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

[amphibulous]

I was and I remember the furry this country felt.

Another US war crime!!!

I bet the poor furry is still in Gitmo...

I remember the college anti war protests in the 60's and was surprised to see College students marching with signs saying nuke Iran. If Carter was not busy talking Nuclear Proliferation with Amy maybe he could have done something.Still.

Gosh. People made posters!

Making a poster saying "Let's nuke someone!" requires nothing except a sharpie, a stick, a sturdy piece of cardboard and a complete lack of moral maturity. Fighting a war against 60 million people who have good reason to hate you requires courage and commitment. Different things.

 

[DG Valdron]

I'm about done with this thread, but I did want to point out some awkward realities of the period.

Iran was almost the US last Cold War strategic linchpin in the region. Geopolitically, there weren't a lot of good options.

Iran was adjacent to the Soviet Union. If you actually pushed Iran into a corner, declared war, etc., that corner would be the Soviet corner. The Soviets would have to turn to someone for new military supplies, weapons, ammunition, etc., and that would have been the Soviet Union. Iran was equipped with a vast amount of American military gear, but there's no question but that the Soviets could have met any level of demand for interim parts, or facilitated a changeover. It would have been a huge windfall for the Soviets, an infinite pipeline of weapons for the Iranians, and worst of all extended Soviet presence and influence all the way to the Persian Gulf. Suddenly, it could be the Soviet Union sitting on the Strait of Hormuz.

Of the other countries in the region, only Turkey could be termed a reliable American ally.

Iraq was already in the Soviet camp. The Soviets would try to keep it, and might well be in a position to succeed. Even if it couldn't, the Soviets had already demonstrated their willingness and ability to successfully switch horses in the Somalia/Ethiopia situation.

Pakistan was a nominal US Ally, but uninvolved in the region, unreliable, and had fought and lost three wars with India, their Bete noir.

Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states were riding high in OPEC. And they were pissed off with the West over the whole Israel thing - the wounds were pretty fresh and the whole Egypt/Israeli peace thing was pretty new and fragile.

You could have seen varying degrees of Soviet influence throughout the region, which would have magnified Soviet influence in Europe and Japan, both of which were dependent on Persian Gulf oil.

So yeah, declare war, commit to some pissy regional spat, and fuck your entire geopolitical situation. At best, a worldwide body blow, at worst.... WWIII.

There's also the question of what we were going to declare war with? We had no local assets or bases in the region, and it wasn't likely we were going to acquire them overnight. This would mean monstrous logistical challenges in terms of force projection.

There was no question of occupying or invading a country ten times the size of South Vietnam, or Two and a Half times the size of Texas. A country with a population three or four times that of Vietnam. We simply did not have the army, and they simply were not up to the job.

Conceivably, we could have made war on Iran.... America at this time is still the Richest and Most Powerful country in the world - at worst we could just throw bullets made of money at them. But a war was going to be incredibly expensive, incredibly risky, and the stakes we committed ourselves to would be insane.

 

[Matt Wiser]

Again, apples and oranges. You're viewing Reagan through the lens of Iran-Contra. This situation and Iran-Contra are two different things completely. There's no way that a president who'd just gotten elected on a promise of being tough-not just on Iran, but on the Soviets, is going to "grovel" to folks he's already publicly called a bunch of kidnappers and barbarians. Reagan, in this scenario, is going to roll out the big guns, and get ready to use them if need be.

