intrigue to appear in recent years. In 1980, William Casey, then campaign manager of the Reagan-Bush ticket, without the knowledge or approval of the legitimate government, arranged a deal with the Iranian government that in return for military equipment, the Iranians would not release the 52 American hostages until Ronald Reagan was safely inaugurated. '


So the hostages weren't released because Reagan was tough on the Iranian regime. They were released because Casey promised that the Republicans would sell Khomeini weapons if they kept the hostages for an extra couple of months and denied Jimmy Carter the sort of diplomatic coup that might have rescued his presidency.

Not only was Reagan not in fact 'tough' on the ayatollahs in Tehran, he later on stole Pentagon weaponry from the warehouses, illegally sold this US military materiel to a terrorist regime (that of Khomeini), then pocketed the money from the illegal arms sales to 'Islamic terrorists' and laundered it through shadowy bank accounts, sending it to far rightwing death squads in Nicaragua.

Besides, they aren't "Islamic" terrorists because Islam forbids terrorism. They might be Muslim terrorists, but then not very good Muslims. When will Giuliani denounce the "Catholic terrorism" of some prominent priests who were active in the Irish Republican Army? Would he talk about "Jewish terrorism" in regard to the blowing up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem?

As for Iran-contra, I feel a golden oldie coming on:

'
And, Shultz told both Rumsfeld and Saddam that the US was trying to curb weapons flows to Iran. Yet it is well known that Israel was supplying Iran with weaponry in return for Iranian oil. Only a little over a year later, Shultz double-crossed Saddam by getting on board with the Iran-Contra weapons exchange, which was suggested by the Israelis in the first place. The White House illegally sold Iran hundreds of powerful TOW anti-tank and HAWK anti-aircraft weapons [which Reagan came on television and told us were shoulder-launched weapons!], for use against Washington's newfound ally, the Iraqis, who were being assured that the US was trying hard to "prevent an Iranian victory . . ."




These weapons sales contravened US law, under which Iran was tagged as a terrorist nation. (Even today I can get into trouble for so much as editing a paper by an Iranian scholar for publication in a US scholarly journal, but it was all right for the Republicans and Neocons to send Khomeini 1000 TOWs!) Not only that, but Reagan's team then turned around and used the money garnered from these off-the-books sales to support the contra death squads in Nicaragua. In the US Constitution, how to spend government money is the purview of Congress, and Congress had told Reagan "no" on funding the death squads. So Reagan's people essentially stole weapons from the Pentagon storehouses, shipped them to Israel for transfer to Ayatollah Khomeini, and then took the ill gotten gains from fencing the stolen goods and gave them to nun-murderers in Latin America.



Here's the timeline:



"1985

July -- An Israeli official suggests a deal with Iran to then-national security adviser Robert McFarlane, saying the transfer of arms could lead to release of Americans being held hostage in Lebanon. McFarlane brings the message to President Reagan.

Aug. 30 -- The first planeload of U.S.-made weapons is sent from Israel to Tehran. Two weeks later the first American Hostage is released.

Dec. 5 -- Reagan secretly signs a presidential 'finding,' or authorization, describing the operation with Iran as an arms-for-hostages deal.




1986

Jan. 17 -- Reagan signs a finding authorizing CIA participation in the sales and ordering the process kept secret from Congress.

April -- Then-White House aide Oliver North writes a memo outlining plans to use $12 million in profits from Iran arms sales for Contra aid.
"



Oh, yeah, that Reagan was tough on Khomeini. Why, he even sent him a Bible and a cake, to go along with those nice TOW's he gave him. That will teach those terrorists to mess with the Republican Party!

13 Comments:

At 8:09 AM, Blogger Shag from Brookline said...

Another "OOPS" moment for Rudy. The Rudy and Judy show will soon become the Punch and Judy Show.

But let's at least give credit to Rudy for giving up his comb-over.

 
At 9:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Conspiracy isn't just a theory.
Jas

 
At 10:33 AM, Blogger sherm said...

