Toughness for Hostages

Stanley Kurtz unleashes a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care: "Iran no doubt remembers how it sent the hostages home at the start of Ronald Reagan’s new presidency. It greatly feared Reagan’s combination of toughness and fresh political capital. That’s part of why Iran is racing so hard right now to get the bomb." Alternatively, Iran released the hostages in exchange for a series of concessions by the United States, including a relaxation of sanctions, the unfreezing of financial assets, an America pledge of non-interference in Iranian affairs, etc.

I'd thought that Ronald Reagan freed the hostages through an illegal arms for hostages swap, but that was actually a different batch of hostages. In fact, the original hostages were freed in exchange for concessions through Algeria-sponsored negotiations conducted by Warren Christopher on behalf of Jimmy Carter's outgoing administration.

Comments

The goofball theory that the Iranians released the Embassy hostages out of fear of Ronald Reagan ranks right up there with the theory that Reagan won the Cold War through a brilliant campaign of defense contracts for California businesses and by shouting "Tear Down this Wall" in Berlin.
Only the Iranians know why they made the deal when they did and why they chose to release the hostages as soon as Carter was out of office -- after all, we are speculating about their state of mind. What do they say?

Posted by tom | March 27, 2007 11:42 AM

The hostages were freed after concessions by Carter - then the Reagan administration mounted a propaganda campaign about how they would never deal with terrorists - then came Iran-Contra, in which they made arms deals with Iran to release other terrorist hostages.

Posted by skeptonomist | March 27, 2007 11:42 AM

Look, I shouldn't be snotty about this, because I never heard of the Algeria Accords either, but your ignorance was even greater: if you had two hostage situations several years apart completely confused, are you really competent to be commenting on this issue? The fact that, whatever the reason, the hostages were released minutes after Reagan was sworn in is an extremely well-known fact.

Posted by James Kabala | March 27, 2007 12:06 PM

The "goofball" theory is the basis of modern Republican foreign policy, everything is about looking tough and having will. The guy that gets off the best Hollywood style one-liner wins.

BTW, Matt your showing your age, or lack thereof. I feel like those are the details of history you should brush up on before trying to write a book on, um, foreign policy.

Posted by AJ | March 27, 2007 12:14 PM

Regardless of how old Matt is or isn't, the idea that the Iranians were quaking in their whatever it ises because Reagan was such a tough guy, whereas Carter was a pussy, is laff-riot conservatarian fantasizing. I especially like how they released the hostages minutes after Reagan was sworn in, like they couldn't quite believe he was actually going to take the reins up to that point, or maybe they panicked and figured he'd run, not walk, straight from the swearing-in to the Nuclear Button.

Posted by snork | March 27, 2007 12:24 PM

At the risk of dating myself as one old enough to have been in high school when Reagan was inaugurated: the Iranians released the hostages during the inauguration, just hours after Carter left office. Even at the nearly all-white, wingnutty school I attended, the speculation (we watched the inauguration on TV) was that the release was timed as a gratuitous insult to Carter. No one was saying, "heh-heh, new sheriff in town, they better let those Americans go if they know what's good for 'em", as Kurtz seems to be saying now.

Posted by kth | March 27, 2007 12:29 PM

History in the making- quite literally- as Matt stitches together a narrative he can live with about that hostage release.

My personal feeling is that the Reagan people made a deal with the Iranians, and the Iranians had the last laugh by releasing the hostages in a way that made the deal-making obvious.

Of course, that involves a "conspiracy theory"- as though wheelers and dealers did anything other than conspire. They don't make widgets or dig precious metals out of the ground- they gather together and plan things.

Every pundit knows that "conspiracy theories" are the kiss of death to a career in the mediocrity. The ability to report with a straight face and infinite detail meaningless foreign conferences, on the other hand, is the path to recognition as a "statesmanlike" commentator, the kind of person who can persuade the masses that they just aren't smart enough to master all the details.

Something like the twiddling and fudging that went into the last century of "proving" that the sun revolved around the earth, leading to models and explanations that only the most arcane of astronomers could master. The alternate explanation, earth revolving around sun, was so simple that a 5-year-old child could grasp it in a minute, but it couldn't be accepted at that time because the Church denied it.

In much the same way, we must never draw a connection between JFK cancelling the Bay of Pigs invasion that Bush had worked on, and the fact that Bush was in Dallas the day JFK died.

Posted by serial catowner | March 27, 2007 12:35 PM

In much the same way, we must never draw a connection between JFK cancelling the Bay of Pigs invasion that Bush had worked on, and the fact that Bush was in Dallas the day JFK died.

Huh? Why on earth would we draw such a connection? It's one thing to say that sometimes there really are conspiracies, and that the accusation of "conspiracy theories" is a way to delegitimize what might be perfectly justifiable criticisms.

It's quite another thing to go from there to jump on board the most absurd conspiracy theory you can think of.

