Reagan, GOP electoral politics, and Iran

[Londoner]

One of the most troubling alliances over the past 50 years is the one between Reagan and Iran. This relationship came to light during Iran Contra when it was revealed that Reagan sold weapons to Iran to fund terrorist rebels in South America.

The most troubling aspect of the relationship was the meetings that members of Reagan's team had with Iranian officials (mostly by proxy) while Carter was still in office. Reagan's team basically said they would "play ball" with Iran (which they did) whereas Carter was treating them as an enemy. This lead to the delayed release of the hostages, and it set the stage for 6 years of back-door negotiations between Reagan & Iran (which came to light during the Iran-Contra trial).

Iran is about to topple Obama through the coming gas spike.

I have a question. How much do Republicans know about Iran-Contra? After all, Reagan is the father of the New Right. He is arguably one of the two or three most important and respected Conservative presidents in US history. He based his presidency on fighting evil-doers, he was a vocal opponent of terrorism, yet much of his presidency rotated around a partnership with Iran, the leading terrorist state.

How much do Republican voters know about Reagan's relationship to Iran? Do they know anything about Reagan's relationship to Hussein? Or the fact that he singled-handedly removed Iraq from the official list of terrorist nations?

Why is this part of the Reagan presidency suppressed? It is very easily researched. What don't we know about Iran, Reagan, and electoral politics?

 

[imbalance]

Reagan's relationship with Iran has been suppressed, I assume, because it undermines the US' anti-Iran propaganda campaign. The fact is, though, before Iran became a threat to US petrodollar hegemony it -- along with Iraq -- was the prime Cold War target of Soviet imperialism. The threat of Iran to the US was the threat of a Soviet Iran. The threat of Iraq to the US was the threat of a Soviet Iraq. The US could not allow the USSR to ally with either, nor could the US allow the USSR to manipulate a scenario where the US became an official military enemy of either. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

All told, the Iran-Iraq War effectively disarmed Soviet power grabs in the region and thus became a net Cold War victory for the US over the USSR:

The policy of the Soviet Union towards the Iran–Iraq War of 1980 to 1988 varied, beginning with a stance of "strict neutrality" and moving towards massive military support for Iraq in the final phase of the war. The war was inconvenient for the USSR, which had aimed to ally itself with both Iran and Iraq. In the first period of the war, the Soviets declared a policy of "strict neutrality" towards the two countries, at the same time urging a negotiated peace. Iraq had been an ally for decades and the Soviets now tried to win over Iran as well, but their offers of friendship were rebuffed by the Iranian leadership, whose slogan was "neither East nor West". In 1982, the war turned in Iran's favour and the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini pledged not to stop the conflict until he had overthrown the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Such a prospect was unacceptable to the Soviet Union which now resumed arms sales to Iraq while still maintaining an official policy of neutrality. The Soviets also feared losing Saddam's friendship to the West. After further Iranian gains in 1986, the Soviet Union massively increased its military aid to Iraq. The Soviets were now afraid of the Iranians encouraging Islamic revolution in Central Asia. Soviet aid allowed the Iraqis to mount a counteroffensive which brought the war to an end in August, 1988.

more: The Soviet Union and the Iran

There was motive for Reagan to play both sides arming both Iran and Iraq. Say what you will about the underhanded nature of this kind of foreign policy, but Reagan got what he wanted in regards to the big picture vs USSR without engaging the US in a foreign war. The US' problems with Iran today have little to do with Reagan's Cold War maneuvering, they are fundamental fractures resulting from the West's routing of Iranian sovereignty beginning in WWII. If anything, Reagan's attempt to open relations with Iran was unfortunate in that it was so small in scope.

 

[rdean]

One of the most troubling alliances over the past 50 years is the one between Reagan and Iran. This relationship came to light during Iran Contra when it was revealed that Reagan sold weapons to Iran to fund terrorist rebels in South America.