The "Reactionary Achipelago" is probably the best smothered aspect of American history.

 
At 1:45 PM, Blogger Enlightened Layperson said...

This confuses two separate scandals. One is the unproven "October Surprise," that Reagan may have negotiated a deal with the Iranians to continue holding 52 hostaged seized from the US Embassy until after he was inaugurated.

The other is the well-documented scandal in which Reagan sought the release of hostages seized by Shiite factions in Lebanon in exchange for illegal arms sales and then diverted the profits to the Contras. The proof that these are separate events is that the October Surprise, if it happened, was a deal cut in 1980. Yet arms sales to Iran did not begin until 1985 (see the timeline, which has a four-year gap).

I am not trying to minimize the seriousness of Iran-Contra here. Selling arms to Iran was not only illegal, but positively encouraged the taking of more hostages (by pro-Iranian factions in Lebanon, not by Iran itself) to get more arms. Diverting the proceeds to the Contras was a grave threat to the rule of law, an attempt to circumvent Congress's power of the purse strings that even according to the Addington/Yoo theory is supposed to the the legislature's trump card.

But Iran-Contra is not the same as the October Surprise, and confusing them is sloppy.

 
At 5:24 PM, Blogger Juan Cole said...

I did not confuse the two scandals. I presented them serially.

However, I think the evidence is good that Case promised the Iranians arms as a quid pro quo for not releasing the hostages. If so, then Iran-Contra followed from that and there really is only one big scandal.

 
At 9:53 PM, Blogger Tommy Times said...

I have always wondered whether the Stark attack was a bit of revenge for selling weapons to Iran.

 
At 10:46 PM, Blogger Politik-66 said...

Thanks for recapping recent history- something which seems to be completely neglected or discarded by many people.

The crimes Bush is carrying out and the way we arrived in this mess is abundantly clear considering our previous policy.

 
At 9:32 AM, Blogger Bill said...

Dr. Cole,
Gary Sick's work hasn't been proven and, since there were no follow up arms transfers, the claim Casey cut that deal lacks credibility (the U.S. didn't provide a quid for the Iranians' pro quo). Iran-Contra was a separate scheme. Conflating lacks credibility.

While I recall one of the hostages in Iran assert that the hostages had made statements to their captors after Reagan was elected to the effect that Reagan would attack Iran, I don't think Guiliani's argument has any credibility either. I think the reality is, the Iranians knew they could not hold the hostage indefinitely (regardless of who was President) and just took the opportunity to embarrass Carter a last time. The Iranians released the hostages at a time of their choosing designed to minimize any appearance that they were capitulating to the U.S. and to maximize the appearance of Carter's ineffectiveness.

So neither lefty conspiratorialists nor the "conservative" (falsely so-called) Guiliani types have any merit to their arguments.

 
At 6:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do u describe the iranians as a terrorist regime?

Name one single attack which killed civilians deliberately. The bombings of marines in beirut by pre-hezbullah shias was an act of war, no matter how upsetting it may be for an american.

 
At 7:05 PM, Blogger Mark Pyruz said...

Relating to the above comment, I believe Bill's characterization of the Iranian position is accurate.

 
At 12:10 AM, Blogger Juan Cole said...

Dear 12:39 am:

It is the US State Department, Reagan and Giuliani who describe Iran as a terrorist regime. I was simply pointing to their hypocrisy.

cheers Juan

 
At 11:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah i see.

thanks for the clear up

12:39 am. (cool name!)

 
At 10:20 PM, Anonymous whoframedrudy said...

What do you think of Rudy's 'cold war' views - basically the same as Iran, i.e., Reagan pointed missiles at Russia and Gorbachev wet his pants. Considering Putin's key role in Iran negotiations, does it help for Rudy to insult Russian pride by claiming Gorbachev backed down in fear--rather than made peace out of sanity and wisdom?

I'm not a historian, but I had fun with this at my blog.

http://lesstalkmoreactivism.blogspot.com/

 

Post a Comment

<< Home