Carter’s Legacy
Jimmy Carter is proud of the mistakes he made in the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. He brags to this day of how he talked tough to the mullahs, conveying the message quietly that if any of the hostages were harmed, he would blockade Iran’s ports. He froze the Iranian government’s assets in the United Sattes and began what was essentially ransom negotiations with kidnappers.
Carter’s resolve not to do anything sent a clear message to Iran: It’s party time with American prestige and power in the world. The 53 hostages came home alive, and thousands of people have died since as a direct result of Iran’s boldness and deceit, including hundreds of Americans murdered in cold blood. Iran did not get the Shah, the original object of the hostage seizure, but it got the gift that just keeps giving. The knowledge it can flout international law and push around opponents well over its weight. It has been spreading terrorism throughout the Middle East ever since, sparking and fanning the flames of war.
Iran has fallen back on a tried-and-true tactic with the seizure of 15 Royal Navy sailor and Royal Marines who were engaged in security operations in Iraqi waters. There has been some debate about whether this was planned out, at what level, and what the precise objective of this action might be. As the British remain in Iranian custody, under threat of trial for espionage, none of that matters. The opportunity Iran has seized is clear enough. Iran is trying to throw its opponents off balance at a critical moment both in the insurgency in Iraq and in the nuclear debate in the United Nations. Iran is trying to divide and conquer, peeling the British away from the United States. Iran is also engaged in measured brinksmanship, gambling that it can bring about a humiliation in advance of any military action, heightening the western public’s fears and wearing down will for a confrontation. Iran has cleverly recognized that by seizing Brits instead of Americans, it greatly reduces the likelihood of an American response.
Tony Blair said yesterday, “I would hope that this is resolved in the next few days. The quicker it is resolved, the easier it will be for all of us.” Hopefully this is the “speaking softly” part of Teddy Roosevelt’s famous line, for public consumption. The Iranians do not appear to be particularly intimidated.
Typically in the past, in cases such as the Chinese detention of American naval aviators forced down in a collision with a Chinese fighter in 2000, and the seizure of British soldiers by Iran in 2004, the aggrieved party puts up with some public humiliation and plays it low key in order to get its people back alive.
The case here is different. The extent of Iranian interference in Iraq has become clear since 2004. The state of cold war that has existed between the United States and Iran since 1979 has turned into a hot proxy war as Iran floods weapons and cash into Iraq, training terrorists to fight there and even sending its own special forces in to support militias and insurgents. It is on the verge of turning into a direct military confrontation, though arguably with this act against an American ally and other acts against Americans, it already has. Iran is a party to the intentional murder of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. There is also evidence that Iran is heavily involved in southern Iraq, and may well be responsible for the murder of British soldiers there. The British are our allies in this fight. The seizure of Britons is no different than a seizure of Americans. The Iranians have chosen to pick on them as the weaker party, calculating that Blair as a lame duck, with anti-war sentiment high, will do nothing. Iran calculates that new British leadership will want less to do with the United States in Iraq and may be more willing to deal on terms favorable to Iran. Iran’s timing is impeccable.
The question now is whether Iran has miscalculated, and if our leadership has the will to present a strong, united front against Iran in the interest of peace in the Middle East. The United States, conscious of political weakness at home, has been slowly building the case against Iran and acting in a measured fashion with the seizure of Iranian agents well inside Iraq. It has not attacked the supply lines and terrorist training camps in Iran. But it is increasingly clear that security in Iraq relies in large part on Iran’s respect for Iraq’s borders. But Iran has shown no desire to stop meddling violently in Iraq, and it is time for the next step in a measured response to Iran’s aggression.
The British crisis is a provocation that provides an opportunity to send a big-stick message to Iran. It is precisely the message Jimmy Carter should have quietly conveyed 28 years ago. You’ve had your fun. If they are not free in two days, we will blockade your country. Nothing gets in or out. Two days after that, we will destroy your oil-producing infrastructure. We then have a very long list of your military, political and civilian infrastructure that supports your terrorist and nuclear ambitions that we will begin destroying. We do not intend to invade you. We have no need nor interest in doing so.