The most troubling aspect of the relationship was the meetings that members of Reagan's team had with Iranian officials (mostly by proxy) while Carter was still in office. Reagan's team basically said they would "play ball" with Iran (which they did) whereas Carter was treating them as an enemy. This lead to the delayed release of the hostages, and it set the stage for 6 years of back-door negotiations between Reagan & Iran (which came to light during the Iran-Contra trial).

Iran is about to topple Obama through the coming gas spike.

I have a question. How much do Republicans know about Iran-Contra? After all, Reagan is the father of the New Right. He is arguably one of the two or three most important and respected Conservative presidents in US history. He based his presidency on fighting evil-doers, he was a vocal opponent of terrorism, yet much of his presidency rotated around a partnership with Iran, the leading terrorist state.

How much do Republican voters know about Reagan's relationship to Iran? Do they know anything about Reagan's relationship to Hussein? Or the fact that he singled-handedly removed Iraq from the official list of terrorist nations?

Why is this part of the Reagan presidency suppressed? It is very easily researched. What don't we know about Iran, Reagan, and electoral politics?

Republicans don't need to actually know anything. All the important stuff, they simply "make up".

Everyone knows that. Even Republicans.

 

[imbalance]

One of the most troubling alliances over the past 50 years is the one between Reagan and Iran. This relationship came to light during Iran Contra when it was revealed that Reagan sold weapons to Iran to fund terrorist rebels in South America.

The most troubling aspect of the relationship was the meetings that members of Reagan's team had with Iranian officials (mostly by proxy) while Carter was still in office. Reagan's team basically said they would "play ball" with Iran (which they did) whereas Carter was treating them as an enemy. This lead to the delayed release of the hostages, and it set the stage for 6 years of back-door negotiations between Reagan & Iran (which came to light during the Iran-Contra trial).

Iran is about to topple Obama through the coming gas spike.

I have a question. How much do Republicans know about Iran-Contra? After all, Reagan is the father of the New Right. He is arguably one of the two or three most important and respected Conservative presidents in US history. He based his presidency on fighting evil-doers, he was a vocal opponent of terrorism, yet much of his presidency rotated around a partnership with Iran, the leading terrorist state.

How much do Republican voters know about Reagan's relationship to Iran? Do they know anything about Reagan's relationship to Hussein? Or the fact that he singled-handedly removed Iraq from the official list of terrorist nations?

Why is this part of the Reagan presidency suppressed? It is very easily researched. What don't we know about Iran, Reagan, and electoral politics?

Republicans don't need to actually know anything. All the important stuff, they simply "make up".

Everyone knows that. Even Republicans.

define "Republicans"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberals hate Reagan for confronting and defeating their home team the USSR all over the planet

 

[Flopper]

I doubt very seriously that Republicans today have any interest in Reagan's dealing with Iran.

 

[waltky]

Iran not bein' above board an' up front...

'Iran is not telling us everything,' U.N. atomic agency chief says
Wed March 7, 2012 - Inspectors want to enter Iran's Parchin military base to investigate evidence of activities there.

Iran is not open about its nuclear program, but it should be, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Wednesday. "Iran is not telling us everything. That is my impression. We are asking Iran to engage with us proactively, and Iran has a case to answer," said Yukiya Amano, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Amano told CNN Senior International Correspondent Matthew Chance that Iran has declared a number of nuclear facilities to the IAEA, which has them under its safeguards. "For these facilities and activities, I can tell that they are in peaceful purpose," Amano said. "But there are also, there may be other facilities which are not declared, and we have the indication or information that Iran has engaged in activities relevant to the development of nuclear explosive devices."

Also Wednesday, a Western diplomat here said that the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany -- the so-called P5-plus-1 -- have agreed on a joint statement on Iran, which will be delivered Thursday to the IAEA. "The statement underlines our concerns about Iran's nuclear activities, including its uranium enrichment activities at Natanz and Fordow," the diplomat said. "It calls on the director general of the IAEA to report back on Iran's progress in fulfilling its obligations."

