Carter & Iran Hostages: What Really Happened?

This could make people rethink that Iran hostage crisis that cost Jimmy Carter his presidency.


"Now, a newly disclosed secret history from the offices of Mr. Rockefeller shows in vivid detail how Chase Manhattan Bank and its well-connected chairman worked behind the scenes to persuade the Carter administration to admit the shah, one of the bank’s most profitable clients..."

How a Chase Bank Chairman Helped the Deposed Shah of Iran Enter the U.S.

 

I'd like to see more coverage on the TV news on this. This should be bigger news. Especially if Carter had been deliberately deceived.


"Carter reluctantly brought the shah to the U.S. because he was told that Mohammad Reza Shah was very sick, and he could only get the treatment he needed in New York. Smith says when he asked Carter in 1981 why he admitted the shah, his answer revealed he was misinformed about the shah’s health..."

Carter, Rockefeller And The Shah Of Iran: What 1979 Can Teach Us About The Dangers Of Shadow Diplomacy

 

This Rockefeller info is recent.

Many feel Jimmy Carter had a failed presidency because of the Iran hostage crisis. This info gives new things to take into account.

 

Well, he was president when I was born so I guess I'm qualified to chime in. I couldn't read the whole article because I browse with "InPrivate" mode equipped and the New York Times doesn't allow that. But I was able to grab the headline...

 

I think so too. On the other hand, i noticed a disturbing amount of people have no clue about the details. But they often think they know everything about the iranian-american relation and history.

 

As others have said, lots of detail in the NY Times article, but nothing particularly noteworthy - no great new revelation.

Aside from the intricate detail, the basic thrust of the article is that the Shah was nowhere near as ill as Carter was told in 1979. Oh, pish tosh! The Shah had advanced-stage cancer and, in fact, died in July 1980. That detail is buried near the end of the article. The man was at death's door, and Carter had a soft heart. He still does, and it's one of Carter's lasting and endearing qualities. It is difficult to imagine that this would have played out any differently if someone other than Chase executives had been acting on the Shah's behalf. Carter would have allowed him into the US for treatment and to die, just as he did. If that cost him another 4 years in the oval office, and it's a strained causal linkage, it actually worked out well for Carter. He's done tremendous good in the world since 1980, and enjoyed a long life as a private citizen.

As great conspiracies of the past century go, this one belongs nowhere on the list. The only people who would be surprised at the lengths to which bankers would go for wealthy clients, an extremely wealthy client in this particular case, are people who have never had much money, such as journalists. I've never had much money, but I have worked for large global banking companies, and I can assure you that the ultra-rich receive treatment and services from the people who handle and manage their money and investments that most of us could not imagine, and I'm not ralking about thick carpeting and comfortable chairs in a bank lobby.

 

"The hostage crisis doomed Mr. Carter’s presidency. And the team around Mr. Rockefeller, a lifelong Republican with a dim view of Mr. Carter’s dovish foreign policy, collaborated closely with the Reagan campaign in its efforts to pre-empt and discourage what it derisively labeled an “October surprise” — a pre-election release of the American hostages, the papers show.

The Chase team helped the Reagan campaign gather and spread rumors about possible payoffs to win the release, a propaganda effort that Carter administration officials have said impeded talks to free the captives..."-NY Times


I think this would be the main thing. How much does this recent Rockefeller info support this claim in that NY Times article? Is there evidence to demonstrate any shenanigans on the part of David Rockefeller to delay the release of those hostages to benefit Reagan?

 

But that was not the single reason carter lost. His own party didn’t like him. Isn’t this true? As well as a high unemployment rate cause dissatisfaction with Carter.

 

I seem to remember the inflation rate at the time was in double-digits. There were long lines at gas stations because the price of gasoline was going up daily if not hourly. Interest rates set by the Federal Reserve, not by the President, were also double digits thereby crushing any economic growth. There was a lot more to Carter's defeat in 1980 than just the Iran crisis. Carter had the widespread image of a man in over his head, and that image was just too much too overcome at election time. When Reagan asked his famous line "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" most Americans, including many who voted for Carter, had to admit to themselves that they were not. And I say all this as someone who voted for Jimmy Carter both in 1976 and again in 1980. But looking back I think the country would have been better off if Gerald Ford had been elected in 1976.

 

Carter dropped the ball badly when the hostages were taken. While he sat on his hands Ross Perot flew to Iran with a sack of cash to bribe the Iranians into keeping the hostages out of the prisons and safely secluded. By the time Carter grew a spine, his cuts to the military budget became painfully obvious when the only rescue effort went horribly wrong. Among the problems was using helicopters made for naval deployment, in the desert.

All of this made it too easy for Reagan to wipe the floor with Carter in the debates.

Not that I give Reagan any kudos for his middle east policies. When over 200 Americans were killed by a truck bomb outside of their barracks in Beirut. So what did Reagan do? He pulled everyone out of Lebanon, to go invade a Caribbean island full of med school flunkies. This provided a smokescreen for all kinds of CIA actions in the middle east directed by GHW Bush.