When the ships and aircraft are in place and the cruise missiles have been launched, George Bush and Tony Blair can announce that in defense of Allied and Iraqi lives, to prevent further incursions and terrorist acts that are destabilizing Iraq, it has become necessary to reduce Iran’s capacity for causing further mayhem in the Middle East.
There may be a perception that Bush and Blair as lame ducks are incapable for forceful action. Bush has already shown that not to be the case, and in wartime, aggressive leadership in defiance of domestic political weakness is often called for. It should not be a political calculation … both leaders are increasingly immune from that concern. It is a military calculation. Do we have the capacity to reduce and contain Iran militarily? If that answer to that is no, then we need to develop it. Quickly.
There may be a public impression that precipitous action will endanger the lives of the British sailors and Marines and risk open warfare with Iran, at a time when the public is weary of war. This needs to be countered with the clear illustration that lack of action by the United States, Britain and the rest of the free world against Iran has cost, and continues to cost, thousands of lives, in open warfare from Lebanon to Iraq.
Iran can forestall this by releasing the prisoners. They may couch their magnanimous action in any face-saving terms they care to.
Should Iran see reason and release the British prisoners, an additional message needs to be quietly conveyed.
Any and all incursions into Iraqi territory henceforth will be met with overwhelming force, to include hot pursuit across the border and targeting of terrorist infrastructure there. We might finally then see a formal end to the Carter era of U.S.-Iranian relations and let the mullahs know: The party’s over.
Roundup:
WSJ: Iran’s act of war.
US naval commander: Yank ROE would call for them to resist capture.
PJM on other aspects of Iran’s motivation.
I don’t know if Michael means the same thing I do by “tough stance,” but here’s what van der Galien has to say.
Gandelman: Is Britain America’s unwilling proxy?
Dr Sanity looks at other presidential legacies.
Scrappleface: Cheney proposes trading Carter for the Brits! Great idea, but the mullahs already got everything they wanted out of him. (h/t Capt H)
Rosie’s starting to get it. Brit nab would make a great GoT incident. Only different.
Topics: Iran
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:41 am on Monday, March 26, 2007
38 Responses to “Carter’s Legacy”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Amen brother!
March 26th, 2007 at 11:30 am
[...] you reflexively choose “peace” over force or the threat of force you get this: Carter’s resolve not to do anything sent a clear message to Iran: It’s party time with [...]
March 26th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
[...] read this post by Jules Crittenden who wonders “I don’t know if Michael means the same thing I do by [...]
March 26th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Please don’t leave blame all of this on Carter. Reagan promptly followed up by selling Iran arms, thereby granting the new regime further legitimacy.
March 26th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Splendid Post Mr. Jules:
Any word from Acting Commander-In-Chief Pelosi on her strategy for solving this crisis? Perhaps a nice talk over a latte with the head mullah.
March 26th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
2007.03.26 Iraq/Iran/Surrendercrat Roundup
US troops ‘would have fought Iranian captors’ A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Republican Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.
March 26th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
[...] From Jules Crittenden: Carter’s Legacy. [...]
March 26th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Carter set the policy and the politics and deserves the greatest credit regardless of the actions of subsequent administrations. I’m not saying the presidents who followed him own no credit for the disservice they did while in office, but it began with Carter.
My disgust grows daily. Who would have thought that anyone could get away with the kind of blatant, and multiple, acts of war that Iran has perpetrated through the years–and especially now in the middle of a hot war–without answer. Obviously, the mullahs think it, and more disgustingly, with reason.
March 26th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Carter’s legacy will haunt us for generations. And thos British sailors and marines are not the first victims of his idiocy.
March 26th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Web Reconnaissance for 03/26/2007
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention.
March 26th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Yeah,
How dare those Iranians overthrow the puppet monarchy we installed to rule them?
Didn’t they realize the Middle East is an American colony?
March 26th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Mad mullahs delenda est.
The sooner we destroy these maggots, the better.
March 26th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
“Jimmy Carter”
Speaking of maggots…
March 26th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
How dare those Iranians overthrow the puppet monarchy we installed to rule them?
Well the revolution was certainly popular with the crowd that likes to turn gays into strange fruit.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
I note with despair that a ‘Readers’ Poll’ (BBC History Magazine, October 2006, p 9) gives that socialist squish Clement Atlee 175 votes; Churchill, 165 votes; and Thatcher, 111 votes. It should be no great surprise that the British sailors did not put up a fight against last week’s attack.