Posted by John | March 27, 2007 12:44 PM

The problem with the Reagan Tough Guy theory of Iranian policy is that it falls apart upon examination.
In his deal Reagan sold and gave the Iranians millions of dollars worth of antiaircraft missiles and parts, a cake in the shape of a key (eaten by Iranian inspectors at the Tehran airport), a Bible with a Reagan autograph inscription, and a pair of revolvers which the Iranians refused to accept.
In exchange Reagan got exactly one hostage held in Beirut released.
Oh and a few million dollars which were washed through Swiss accounts and used to illegally fund the Contras as well as minor embezzlements by Ollie North, Chalabi (yes that Chalabi), and a cast of minor/major figures.
As to the 1980 embassy hostages release, Reagan began selling arms to Iran shortly after he came to office. The unproven assumption (unproven because the Reagan administration engaged in wholesale document destruction) is that these sales were a quid pro quo for the embassy hostages release. No other explanation has ever been put forward.

Posted by Willy | March 27, 2007 12:46 PM

"In much the same way, we must never draw a connection between JFK cancelling the Bay of Pigs invasion that Bush had worked on, and the fact that Bush was in Dallas the day JFK died."

I though I had heard every weirdo theory that there ever was, but I never heard that one before.

Posted by James Kabala | March 27, 2007 12:47 PM

I would think, even if Bush Sr. really were involved in the JFK assassination, there would be no need for him to be physically on site for the event. (Unless, of course, he was the actual triggerman! Now that would make an awesome Hollywood surprise ending.)

Posted by JP | March 27, 2007 12:54 PM

I thought the tremendous reverberations of fear when Ronnie was elected were felt in the monstrous dictatorship of Grenada? It put a huge kink in the Grenadian plan to march through the u.s., city by city, putting to sword men, women, and children.

Some will say: oh, but the Grenadians didn't have their crazed commie dictator in 1981. But these are the kind of people who are always fooled by appearances.

Posted by roger | March 27, 2007 1:12 PM

My personal feeling is that the Reagan people made a deal with the Iranians, and the Iranians had the last laugh by releasing the hostages in a way that made the deal-making obvious. - serial catowner

Whether the Reagan campaign actually made a deal like that or not, I'm sure the Iranians planned it to look that way.

Posted by Gary Sugar | March 27, 2007 1:16 PM

Matt -- I was a baby political writer for the Phoenix in Boston, and I covered the 1980 campaign and the Reagan inaugural. FWIW, I can tell you that DC was alive that week with rumors of deals that the Reagan campaign cut with the Iranians to hold the hostages until the election was over -- the "October Surprise" which I've never fully dismissed -- and that the Reagan people were ready to hand over the frozen assets as soon as his hand came off the Bible.
I think Safire wrote a variation of Kurtz's nonsense in real time just after the inauguration.

Posted by CHARLES PIERCE | March 27, 2007 1:38 PM

Stephen Ambrose wrote in _Rise to Globalism_ that Reagan's campaign had made a backchannel arrangement for the Iranians to delay releasing the prisoners until after the 1980 election. (I have the 7th edition, I think, not sure if newer editions still contain this). Details are lacking and that book isn't footnoted, and Ambrose's credibility is less than perfect, even though he is still a basically good historian.

This fits the events pretty well, I think. Presuming that a deal was in the works in the fall (Algeria?), it makes sense for both sides. Having already decided to release the prisoners at some point, and knowing that Reagan was the likely victor, Iran gets a major point with the incoming administration at no cost. This might also explain why the hijackers of TWA flight 847 released its hostages without any public assurance that the US was going to get Israel to release some prisoners, which we did. And then came Iran-Contra. Not a good record irrespective of the embassy hostages.

I would love to hear more evidence on how this really went down. I was floored to read that bit in the Ambrose text; if verified, it would be pretty damning to the Reagan legacy.

PS Gorbachev should get much more credit, but Reagan's personal diplomacy made a difference in ending the cold war and not acknowledging that borders on partisan hackery. Gorbachev made SDI a huge priority in the negotiations largely for primarily economic and secondarily political, not military considerations. Reagan might have thought of SDI in military terms, but the end result was the same: the Cold War ended because our economic system was superior. At the time, liberals were arguing for unilateral disarmament -- a totally insane policy choice that would have likely delayed the reckoning and bolstered Cherneynko (sp?) hardline types in the Politburo and military-industrial complex. It is about the only good thing to come from the Reagan presidency, I grant you. Whatever you think of Reagan and his team, he made the choice to do a 180 and face down the militarists on the right wing when the opportunity presented itself, and he deserves credit for that.

Posted by ScottS | March 27, 2007 1:47 PM

What liberals were arguing for "unilateral disarmament"?

Posted by William Burns | March 27, 2007 1:51 PM

Gary Sick wrote a book ("October Surprise"?) about the back-channel angle that makes a pretty convincing circumstantial case for it. It's one of those things that we're not likely to ever know, one way or the other.

Posted by foolishmortal | March 27, 2007 2:01 PM

Look, if you really believed Bush couldn't possibly had anything to do with the JFK killing, why would you react to the news he was in Dallas that day?

