|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:20 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| As far as I know, Khomeini's alliance with the leftists ended pretty early on. |
The Reagan Administration made overtures. Through a high-ranking Soviet defector we came by an operational Russian intel net, widespread all over Iran. We gave it to Khomeini hoping to generate goodwill. The thing to do, the thing that everyone does, is you "turn" the net. You "double" the agents for counterintel purposes.
Khomeini simply killed them all, and their families, forthwith. We did not know how to communicate with him. And we did not know what he wanted. The man was insane.
In any case, but for his Stalinist outlook, he had no love affair with anything remotely Marxist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Just curious ... when are the two of you guys gonna get back to talking about Jimmy Carter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The Reagan Administration made overtures. Through a high-ranking Soviet defector we came by an operational Russian intel net, widespread all over Iran. We gave it to Khomeini hoping to generate goodwill. The thing to do, the thing that everyone does, is you "turn" the net. You "double" the agents for counterintel purposes.
Khomeini simply killed them all, and their families, forthwith. We did not know how to communicate with him. And we did not know what he wanted. The man was insane.
|
Really? I've never heard that before. Gotta say, that kind of backs up the left-wing idea that the Americans, at least occasionally, used Revolutionary Iran as Cold War allies.
I also find it a little hard to credit that the Americans were taken totally by surprise by Khomeini's brutal response. I mean, one of my more distinct political memories is watching a Carter-era newscast about the Iranians shooting communists all over the place. Though I guess those communists weren't possible intel assets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| ...kind of backs up the left-wing idea that the Americans, at least occasionally, used Revolutionary Iran as Cold War allies. |
This is no secret and we are not uncovering any conspiracies. Reagan's National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane imagined he could do for Reagan via Iran what Kissinger did for Nixon via China.
Never used Revolutionary Iran as Cold War allies. Tried and failed. Blew up in our faces in Iran-Contra, and not a little bumbling incompetence on our own side.
| On the other hand wrote: |
| I also find it a little hard to credit that the Americans were taken totally by surprise by Khomeini's brutal response. I mean, one of my more distinct political memories is watching a Carter-era newscast about the Iranians shooting communists all over the place. Though I guess those communists weren't possible intel assets. |
Shooting political threats is one thing. But one expects a more delicate and sophisticated, versatile and nuanced touch where diplomacy and espionage are concerned. The Khomeini govt just killed them. No one on the American side understood them or what they wanted or even how to talk to them after that.
These direct talks we are seeing now, over Iraq, are the first since then, by the way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
This is no secret and we are not uncovering any conspiracies. Reagan's National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane imagined he could do for Reagan via Iran what Kissinger did for Nixon via China.
|
Yes, I remember Reagan's first major TV speech after the Iran-Contra revelations, and he explicitly made the Nixon-China comparison to describe what they had supposedly been trying to do. But you know what. I had always assumed that that was just an after-the-fact rationalization for trading arms for hostages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| I had always assumed that that was just an after-the-fact rationalization for trading arms for hostages. |
No, that was the plan at the time, although Reagan's people inexplicably conflated three seperate issues. The arms were to secure the hostages' release, to generate money for the Contras, and to turn things around and generate goodwill in Tehran, as I mentioned above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The arms were to secure the hostages' release, to generate money for the Contras, and to turn things around and generate goodwill in Tehran |
Are you sure that the third reason(in red) wasn't just a cover story to be hauled out in case the arms-for-hostages plan got exposed?
Though I do remember something about a bible with a cake in it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Are you sure that the third reason(in red) wasn't just a cover story to be hauled out in case the arms-for-hostages plan got exposed? |
Yes. This was not an Idealistic "let-us-hold-hands-and-be-friends-for-friendship's-sake" endeavor anymore than Nixon's China-openning was. It was geopolitical. Win an ally and simultaneously deny the Soviets the same. But this realpolitik notwithstanding, apart from securing the hostages' release, it was indeed the Administration's most powerful motivator from the start: defeat an enemy by converting him into a friend and achieve historical greatness.