Also, a small but important correction: “The knowledge it can FLOUT international law and push around opponents well over its weight (not “flaunt”).
March 26th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
alphie:
That made no sense.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Oh Terrye, ant is a master of non sequiturs. And utterly predictable. Ignore him.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Gosh, having a MENSA member on you Blog, Jules. Lucky, lucky. Give us more alphie. All here are just in awe.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
damn you got me heather.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Why do we discuss Jimmy Carter
March 26th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Ack! Sorry for the inadvertant post. What I meant to say was:
Why do we discuss Jimmy Carter at all? The Iranians themselves are demonstrating that his so-called doctrine was never anything but garbage.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:07 am
I am of the mind that the time for diplomacy is long past, and that talking about how serious this problem is, is pointless. Serious action needs to be taken. Forget speaking softly, as talking hasn’t accomplished anything thus far. It is time we put our efforts into finding an even bigger stick.
By the way Alphie, puppet governments, such as what you claim Iran to be, usually act more like puppets.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:28 am
Hasn’t America’s almost six years of mindless aggression in the Middle East sent a clear enough message yet?
Nobody there seems to be cowed in the least by our lengthy, costly display of “resolve”.
Could it be that the strategy the prowar crowd thinks Jimmy Carter should have taken would have proven to as big a failure then as it is proving to be now?
March 27th, 2007 at 2:55 am
Could it be that the strategy the prowar crowd thinks Jimmy Carter should have taken would have proven to as big a failure then as it is proving to be now?
alphie, when are you going to stop beating your wife?
March 27th, 2007 at 4:11 am
The problem isn’t too much war, but too little, too “PC” war. Being nice obviously doesn’t cut it.
Ant sounds positively scared.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:39 am
Just baffled, salty.
Does the prowar crowd ever question their rather discredited mantra?
If not, why should they ever get another shot at running America again?
March 27th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Does the prowar crowd ever question their rather discredited mantra?
Pelosi had to bribe a lot of congresscritters to get her anti-war bill passed….and then it squeaked through. AQ is being fought by Sunni and Shi’ite Iraqis. Terrorist leaders are getting caught by the boatload in Iraq.
If those are examples of “discrediting”, I’ll take a plate of hash, thank you.
Not that alphie’s thought processes are impeded by any form of rationality, though. So I’m expecting a non sequitor from this creature any moment now.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Alphie: “Does the prowar crowd ever question their rather discredited mantra?”
Exactly right. Even now, Japan and Germany are quietly plotting their violent counter-attack on the great hegemon USA. You wait and see you neo-con war thugs and your ridiculous, discredited war mantra!
Oh, and the South is gonna rise again too! Yeeeeehawwwwww!
March 27th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
frstewart Says:
“Please don’t leave blame all of this on Carter. Reagan promptly followed up by selling Iran arms, thereby granting the new regime further legitimacy.”
I would suggest you look at the fine print of the Algiers Accords that Jimmy Carter signed….they called for the “Unfreezing” of Iranian Assets. Might those Assets have been weapons that the Shah bought but had not yet been delivered?
Funny little political speak…”Assets”…most folks think bank accounts…Military people generally think of “Assets” as tanks and bombs and such.
Here we go - http://www.parstimes.com/history/algiers_accords.pdf
9. Commencing with the adherence by Iran and the United States to this declaration ….for the transfer to Iran of all Iranian properties which are located in the United States and abroad and which are not within the scope of the preceding paragraphs.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
‘Nobody there seems to be cowed in the least by our lengthy, costly display of “resolve”.’
Saddam Hussein is as cowed as it gets.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
“Carter’s resolve not to do anything sent a clear message to Iran: It’s party time with American prestige and power in the world. The 53 hostages came home alive, and thousands of people have died since as a direct result of Iran’s boldness and deceit, including hundreds of Americans murdered in cold blood.”
Yup, and there’s only one way to correct the mistake, and avenge all the Americans kidnapped and murdered by the mad mullahs and their terrorist proxies…and that’s to wage war on the mad mullahs (and guys like Hezbollah) until they no longer exist.