Diplomats at the IAEA say the statement is notable because it represents a unified message from a group that has often had difficulty speaking with one voice. "The hope is it helps isolate Iran and indicates that Russia and China are in the West's camp in calling on Iran to comply," the diplomat said. The United States, France, Britain, China, Russia and Germany agreed Tuesday to resume negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Iran signaled a willingness to let international inspectors visit a key military base that international inspectors suspect could be involved in a nuclear weapons program.

More 'Iran is not telling us everything,' U.N. atomic agency chief says - CNN.com

 

[BreezeWood]

Reagan's team basically said they would "play ball" with Iran (which they did) whereas Carter was treating them as an enemy.

That must be where Bush learned WMD ... still siding with Iran.

 

[waltky]

Netanyahu: Iran Strike Won't Come In Days, But Years...

PM: Iran strike won't come in days, but not matter of years
3/08/2012 - Netanyahu tells Channel 2 he "hopes pressure on Iran will work," rendering military attack against nuclear facilities unnecessary, but says not pulling trigger on strike may endanger Israel's existence.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed the timeline of a potential attack against Iran in an excerpt of a Channel 2 interview aired Thursday, saying an attack would not come in "a matter of days or weeks, but it's also not a matter of years." Netanyahu emphasized that an attack against Iran is not a foregone conclusion, and that a diplomatic solution to the threat of Iran's nuclear program may still be found. "I hope that the pressure on Iran will work and we can peacefully convince them to tear down their nuclear program," the prime minister stated.

Netanyahu admitted that having to decide whether to launch a military strike against Iran was a great responsibility, saying that if the correct decision was not taken, there might not be a future generation to which he would have to explain his decision-making process. The prime minister's turn to the Israeli media after his recent trip to the United States in which he met with US President Barack Obama also included an interview with Channel 10 which was aired in part on Thursday.

In the Channel 10 interview, Netanyahu addressed the harassment scandal surrounding former Prime Minister's Office chief of staff Natan Eshel, saying the charges against him were "very harsh." Eshel resigned last month from his post after admitting to misconduct after other senior PMO officials brought charges against Eshel for harassing a female staffer. The prime minister said while he thought the staffers who broke news of Eshel's relationship with the female staffer to the attorney-general's office "acted well," they should have approached Netanyahu first.

PM: Iran strike won't come in da... JPost - Iranian Threat - News

See also:

Israel asks U.S. for arms that could aid Iran strike
Thu Mar 8, 2012 - * White House says no agreement reached on arms request * Netanyahu told Obama no decision on Iran attack made

(Reuters) - Israel has asked the United States for advanced "bunker-buster" bombs and refueling planes that could improve its ability to attack Iran's underground nuclear sites, an Israeli official said on Thursday. "Such a request was made" around the time of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington this week, the official said, confirming media reports. But the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the issue, played down as "unrealistic" Israeli reports that the United States would condition supplying the hardware on Israel promising not to attack Iran this year.

White House spokesman Jay Carney, asked whether the Israelis had made such a request to U.S. officials during the visit, said "there was no such agreement proposed or reached" in President Barack Obama's meetings with Netanyahu or his aides. But when asked if the matter was raised with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta or other U.S. officials, Carney told reporters he had no information on that. "I would refer you to other officials," he said. A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that military capabilities came up in discussions between Netanyahu and Panetta but did not elaborate. No deals were struck during those talks, the official added.

Netanyahu made clear to Obama at a White House meeting on Monday that Israel had not yet decided on military action against Iran, the White House has said. Netanyahu has hinted that Israel could resort to force should Tehran - which denies suspicions that it is covertly trying to develop atomic bombs - continue to defy big powers' diplomatic pressure to curb its nuclear program. The risk of an Israeli-Iranian war troubles Obama, who is up for re-election in November and has cautioned against sparking greater Mideast turmoil, though he has also asserted that military action remains an option if sanctions fail. A Gulf conflict could send oil prices soaring.

A front-page article in the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Thursday said Obama had told Netanyahu Washington would supply Israel with upgraded military equipment in return for assurances there would be no attack on Iran in 2012. Israel is widely assumed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal but its conventional firepower may not be enough to deliver lasting damage to Iran's distant, dispersed and well-fortified facilities, many experts say. Israel has limited stocks of older, smaller bunker-busting bombs and a small fleet of refueling planes, all supplied by Washington. Western powers suspect Iran's uranium enrichment program is aimed at stockpiling fissile material for nuclear weapons. Iran says it is strictly for civilian energy uses.