No offense, but why are you apologizing for the Iranians' actions. All that did was make them a pariah, and as Capt. Gary Sick (USN, Ret), who was on the National Security Council at the time, has said on CNN's Armanpour show back in '09 (the transcript's available on CNN's site), that the Hostage crisis lasted perhaps eight months longer than it should have because after the Shah died, the Iranians couldn't make up their mind as to what they wanted. And that has left three impressions that continue to this day: 1) The feeling in diplomatic circles that Iran can't be trusted; 2) that when Iran negotiates, it does so in bad faith; and 3) That when they do negotiate, they're more concerned with their domestic political situation than about getting things done. And, as Captain Sick also points out, two SecStates (Rice and Clinton), and President Obama himself, have said that the '53 coup, while justified by the circumstances of the Cold War, was in retrospect a mistake, Iran persists in its "Marg Bara America" (Death to America) ideology. It can't be a one-way street: where only the U.S. admits its past mistakes. Iran has to as well: and that, IMHO, needs to start with admitting that the events of 4 Nov 1979 and afterward were just as mistaken. I'll leave you with this: when an Iranian newspaper a few years back ran a poll in which Iranians were asked "Do you favor normalizing relations with the U.S.?" The response was this: 73% said "Yes". The regime's response was to close the paper and throw the editor in the slammer. He's one of the former hostage-takers.....And AFIK, he's still in the slammer.

 

[Rex Mundi]

Man, but is this topic ridiculous. The conversation has essentially proceeded like this:

"The Americans killed people."

"But an embassy is sacred!"

"But the Americans were engaging in brutal economic exploitation."

"But an embassy is holy!"

"But the Americans were purposefully attempting to keep democratic processes from taking place in an impoverished country."

"But an embassy is Kapu!"

"But the Americans were doing horrible things and taking hostages was one of the only conceivable means by which the Iranians could gain some kind of leverage."

"BUT TEH EMBASSY!"

"But not every culture on earth abides by the notion that the person and dignity of an ambassador somehow possess an inherent sanctity. A lot of people think diplomats are mere humans and share in our equality. And, even granting that an ambassador is theoretically a communicator and not an actor, and should therefore be left alone, it can't be denied that in actuality, ambassadors and diplomats are often prominent symbols and potent instruments of cultural imperialism. And, even granting further that the Iranians still shouldn't have taken hostages, for America to complain about the incident is like a burglar stealing everything in your house and saying, 'Well, I stole everything you own, but you took my pen once. Tu quoque.' And that'd be ridiculous."

"BUT WE ARE UNWORTHY; ALL GLORY AND PRAISE TO THE U.S. EMBASSY, AND TO THE AMBASSADORS WHO DWELT WITHIN IT, MAY PEACE BE UPON THEM! EMBASSY HU AKBAR!"

 

[The Vulture]

This thread has taught me a number of things, namely that millions of dead Iranians is an appropriate response to 52 moderately imperiled Americans and to think otherwise is liberal weakness.

 

[Matt Wiser]

There were a lot of folks back in '79-81 who felt exactly that way. One op-ed I found in a major newspaper summed it up sort of like this, though it's not a verbatim quote: "If Khomeni thinks fighting Iraq is tough, try fighting both Iraq and the U.S. at the same time." This was Dec '80, about a month plus after Reagan's landslide win.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Calling the Shah an American puppet is like calling the President Washington a French puppet or Lenin a German puppet.

And holding the US responsible for of the Shah's policies is like holding France responsible for US slavery or holding Germany responsible for the millions killed by the Reds in the SU.

 

[Ian Hathaway]

Calling the Shah an American puppet is like calling the President Washington a French puppet or Lenin a German puppet.

And holding the US responsible for of the Shah's policies is like holding France responsible for US slavery or holding Germany responsible for the millions killed by the Reds in the SU.

I must have missed a couple of episodes of History ... you might need to explain the France/U.S. bit and the Germany/Soviet thing a little more so that I understand.

 

[amphibulous]

Calling the Shah an American puppet is like calling the President Washington a French puppet or Lenin a German puppet.

You can say this, and I can point and laugh at your utter ignorance and/or dishonesty:

- Washington was a revolutionary who accepted French aid

- The Shah was chosen by the CIA as a puppet ruler once they had the decision to overthrow democracy in Iraq.

These things are not the same!

