ARGO v. Reality: Iran's then president wanted hostages free, Reagan campaing didn't

[yurbud]

I have a feeling the real narrative is eventually going to win out.

Iran Contra started before Reagan was even president with a behind the scenes deal to delay the release of the hostages until after the election.

For some reason, Democrats never put this knife in the ribs of the GOP.

Or maybe if they tried, the media would suddenly become very interested in some celebrity's dysfunction, violent videogames, or steroid use by Dancing with the Stars contestants.

Bani-Sadr said he and all other major candidates for the Iranian presidency supported releasing the hostages. He noted that after taking that position, he won the election with 76 percent of the vote. He added:

“Overall, 96 percent of votes in that election were given to candidates who were against [the hostage-taking]. Hence, the movie misrepresents the Iranian government’s stand in regard to hostage-taking. It also completely misrepresents Iranians by portraying us as irrational people consumed by aggressive emotion.”

The October Surprise

However, after becoming president on Feb. 4, 1980, he found his efforts to resolve the hostage crisis thwarted. Bani-Sadr said he discovered that “Ayatollah Khomeini and Ronald Reagan had organized a clandestine negotiation, later known as the ‘October Surprise,’ which prevented the attempts by myself and then-U.S. President Jimmy Carter to free the hostages before the 1980 U.S. presidential election took place. The fact that they were not released tipped the results of the election in favor of Reagan.”

Though Bani-Sadr has talked and written about the Reagan-Khomeini collaboration before, he added in his commentary on “Argo” that “two of my advisors, Hussein Navab Safavi and Sadr-al-Hefazi, were executed by Khomeini’s regime because they had become aware of this secret relationship between Khomeini, his son Ahmad, the Islamic Republican Party, and the Reagan administration.”

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/07/october-surprise-and-argo/

[zbdent]

1. Remember, Bush43 made sure that sealed documents (I forget the actual term)

could not be released to the public while even one of those involved in the situations (not WMDs in Iraq) was alive, something along those lines.

My theory was that Nixon's "18 minute gap" had something to do with offing JFK, and the documents on the investigation of the assassination had some evidence ... hence, the documents could NEVER be released while those liable to be prosecuted were still alive.

You know, like someone who was awarded heading the CIA (and becoming VP candidate) as payback for covering up things ...

[busterbrown]

2. Thanks for reminding us...

I saw the film as well and don’t remember much being said about U.S. involvement in the
denationalizing Iran’s oil industry...

[Thinkingabout]

3. I agree, the history books should reflect the truth on this. Too many times has occurrences like

This happened and the water runs off and no hearings held. Dirty politics and covered up back room negotiating while leaving hostages in danger.

[FBaggins]

4. You've confused the characters in Argo with the hostages.

The escape took place about a year prior to the hostages being released.

Reagan wasn't the nominee at the time... he hadn't even won a primary state yet. Nor was Bani-Sadr president until a month later.

[yurbud]

6. Argo is the hook into this story for most people.

[Swede Atlanta]

5. This story, if true, does not surprise me........

Our government is NOT transparent nor operating in accordance with the Constitution.

It doesn't matter if you have Obama or Htiler in the WH, Democrats, Republicans or Thespians in control of Congress or a family of rabid dogs on the Supreme Court.

The people of this country have totally abandoned, and allowed to be abandoned, transparency in government and in those that pretend to office (e.g. Ronnie "Satan" Reagan).

[riverbendviewgal]

7. argo is not factually true

It is just a Hollywood movie. I wish people would read the true Canadian account. I am very disappointed with the writers.

[yurbud]

17. where's a good version of the Canadian story?

[customerserviceguy]

8. If that was the case

why didn't Khomeini release the hostages the day after the election? Waiting until Inauguration Day might have been about Khomeini wanting to stick it to Carter, but he could have released them the day after the election, when the wounds of losing would have been fresh.

[yurbud]

9. there's quite a bit of substantiating evidence for the October Surprise

from multiple reliable sources.

[customerserviceguy]

10. I've seen some of it, and I have some skepticism

but I do think Bani-Sadr is trying to rewrite history to make himself and the Iranian people look blameless. They did turn into irrational fanatics, I've had the opportunity to meet quite a few people that were chased out of that country by the Islamic fundamentalists.

[yurbud]

15. if it was just him, maybe. But there are too many other sources along with

the Iran Contra era relationship that had to start sometime.

[CJCRANE]

11. In terms of pure theater

releasing them on Inauguration Day was better.

Carter was still president during the transition period.

ETA: Plus if there was a collusion it would have been way too obvious if they were released the day after the election!

[customerserviceguy]

12. Perhaps

but if the idea was to fulfill a deal cut with the Reagan campaign, the day after the election would have been good theater, too. In fact, having it happen a few days after the election would have guaranteed that it was the top story of the day, after the news cycle was through dissecting the 1980 election. You avoid the costs of keeping the hostages, you perhaps get some good will with the rest of the world, and you don't look like you released them out of fear of Ronald Reagan, which is exactly what this timing accomplished.

Of course, if you do believe that the Reagan campaign stuck this bargain, then you might well believe that the Ayatollah was willing to look scared of us as part of the deal. I don't buy that. I think Bani-Sadr has been ignored for thirty years, and the success of the Argo movie is just one last attempt of his to be able to rewrite history so he doesn't totally look like a weak leader who let Islamic fundamentalists get the better of him.

[CJCRANE]

13. I don't get your logic.

How is it good theater if it's a day or two after the election?

That just makes it seem like they were waiting for Reagan to win.

A couple of months later gives them time for it to look like some extra negotiations have taken place.

Plus Reagan gets an extra boost to the idea that his term in office is a new "morning in America".

I don't know either way, but based on the idea of collusion my theory makes as much sense as yours.

[customerserviceguy]

14. I assume there are financial, military and political costs to holding the hostages

Every day, these costs mount. An October surprise implies that the Reagan campaign gave the Khomeini regime something in exchange for those costs.

We know that souring the election for Carter was indeed one of those compensations, but what else could there have been after that, which would have been significant? You've already made Carter look like a weak leader and lose an election with it, why wait until Inauguration Day, and make it look like you're scared of what that big, bad Reagan is going to do to you? And that's just the way it looked.

Do you really think that the Ayatollah wanted to give Reagan big of a prize? I can see him wanting to defeat Carter, but I cannot see him unnecessarily wanting to support Reagan. Unless you believe that was part of the "deal", and that's what Bani-Sadr is trying to sell here. I'm just not biting.

[yurbud]

16. so you haven't heard of the under the table weapons the Reagan administration gave Iran

as the Iran part of the Iran Contra scandal?

[customerserviceguy]

18. I've always thought of that as something totally separate

Arms for hostages, that I could understand. Any evidence we were supplying arms to Iran prior to the Oliver North overtures to them to get the hostages in Lebanon freed?

Also, the Reagan administration was supplying satellite intelligence to Iraq, so as to keep the two of them fighting each other, and not focused on fighting the Western world.

In any case, I still call BS on whatever lame-ass excuse that Bani-Sadr is trying to pass off. I have no belief in his statement that he wanted to release the hostages, or was ever in any position to do so.