Source

 

[The Rabbi]

One of the most troubling alliances over the past 50 years is the one between Reagan and Iran. This relationship came to light during Iran Contra when it was revealed that Reagan sold weapons to Iran to fund terrorist rebels in South America.

The most troubling aspect of the relationship was the meetings that members of Reagan's team had with Iranian officials (mostly by proxy) while Carter was still in office. Reagan's team basically said they would "play ball" with Iran (which they did) whereas Carter was treating them as an enemy. This lead to the delayed release of the hostages, and it set the stage for 6 years of back-door negotiations between Reagan & Iran (which came to light during the Iran-Contra trial).

Iran is about to topple Obama through the coming gas spike.

I have a question. How much do Republicans know about Iran-Contra? After all, Reagan is the father of the New Right. He is arguably one of the two or three most important and respected Conservative presidents in US history. He based his presidency on fighting evil-doers, he was a vocal opponent of terrorism, yet much of his presidency rotated around a partnership with Iran, the leading terrorist state.

How much do Republican voters know about Reagan's relationship to Iran? Do they know anything about Reagan's relationship to Hussein? Or the fact that he singled-handedly removed Iraq from the official list of terrorist nations?

Why is this part of the Reagan presidency suppressed? It is very easily researched. What don't we know about Iran, Reagan, and electoral politics?

If it's easily researched, then it is not suppressed, turdface.
Why do you bring up a 30 year old incident? Is it to make Obama look better somehow?
Reagan lived in a different time and there were different conditions. The main threat was communism and the Soviet Union. Making a deal to enable defeating communism was a reasonable bargain. Obama's failed Iran policy is not.

 

[editec]

Iran's mullahs depend on the American right to saber rattle so that the Mullahs can tell the Iranian people that America is about to go to war with them.

Meanwhile we know that Reagan and the Mullahs conspired to defeat Carter 1980 relection bid and to arm terrorists, too.

Republicans seem to love Reagan despite all that.

Nobody whyo understands the modern GOP is surprised that they did this, Londoner

We all know neocons put party before country

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Don't forget Democrat Jimmy Carter turned Iran over to the Islamists in the first place

 

[JoeB131]

One of the most troubling alliances over the past 50 years is the one between Reagan and Iran. This relationship came to light during Iran Contra when it was revealed that Reagan sold weapons to Iran to fund terrorist rebels in South America.

The most troubling aspect of the relationship was the meetings that members of Reagan's team had with Iranian officials (mostly by proxy) while Carter was still in office. Reagan's team basically said they would "play ball" with Iran (which they did) whereas Carter was treating them as an enemy. This lead to the delayed release of the hostages, and it set the stage for 6 years of back-door negotiations between Reagan & Iran (which came to light during the Iran-Contra trial).

Iran is about to topple Obama through the coming gas spike.

The allegations that Reagan had dealing with Iran before taking office have been investigated and exposed as pure bunk. It's up there with Truthers and Birthers in batshit crazy land.

It's also dishonest to say that the Hostage Crisis is what did Carter in. What did Carter in was gas lines (where he tried to manage the crisis by rationing gasoline instead of increasing production) double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, double digit interest rates, along with the fact John Anderson gave liberals somewhere else to go.

If it had not been for the hostage crisis (which Carter could have ended in five minutes by handing over the Shah) Teddy Kennedy would have stolen the nomination from him. He called it "The Rose Garden Strategy" of looking presidential while Teddy nipped at his heels. Carter tried to pull the same shit with Reagan, but people weren't buying it.

Now, at the risk of entertaining more batshit crazy, we have this.

I have a question. How much do Republicans know about Iran-Contra? After all, Reagan is the father of the New Right. He is arguably one of the two or three most important and respected Conservative presidents in US history. He based his presidency on fighting evil-doers, he was a vocal opponent of terrorism, yet much of his presidency rotated around a partnership with Iran, the leading terrorist state.