 

[amphibulous]

Again, apples and oranges. You're viewing Reagan through the lens of Iran-Contra.

Yes. This is called "Using facts".

This situation and Iran-Contra are two different things completely. There's no way that a president who'd just gotten elected on a promise of being tough-not just on Iran, but on the Soviets, is going to "grovel" to folks he's already publicly called a bunch of kidnappers and barbarians.

There is a way if the alternative is worse, which is the PR fallout from dead hostages and destroyed aircraft and utterly ruinous escalation. The US public are like children: they won't accept unpleasant consequences of actions they demand. If Reagan had bombed and hostages had died, what then? Americans have vast faith in Magic Airpower, but this is because they selective memories. Remember Kosovo? And the Iranians have F14s, a radar net, SAMs. They have a position that lets them mine Hormuz. You talk as if bombing has no consequences for the USA, but this is a fantasy - one typical of Americans. Which after the lessons of 911, Afghanistan and Iraq is pretty amazing.

No offense, but why are you apologizing for the Iranians' actions.

What you construe as "apologizing" is a preference for historical accuracy and morality over distortion and, frankly, what looks like racism. Remember that the US overthrew a democracy in Iran - exactly the crime that Saddam was punished for - and no one considers this worthy of comment. My pov is that Iranians are just as human as Americans and have their own goals, and a moral right to resent having their country usurped for a decades long torture party and an orgy for the US defense industry at their expense. Substituting a fantasy world where you ignore their moral case entirely, and their strategic goals and gains, maybe emotionally satisfying but is dishonest and dangerous.

All that did was make them a pariah

This is pure delusion. The hostage takers retrieved billions of dollars and blocked any US intervention! More importantly still to the hostage takers, they facilitated the emergence of the theocracy. You might not share that aim, but that doesn't matter - you have to judge the efficacy of other people's actions on whether they achieve their aims, not yours!

, and as Capt. Gary Sick (USN, Ret), who was on the National Security Council at the time, has said on CNN's Armanpour show back in '09 (the transcript's available on CNN's site), that the Hostage crisis lasted perhaps eight months longer than it should have because after the Shah died, the Iranians couldn't make up their mind as to what they wanted. And that has left three impressions that continue to this day: 1) The feeling in diplomatic circles that Iran can't be trusted; 2) that when Iran negotiates, it does so in bad faith; and 3) That when they do negotiate, they're more concerned with their domestic political situation than about getting things done.

...Hm, which country does that remind everyone who isn't an American of??? Can anyone trust a nation that overthrows democracies and engages in stunts like the Bay Of Pigs and Tomkin? Don't these things also represent bad faith? When is public opinion at home ever NOT dominant in US diplomacy?

And, as Captain Sick also points out, two SecStates (Rice and Clinton), and President Obama himself, have said that the '53 coup, while justified by the circumstances of the Cold War, was in retrospect a mistake, Iran persists in its "Marg Bara America" (Death to America) ideology. It can't be a one-way street: where only the U.S. admits its past mistakes. Iran has to as well: and that, IMHO, needs to start with admitting that the events of 4 Nov 1979 and afterward were just as mistaken.

It's this sort of political cluelessness that makes the British especially (and let's it face it, the British started the whole mess by manipulating the US) wince at Americans. No. From the pov of the people running Iran, the last thing they want is to normalize relations. They need tension and barriers to the West to stay in power. All political elites act in their own interests and to sustain their rule; if you do not understand this then you are politically helpless and end up a prisoner to your own proxies like the Israelis and Karzai.

I'll leave you with this: when an Iranian newspaper a few years back ran a poll in which Iranians were asked "Do you favor normalizing relations with the U.S.?" The response was this: 73% said "Yes". The regime's response was to close the paper and throw the editor in the slammer. He's one of the former hostage-takers.....And AFIK, he's still in the slammer.

