I just finished reading Gary Sick's book, October Surprise. Gary Sick was the head of the Iran desk in Carter's National Security Council. He tells the story of the plot on the part of the Reagan-Bush campaign to make a deal with the Iranians to prevent the release of the hostages until after the 1980 election.
I decided to read the book (Kevin Phillips used it in his American Dynasty) as a way to gain some perspective on our own potential October Suprise as well as for background on our current relationship with Iran (we know there have been some backroom dealings going on, and I'd love to guess out what they might be--some of the players, like Ghorbanifar and Laurence Silberman are still in the game, too). Anyway, here are my thoughts on what is a very worthy and (at this moment) timely read.
I should say, straight out, that Sick's book was discredited when it first appeared. He relies on a number of anonymous witnesses, and it took him until after Iran-Contra broke to form the conclusion that the Reagan-Bush campaign had pulled off an October Surprise. Later, corroborating evidence appeared, not least in Soviet spy files. I, however, found Sick's book surprisingly balanced, much more so than Phillips' book (better written, too). For example, Sick seems much more skeptical of one of the most incendiary allegations about the event, that Poppy Bush was involved in the negotiations with the Iranians. Further, he provides a balanced consideration of the validity of all the information he presents; I imagine this reflects his background working with intelligence.
Anyway, one of the things I tried to figure out was what made it possible to pull off the negotiations. One thing was that Carter had alienated the intelligence community. He had cut the number of covert agents from 1200 to 400, which meant there were a lot of people with really good contacts who had reason to work against Carter's re-election. One example of how this hurt Carter is that top-secret information (such as the plan for a second rescue attempt) found its way to the Reagan-Bush campaign within days. In addition, disgruntled intelligence personnel managed to keep the R-B camapign informed of the Carter negotiations with the Iranians. They even managed to turn one of the chief interlocutors with the Iranians into double agents, working both with the Carter administration and, more faithfully, with R-B.
Another thing that made the scheme possible was that Carter had alienated some key international players. Obviously, he had alienated Khomeini. Sick describes Khomeini's actions, at times, as motivated out of a visceral dislike of Carter. But Carter also alienated the Israelis, partly because of his tough stances at Camp David, partly because they felt he wasn't considering their interests. By the end, the Israelis gambled wholeheartedly on a Republican Administration, going so far as to send shipments of arms, against Carter's explicit request, before the election (they fudged it, so they could get the first shipment off before actually responding to Carter's inquiry about it).
The Israelis proved to be a real liability here. When Iran's military supply needs became dire after Iraq invaded, there were three possible sources (besides shady individual arms dealers): Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. The comment made me realize that in many ways Israel is as much of a rogue arms dealer as Pakistan and North Korea. But of course, they're our rogue arms dealer. The only problem is, Carter got stuck in a spot where they were dealing for the other side--and they managed to undermine US interests in the process.
Another key factor was Carter's principled nature. Up until the week before the election, he refused to consider dealing weapons to the Iranians in exchange for the hostages. Of course, since there was someone else who was willing to deal weapons (R-B), that meant that Carter was necessarily offering a less attractive deal. Not surprisingly, the Iranians went with the more lucrative offer. Sick explains, "By refusing to compromise for his own political advantage, Carter inadvertently helped to ensure that the hostages would not be released until the next administration took office."
I couldn't help but thinking, btw, that our principle and our unwillingness to put the interests of other parties (Israel) ahead of our own national interest is what gets Democrats looked on as so ineffectual from a security standpoint. It's ironic, I know, but if you're willing to basically bribe another party, you're more likely to get them to act reliably, rather than if you just try to deal with them honestly.
Finally, not surprisingly, R-B engaged in some of the same kind of directly contradictory disinformation they're spewing now. Reagan once said that "he would not be surprised if Iran released the hostages before the election since Iran probably preferred Carter to himself as President." Bush wondered whether Carter was going to pull an October Surprise, saying, "there's not a darned thing we can do about it." All the while, they're negotiating with Iran, asking them to hold 52 American citizens for an additional three months. Once Reagan was inaugurated, he kept spouting off about how he would never negotiate with terrorists, but of course, he got elected precisely by negotiating with terrorists. Reading about this didn't surprise me in the least, but boy did it seem familiar.
So what does this teach us with respect to the possibility of an October Surprise this year?? It's a remarkably parallel situation. Like Carter, Bush has pissed off some key international players. Also like Carter, Bush has profoundly angered a significant portion of the intelligence community; I suspect Poppy's influence will help to keep some of the intelligence community on their side, but many have already publicly sided with Kerry or at least against Bush. (I also have really big questions about how the intelligence community feels about the prospect of a Kerry presidency, given his history of leading investigations into CIA involvement with drugrunning; will they be thrilled because he (like Bush) has whitewashed stuff for them, or will they feel like they have a debt to settle??) But of course, we're not expecting an October surprise from Kerry; we're expecting it from Bush.
Reading this book made me feel like an October Surprise may be what is going on in Pakistan. Of course it'd be about bin Laden (and as with R-B, the timing of his capture). But what is in it for Pakistan? What interests would it serve Musharraf? It seems like it doesn't incease his political or life security at all. And the US is in a position to deal openly with Musharraf.
Anyway, I think Bush's similar positioning to Carter make it possible that, if they are trying to pull off an October Surprise, it might fail. I think it's hard enough because they're presumably dealing with Pakistan (since ISI agents are almost all playing it both ways all the time). But they also likely can't expect the support of the intelligence community. I suspect Israel is again voting for the Repeublicans (although I kept thinking of Kerry's backpedalling with Israeli policy issues when I was reading about Israeli behavior then). But clearly Bush can't count on the support of other allies (imagine if he needed help from the Turks, for example).
Anyway, I said above that "we're not expecting an October Surprise" from Kerry. But what if he could deliver one (I suspect he could, given some of the people he has working for him)?? Would I want my own side to pull an October Surprise if I knew it was the best (only) way of winning an election? Tough to say. I'm with Jimmy Carter here, I'd rather take the principled route. And after reading this book, I couldn't help but conclude that the Republican/Democratic divide in this country has less to do with policy and more to do with a split between putting a pursuit of power ahead of the interests of American versus putting the interests of America first. And I wonder, at times, whether allowing this regime to have another term won't mean the end of many things I hold dear in this country. So could you argue that it is in the best interest of the country to sponsor an October Surprise for our side?
I guess I'd rather reapply myself to finding an honest way of getting Kerry elected.