The sad fact is, that even the most "absurd" conspiracy theory makes more sense than what we "saw" happen- that Lee Harvey Oswald, for no discernible reason, made a 300-yard shot at a moving target with a $7 rifle and a 'roving bullet', and that Jack Ruby, again for no reason we know, then killed Oswald.

That's why it's been so important- not, in this case, to construct an acceptable history, because none can be believed- but to discredit "conspiracy" theories. Even when doing so requires the stout affirmation that the CIA would never kill an American president. Why, that's the craziest thing I've ever heard!

Unless you're Paul Robeson.

Posted by serial catowner | March 27, 2007 2:40 PM

Confusing the embassy hostages with Iran-Contra? Are you kidding me? Matt, you have lost all credibility with this 23-year-old reader. I'm cancelling my (RSS) subscription!

Posted by Jonathan | March 27, 2007 3:08 PM

"I would think, even if Bush Sr. really were involved in the JFK assassination, there would be no need for him to be physically on site for the event."

It would not be prudent - not at that juncture.

Posted by Njorl | March 27, 2007 3:14 PM

A good deal of circumstantial evidence implicates top players in the 1980 Reagan campaign -- Bill Casey and George H.W. Bush among them -- in the effort to grease the skids with the Khomeini regime in order to keep the embassy hostages from being released before election day. A quid pro quo of some form was probably reached as arms shipments for cash to Iran began in 1981, thus predating arms for hostages by about four years. Given the Republcans' previous track record in this kind of territory territory (Nixon and his people worked overtime to sabotage the Paris peace talks in 1968), and given Reagan's openness to playing Let's Make a Deal with Teheran vis a vis the Beirut hostage crisis, it is not irresponsible to speculate that the Republicans illegally conducted a private foreign policy in order to illegitimately influence a free election (our own). But don't tell that to Robert Parry, whose investigations into this murky affair have pretty much made him PNG in the establishment Washington press corps.

Posted by TT | March 27, 2007 3:18 PM

let me get this straight. Reagan was in cahoots with the Ayatollah to keep US citizens hostage and thereby help to throw the 1980 election his way. and the Ayatollah and his minions never ever bothered to breathe word one about this treasonous agreement to this day because - well, they just didn't. honor among thieves and all that.

and G Bush Sr was in on the hit on JFK.

stellar day for comments here.

Posted by chris | March 27, 2007 3:37 PM

stellar day for comments here.

That's right, putative backchannel deals with Iran by politicians who later actually peddled arms illegally to the Ayatollah is exactly the same level of conspiracy-mongering as linking GHWB to the Kennedy assassination. In the future, try setting your discernment filter to a slightly finer grain, chris.

Posted by mds | March 27, 2007 4:06 PM

Keep whipping Jonah Goldberg like the little bitch he is. I got a huge laugh from that opening sentence. Rock on, Matt.

Posted by Daddy Love | March 27, 2007 5:12 PM

Hey, wait a minute, I distinctly told you not to think about where George Bush Sr. was when Kennedy was shot. Remember, we won't know the truth in our lifetimes.

Learn to live with ambiguity. There's no acceptable cover story, but that's not the end of the world. Lots of things are like that.

Posted by serial catowner | March 27, 2007 6:40 PM

Remember, we won't know the truth in our lifetimes.

But we'll know it after that? Cool! Or will we only get one question from God? 'Cause I'm totally asking about Elvis, if that's the case. I already know enough physics to be okay with "back and to the left," aka the Bush Family Two-Step.

Learn to live with ambiguity.

Hang on, I thought ambiguity was the Devil's volleyball. Sorry, catowner, your philosophical system makes no sense.

Posted by mds | March 27, 2007 7:16 PM

Oddly, though there's never been evidence (or even a halfway decent conspiracy theory) he was involved in the JFK assassination conspiracy, Richard Nixon WAS in Dallas on the day Kennedy died. IIRC, he was in town for his work as Pepsi's attorney.

Posted by beowulf | March 28, 2007 12:20 AM

Well, to paraphrase Mort Sahl, you feel old when you say "Yesterday was November 22nd" and the person you're talking too says "I never was much good at history".

For the benefit of those younger readers, Chief Justice Warren was the person who said we would not know the truth in our lifetime.

As for philosophy and the nature of knowledge, Matt would be the best source here. I'm a John Dewey man myself.

Posted by serial catowner | March 28, 2007 7:56 AM

MDS, if Reagan hatched a deal with the Ayatollah for Iran to hang on to the hostages, why would the Ayatollah or his folks not spill the beans at some point? what possible motive would they have to keep the silence? and what are the odds that no one on the US side of such a deal would speak out at some point, or make an ill advised concession while drunk or tired or incautious to someone who then would tell the world?

as for that election - Carter was massively unpopular. engaging in back channel deals with Iran to secure that election would be like Clinton securing Chinese $$ to beat Dole in 1996. not just implausible but a no brainer on the cost-benefit front.

finally, Congress - then held by the Democrats - investigated the theory and decided there was insufficient evidence for it. but maybe you think Congress was in on it too.

Posted by chris | March 28, 2007 9:35 AM