Yes. And even with a clue this huge you can't understand the political realities. Once again, a major motive for the hostage takers was to prevent "normalization" immediately after the Revolution. This wouldn't be your choice or mine, but this is not relevant to judging whether the students actions were effective given their - not our! - priorities.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

You can say this, and I can point and laugh at your utter ignorance and/or dishonesty:

- Washington was a revolutionary who accepted French aid

- The Shah was chosen by the CIA as a puppet ruler once they had the decision to overthrow democracy in Iraq.

These things are not the same!

THat's right. He accepted French aid. That's all I got. That seems to be enough for you guys, so I thought you would accept that.

The Shah accepted CIA aid. Then he ruled as he saw fit. His policies were obviously aimed at modernizing Iran.

I am not aware of any policies he had that served US interest at the expense of Iranian interest, from his perspective of course.

I'm also not aware that he required much long term support from the US to maintain his government. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[amphibulous]

Before I get back to work:

- The reason an embassy is sacrosanct is that it is regarded as foreign territory

- The Iranians broke this rule, from their POV, to avenge thousands of deaths and and to prevent the likely imminent demise of many thousands more (from US military action to restore the Shah)

Now, can anyone think of recent events where the US invaded foreign territory - of an ally, who was NOT pleased - for similar reasons to the above??? And does that person want to explain why the Iranians were evil, but the SEALs were nice? Especially remembering that the suffering caused by the installing of the Shah in Iran was much greater than 911, and the US military action to support a restoration could have had worse consequences still and reasonably seemed imminent?

 

[amphibulous]

THat's right. He accepted French aid. That's all I got. That seems to be enough for you guys, so I thought you would accept that.

No, that would be stupid. You have managed to understand absolutely nothing and to remain completely ignorant of the relevant history.

The Shah accepted CIA aid. Then he ruled as he saw fit.

The Shah accepted a CIA offer to become dictator once they overthrew democracy. He wasn't the initiator; the CIA were - and the coup only happened because the democratic government wasn't sucking up enough to Western oil companies. Trying to call this "accepting aid" is like Oswald saying that JFK's head unfortunately collided with his bullet: it's literally true, but morally it is an extreme distortion.

And while the Shah ruled "As he saw fit", it is hard to see his hobby of torturing people as being independent of the USA. You do know that the US ran torture schools for its clients??? Eg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation

I am not aware of any policies he had that served US interest at the expense of Iranian interest, from his perspective of course.

I'm also not aware that he required much long term support from the US to maintain his government. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong.

 

[1940LaSalle]

First, remember who was in the White House. A declaration of war wouldn't happen with that joker: he'd settle for scolding and trying to take the so-called moral high ground (in other words, about what you'd expect from a president of the caliber of Pierce or Buchanan).

Now: assuming no deal had been made and Reagan assumed office without the hostages' release, you may rest assured that über-intensive training of a rescue force would be taking place, followed by a no-nonsense ultimatum. I would surmise that Iran being Iran, the ultimatum would have been rejected.

That would have been followed by a series of strategic strikes to knock out the power grid as much as possible, followed by a rescue drop. Once the hostages and any other US personnel are secured (collateral damage be damned), Reagan would ask Congress for a declaration of war. Chances are he gets it, albeit by the closest vote since 1812 since the House is still in the hands of the Democrats. Still...you're now looking at pretty much a skeet shoot with the US having the shotguns and the Iranians providing the targets. I wouldn't expect a declared war to last more than a few months, tops. The oil fields would be prime targets: not for destruction but outright capture, with the products diverted in tankers to the US and allies (the UK, Canada, Australia/New Zealand for examples). I'd also expect another strike force sent to find Khomeini and his cronies and secure them alive if at all possible (don't want martyrs).

The idea would be installation of a more liberalized/western-style regime in Iran, with whom the US and the rest of the west can do business. Given the level of western influence in the first place up until the Shah was toppled, that doesn't seem entirely unfeasible.