How much do Republican voters know about Reagan's relationship to Iran? Do they know anything about Reagan's relationship to Hussein? Or the fact that he singled-handedly removed Iraq from the official list of terrorist nations?

Why is this part of the Reagan presidency suppressed? It is very easily researched. What don't we know about Iran, Reagan, and electoral politics?

Iran-Contra happened because there were hostages in Lebanon, and he sold obsolete weapons to the Iranians at four times their market value to get those folks out. The Democrats tried to make hay out of it, but all it took was the daughter of one hostage saying, "Thank you for saving my daddy" to shut those fucks up.

As for Iraq- Yup, Hussein fooled the world. Not just Reagan, but the entire world into thinking he was a reasonable, secular leader who was modernizing his country and was the bullwark against the crazy Mullahs in Iran. The real problem in the Middle East is that we are trying to run it by proxy, as occupying it colonially bankrupted Europe. But Proxies have their own agendas.

 

[JoeB131]

Iran's mullahs depend on the American right to saber rattle so that the Mullahs can tell the Iranian people that America is about to go to war with them.

Meanwhile we know that Reagan and the Mullahs conspired to defeat Carter 1980 relection bid and to arm terrorists, too.

Republicans seem to love Reagan despite all that.

Nobody whyo understands the modern GOP is surprised that they did this, Londoner

We all know neocons put party before country

You do realize that the whole "October Surprise" thing was investigated by an independent council and found to be utter bunk, don't you?

Or do little things like "facts" not matter to you?

 

[editec]

Don't forget Democrat Jimmy Carter turned Iran over to the Islamists in the first place

You think?

Time for you to read some history, then, Cru.

You have got to be the most ill-informed person posting on this board.

Seriously, Cru, is everything you know wrong?

 

[Sallow]

Reagan lied to congress, broke the law and committed treason.

He SHOULD have been impeached and removed from office.

Instead, he issued a lame assed apology.

He didn't remember.

 

[Sallow]

Don't forget Democrat Jimmy Carter turned Iran over to the Islamists in the first place

So you think the CIA coup was legit?

Really?

 

[JoeB131]

Reagan lied to congress, broke the law and committed treason.

He SHOULD have been impeached and removed from office.

Instead, he issued a lame assed apology.

He didn't remember.

More like, he got hostages out of lebanon.

And no one was going to impeach a President for saving American lives.

Also, no laws were actually broken.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Don't forget Democrat Jimmy Carter turned Iran over to the Islamists in the first place

So you think the CIA coup was legit?

Really?

We did it your way and handed it to the Islamists, how'd that work out for us?

 

[code1211]

One of the most troubling alliances over the past 50 years is the one between Reagan and Iran. This relationship came to light during Iran Contra when it was revealed that Reagan sold weapons to Iran to fund terrorist rebels in South America.

The most troubling aspect of the relationship was the meetings that members of Reagan's team had with Iranian officials (mostly by proxy) while Carter was still in office. Reagan's team basically said they would "play ball" with Iran (which they did) whereas Carter was treating them as an enemy. This lead to the delayed release of the hostages, and it set the stage for 6 years of back-door negotiations between Reagan & Iran (which came to light during the Iran-Contra trial).

Iran is about to topple Obama through the coming gas spike.

I have a question. How much do Republicans know about Iran-Contra? After all, Reagan is the father of the New Right. He is arguably one of the two or three most important and respected Conservative presidents in US history. He based his presidency on fighting evil-doers, he was a vocal opponent of terrorism, yet much of his presidency rotated around a partnership with Iran, the leading terrorist state.

How much do Republican voters know about Reagan's relationship to Iran? Do they know anything about Reagan's relationship to Hussein? Or the fact that he singled-handedly removed Iraq from the official list of terrorist nations?

Why is this part of the Reagan presidency suppressed? It is very easily researched. What don't we know about Iran, Reagan, and electoral politics?

Your understanding omits that whole Cold War thingy.