Let’s quit screwing around and give these bastards what they’ve had coming for almost 30 years…namely death for them and their obscenity of a government.
Mad mullahs delenda est..
March 27th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Nobody is stopping you from trying, Dave.
Just don’t as the people of America to fund your little Klan rally.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
I have no dog in this fight, but like to grade these “debates” and by these statements clearly shows the Carter-haters as a group do not understand/avoid the common mistake of “argument ad hominem” - Or the mistake in logic of attacking the person instead of the strength of their argument.
frstewart and alphie scored a big anti-idealogue point on the fact that Reagan also supported and armed Iran, and the US invaded those countries. Their opponents could only come back with “Carter did it first” and “”you beat your wife” with the one exception of soldiersDad. who had a more sophisticated argument that also ignored Reagans failure to act the way he (now) wanted.
SCORE: frstewart/alphie - B+, Chest-beaters,- D (would be D- if not for SoldiersDad)
March 28th, 2007 at 12:01 am
‘the Carter-haters as a group do not understand/avoid the common mistake of “argument ad hominem”’
Crap. Jimmy Carter let a foreign power attack the United States and get away with it unpunished.
That’s not an ad hominem argument, it’s a statement of fact.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:11 am
“Just don’t as the people of America to fund your little Klan rally.”
You mean the KKK? Sorry I don’t associate with Democrats or their little social clubs. You must have mistaken me for some ratfuck peacenik Klansmen like Robert Byrd.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Oh yeah, I almost forgot…
Mad mullahs delenda est.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:07 am
frstewart and alphie scored a big anti-idealogue point on the fact that Reagan also supported and armed Iran, and the US invaded those countries. Their opponents could only come back with “Carter did it first” and “”you beat your wife” with the one exception of soldiersDad. who had a more sophisticated argument that also ignored Reagans failure to act the way he (now) wanted.
If you were objective as you claimed, you would have subtracted points from alphie for his consistent use of non sequitors and goal post moving. His very first post, in fact, hearkened back to the Iranian overthrow of the Shah….which has zip to do with the Iranians kidnapping British military personnel. My own question was in response to alphie’s use of the loaded question. I suppose I should have used sarcasm tags, eh?
frstewart also ignores the fact that Carter set up the situaion for Reagan in the first place; while I am not happy that we dealt with the Iranians, I am not going to blame Reagan tor manipulating the situation in the fashion that he felt most suitable for the United States, given the cards Carter dealt him.
Objectively speaking, that’s one negative point in the Reagan presidency with a whole lot of positive points. Carter, on the other hand, is in the running for The Worst Presidency Evah (think of him getting a few positive points, and lots of negative points….there’s a reason why he lost the election, y’know!).
I think it telling as well, that you rate frstewart and alphie as “anti-idealogue”….you don’t see (at least) alphie as an idealogue? Hmmmmmmm!
I also would point out that alphie drops the occasional insult and ad hominem himself. Or did you miss that “Ku Klux Klan” comment above?
Context, my dear coldeye, context! Context is all important. Please cultivate it so that your future critques will be taken seriously.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
“My disgust grows daily. Who would have thought that anyone could get away with the kind of blatant, and multiple, acts of war that Iran has perpetrated through the years–and especially now in the middle of a hot war–without answer. Obviously, the mullahs think it, and more disgustingly, with reason.”
I’m disgusted as well. United States foreign policy over the last few decades can be summed up as: our government will go to war and keep fighting until the job is done, when a canal is threatened, when the Cubans are building an airbase on a Carribean island, even when the Serbs are screwing with ethnic Albanians, but not when terrorists (like the mad mullahs in Iran or their proxies in Hezbollah) attack us and murder our people. That’s absolutely revolting.
Well, that all changed on 9/11/01 when Bush and his crew decided to go after terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism, and keep hitting them until they’re destroyed…which is why I voted for him in 2004. If only the Bush administration would extend the War on Terror to the mad mullahs!
As for Carter, not satisfied with having botched everything he put his grimy little hands on when he was POTUS, he now sneers at our War on Terror, and whores for the Palestinians, a group of people whose political leadership has killed many Americans over the years in various acts of terror. What a piece of crap Jimmy Carter is.
Carter summed up…
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/12/13/cstillwell.DTL