 

[Ian Hathaway]

First, remember who was in the White House. A declaration of war wouldn't happen with that joker: he'd settle for scolding and trying to take the so-called moral high ground (in other words, about what you'd expect from a president of the caliber of Pierce or Buchanan).

Now: assuming no deal had been made and Reagan assumed office without the hostages' release, you may rest assured that über-intensive training of a rescue force would be taking place, followed by a no-nonsense ultimatum. I would surmise that Iran being Iran, the ultimatum would have been rejected.

That would have been followed by a series of strategic strikes to knock out the power grid as much as possible, followed by a rescue drop. Once the hostages and any other US personnel are secured (collateral damage be damned), Reagan would ask Congress for a declaration of war. Chances are he gets it, albeit by the closest vote since 1812 since the House is still in the hands of the Democrats. Still...you're now looking at pretty much a skeet shoot with the US having the shotguns and the Iranians providing the targets. I wouldn't expect a declared war to last more than a few months, tops. The oil fields would be prime targets: not for destruction but outright capture, with the products diverted in tankers to the US and allies (the UK, Canada, Australia/New Zealand for examples). I'd also expect another strike force sent to find Khomeini and his cronies and secure them alive if at all possible (don't want martyrs).

The idea would be installation of a more liberalized/western-style regime in Iran, with whom the US and the rest of the west can do business. Given the level of western influence in the first place up until the Shah was toppled, that doesn't seem entirely unfeasible.

And meanwhile back with the rest of humanity ... who is going to sanction this war or will it just be declared unlawfully.

As for the ill gotten gains of such a war (the oil) I'm not sure anyone would want such dirty bounty ... it would be seen as another US oil grabbing excercise and the gift of oil as a bribe !!

 

[teg]

First, remember who was in the White House. A declaration of war wouldn't happen with that joker: he'd settle for scolding and trying to take the so-called moral high ground (in other words, about what you'd expect from a president of the caliber of Pierce or Buchanan).

Now: assuming no deal had been made and Reagan assumed office without the hostages' release, you may rest assured that über-intensive training of a rescue force would be taking place, followed by a no-nonsense ultimatum. I would surmise that Iran being Iran, the ultimatum would have been rejected.

I'm interested in the bolded bit. What do you mean by 'Iran being Iran'? In spite of the efforts of the neocons and Israelis to paint Iran as the next Nazi Germany, its been pretty cautious foreign policy wise since 1979. Plus the fact that no sane American leader (which I count Reagan as) would simply give Iran a 'give up the hostages or we bomb' ultimatum, there would or should be at least something in it for the Iranians.

Now, why the hate for Carter? Reagan bugged out of Lebanon after one bombing in Beirut, hardly a saga of toughness and intransigence for the ages. Carter didn't intervene abroad because the previous two times the US had intervened abroad in a big way (Vietnam and Angola), their first ally had turned out to be run by incompetent crooks and the second turned out to be a parody of the first.

teg

 

[amphibulous]

First, remember who was in the White House. A declaration of war wouldn't happen with that joker: he'd settle for scolding and trying to take the so-called moral high ground (in other words, about what you'd expect from a president of the caliber of Pierce or Buchanan).

This is the president who ruthlessly suckered the Soviets into A'stan, doing more to end the Cold War than any other US leader, knowing that this would cost huge numbers of dead.

Now: assuming no deal had been made and Reagan assumed office without the hostages' release, you may rest assured that über-intensive training of a rescue force would be taking place, followed by a no-nonsense ultimatum.

You have a great future as a script writer if the cartoon "Chuck Norris: Karate Force!" ever returns to the screen. However, as a military planner you would be less successful: after the aborted raid, the hostages were split up. Assaulting multiple locations is a fantasy. The US had one chance, and an idiotic USMC planner ruined it by insisting USMC pilots untrained for the role should be used.

I would surmise that Iran being Iran, the ultimatum would have been rejected.