Look at the literature yourself. Reagan sent high-level emissaries with personal messages. McFarlane himself went to Tehran for talks, twice, I believe. Want refs?
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:31 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ever read this report?
| Tower Commission Report wrote: |
THE ARMS TRANSFERS TO IRAN
Two persistent concerns lay behind U.S. participation in arms transfers to Iran.
First, the U.S. Government anxiously sought the release of seven U.S. citizens abducted in Beirut, Lebanon, in seven separate incidents between March 7, 1984, and June 9, 1985. One of those abducted was William Buckley, C.I.A. station chief in Beirut, seized on March 16, 1984. Available intelligence suggested that most, if not all, of the Americans were held hostage by members of Hezbollah, a fundamentalist Shiite terrorist group with links to the regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Second, the U.S. Government had a latent and unresolved interest in establishing ties to Iran. Few in the U.S. Government doubted Iran's strategic importance or the risk of Soviet meddling in the succession crisis that might follow the death of Khomeini. For this reason, some in the U.S. Government were convinced that efforts should be made to open potential channels to Iran.
Arms transfers ultimately appeared to offer a means to achieve both the release of the hostages and a strategic opening to Iran. |
See Ambrose's post-Second World War history of American foreign relations and his bibliography -- I believe his book is called Rise to Globalism. See also Thomas McCormick's America's Half-Century, which gives a good account of what I am discussing here. And check out McFarlane's memoirs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bobster:
You see, ontheotherhand and gopher were engaged in what we like to term a reasonable exchange of views, something you are evidently adverse to.
So check in again when EFLT or some other flamer posts. That's more your speed.
On the other hand wrote:
| Quote: |
| Well, Khomeini's in power now, and seems to have pretty broad support. Not sure that there's much we can do besides recognize the regime, unless we wanna provoke a sh*tstorm in the region. |
You're getting your chronology confused. Carter warmed up to Khomeini before the Shah was close to being overthrown. His feeble and fruitless attempt to endear himself to this nutbag of a theocrat continued until the hostage crisis woke him from his slumber.
Carter relies on the good intentions of world leaders. While that might work with Western leaders, it hasn't with tin pot dictators like Khomeini or Castro, or for that matter strongmen like Mugabe and Arafat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Steve wrote:
| Quote: |
On the other hand wrote:
Quote:
Well, Khomeini's in power now, and seems to have pretty broad support. Not sure that there's much we can do besides recognize the regime, unless we wanna provoke a sh*tstorm in the region.
You're getting your chronology confused. Carter warmed up to Khomeini before the Shah was close to being overthrown. His feeble and fruitless attempt to endear himself to this nutbag of a theocrat continued until the hostage crisis woke him from his slumber.
|
The quote I was referencing was about Carter granting recognition to Khomeini's regime. That occured, of course, AFTER he came to power.
| Quote: |
| The Carter administration scrambled to assure the new regime that the United States would maintain diplomatic ties with Iran. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The US ought to have assassinated Khomeni before he came to power or at least thrown him in a secret prison somewhere. No trial, no jury just throw away the key.
The US missed a great chance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote:
| Quote: |
| No, that was the plan at the time, although Reagan's people inexplicably conflated three seperate issues. The arms were to secure the hostages' release, to generate money for the Contras, and to turn things around and generate goodwill in Tehran, as I mentioned above. |
and later:
| Quote: |
| Yes. This was not an Idealistic "let-us-hold-hands-and-be-friends-for-friendship's-sake" endeavor anymore than Nixon's China-openning was. It was geopolitical. Win an ally and simultaneously deny the Soviets the same. But this realpolitik notwithstanding, apart from securing the hostages' release, it was indeed the Administration's most powerful motivator from the start: defeat an enemy by converting him into a friend and achieve historical greatness. |
Yep, that's dead on the mark.
| Quote: |
| See Ambrose's post-Second World War history of American foreign relations and his bibliography -- I believe his book is called Rise to Globalism. |
I haven't read this book yet but I hear it's first-rate. What's your reaction to it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It is a reliable backgrounder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
