Skip to main content

View Diary: Ari Fleischer Forgets About Iran-Contra, Again (13 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Eh, believe what you want... (3+ / 0-)

    ...they delayed the release to humiliate Carter for his support of the deposed Shah, not because they were afraid of Reagan. And if they were truly afraid of Reagan during the 1981-86 period, they would not have managed to get thousands of anti-tank missiles in exchange for the release of several hostages. It's absurd to view that as the action or position of a scared party.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 10:38:40 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  It's not my beliefs, it's well documented (0+ / 0-)

      e.g., from wikipedia:

      Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the United States made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, normalizing relations with the government, supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.[3][13]

      President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, signing National Security Study Directive (NSSD) 4-82 and selecting Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984.[14] According to U.S. ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, far from winning the conflict, "the Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose."[15]

      In 1982, Iraq was removed from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country. According to investigative journalist Alan Friedman, Secretary of State Alexander Haig was "upset at the fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the State Department was responsible for the list."[3] "I was not consulted," Haig is said to have complained.

      Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983.[16] According to his 1995 affidavit and separate interviews with former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and hi-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same:

      [T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.[17]

      So, if the reference Ari made was to Reagan's second inauguration, then all of what is described above that had already transpired quite rightly would/should have make/made the Iranians rather afraid of him IMHO.

      Whether or not they're afraid of Obama is an entirely separate issue (for me, if they're not, that's a good thing because foreign policy based on fear isn't really the way to go . .. ).

      •  Before and during the second inaugural... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eyesbright

        ...Iran was getting arms thanks to President Reagan's administration. Support of Iraq doesn't undo that. In late 1985 and 1986, Iran shouldn't have been afraid of Reagan because of support of Iraq, given that his administration was assisting them beyond their wildest dreams in fighting off Iraqi tanks.

        it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

        by Addison on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 10:52:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  From everything I've seen, the Reagan (0+ / 0-)

          administration's support for Iraq was much more substantial than for Iran during that era.

          Indeed, how else could have Iraq fought Iran to a veritable standstill?

          To me, if somebody claims to be my friend/ally and then at the same time is supporting my mortal enemy to a greater degree - I'd be afraid, very afraid of them.  You know, what with the inherent treachery and all.

          But you seem to feel quite differently. I don't understand why, but whatever.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site