That would have been followed by a series of strategic strikes to knock out the power grid as much as possible, followed by a rescue drop.

Where? You don't know where the hostages are. And one drop can't rescue people in dozens of locations.

Once the hostages and any other US personnel are secured (collateral damage be damned), Reagan would ask Congress for a declaration of war. Chances are he gets it, albeit by the closest vote since 1812 since the House is still in the hands of the Democrats. Still...you're now looking at pretty much a skeet shoot with the US having the shotguns and the Iranians providing the targets. I wouldn't expect a declared war to last more than a few months, tops. The oil fields would be prime targets: not for destruction but outright capture, with the products diverted in tankers to the US and allies (the UK, Canada, Australia/New Zealand for examples). I'd also expect another strike force sent to find Khomeini and his cronies and secure them alive if at all possible (don't want martyrs).

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, the USA is too scared today to attack Iranian nuclear sites because the Iranians can raise hell in Hormuz for trivial effort, and that means a worldwide depression. And how do you invade Iran without an ally nearby? How does the USA, which doesn't even a functioning Army at the time, invade anywhere? How does the USA, which can't occupy tiny Iraq, occupy Iran? How does it stomach the tens of thousands of dead in fighting a war against an opponent who, unlike the Iraqi Army that mostly hated Saddam, hates the USA and will fight back?

In summary: Real Life NOT EQUAL Chuck Norris cartoon.

 

[amphibulous]

Now, why the hate for Carter? Reagan bugged out of Lebanon after one bombing in Beirut...

Because a lot of Americans live in a fantasy world where Rambo is a documentary, where Carter could easily have got the hostages back (see previous point), and the invasion of Grenada was the key even in the Cold War, instead of the only war where a major nation almost lost despite having no opponent. As for Lebanon and Reagan's crawling to the Iranians over his hostage crisis - arguably showing that the US would easily give into terror and therefore opening the way to 911 - well, "We have always been at war with Oceania."

Oh - and don't ask who created the deficit!

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

No, that would be stupid. You have managed to understand absolutely nothing and to remain completely ignorant of the relevant history.

Stupid? I was using your reasoning, near as I could tell. You seemed to leap from CIA involvement to US puppet with no further support to the claim.

The Shah accepted a CIA offer to become dictator once they overthrew democracy. He wasn't the initiator; the CIA were - and the coup only happened because the democratic government wasn't sucking up enough to Western oil companies. Trying to call this "accepting aid" is like Oswald saying that JFK's head unfortunately collided with his bullet: it's literally true, but morally it is an extreme distortion.

Yes. It's true. YOu obviously feel it was an evil act. But that doesn't change the fact that the Shah took power and ruled as he saw fit. That is not what a puppet does.

A puppet is placed in power, and rules as he is told.

And while the Shah ruled "As he saw fit", it is hard to see his hobby of torturing people as being independent of the USA. You do know that the US ran torture schools for its clients???

You are claiming that human rights abuse is proof of US involvement? Because without US expertise, no one in the ME could figure out how to torture someone?

...


You are wrong.

Got a historical example of where the Shah ruled as per the US objectives rather than in his own view of Iranian interests?

 

[Matt Wiser]

Not to mention that he's viewing this thru the lens of Iran-Contra, not what was the mood in the country from 4 Nov 79 to 20 Jan 81. Even Carter, during his lame-duck period, was preparing the country for possible war.

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone apologizing for a mass kidnapping-which the embassy seizure certainly was. In the old days, it would have been a causus belli right then and there. I don't give a hoot about the "students" motives: once the Iranian government (read: Khomeni) sanctioned their actions, it became the responsibility of the Iranian Government.

The Shah ruled as he saw fit: not because the CIA or SIS told him what to do. Even in the late '60s, just prior to his big arms build-up from McAir, Grumman, etc, he was buying some Soviet weapons: ZSU-23-4s and BTR-60 APCs. Hardly the act of a "puppet."