When Jimmy Carter ran for president in 1976, voters found it refreshing that he had little experience in Washington, given the morass Washington had become during the Watergate days. Carter touted his innocence as an asset, in foreign affairs as well as domestic. The first post-Vietnam president, he argued that the country needed a new direction in its dealings with the world. He proposed to put morality and respect for human rights on a par with the material interests his predecessors had emphasized.
Many thanks, Professor Brands, for these excellent discussions.
My own feeling on this (having researched and written about this period) is that most moderate Republicans would have voted against SALT II regardless of what Carter did on Iran, or indeed what the Treaty entailed. The likes of Howard Baker, (the Senate minority leader) had more or less decided that, having earlier backed the Panama Canal Treaty, they had gone as far as they could politically in terms of offering their support.
On his decision to allow the Shah entry to the US, Carter did later admit (with characteristic honesty) to being partly swayed by fears of the Kissinger wing torpedoing SALT II.
There is strong evidence that the Reagan campaign undermined an October return of the hostages. Reagan sent an envoy who in all likelihood promised weapons assistance to Iran if they delayed the release- hence the Iran-Contra scandal.
I was in my first year at university when the hostages were taken. One of my regular chess opponents was an Iranian from Tehran. When watching the news, as the reporters gave names to Iranian faces shown, my fellow student would frequently exclaim "that's not who that is!"
President's have difficult decisions to make. And perhaps Carter's choosing to aid the Shah turned his presidency into a defeat by Reagan. This decision as with so many meant the president had to weight a number of factors in arriving at his conclusion. It appears he completely missed the deeply held hatred the Iranian people had for the Shah and any attempt to assist him would be resented. This lack of understanding of Islam, its conservative religious beliefs and larger culture has carried through to this day as the U.S engaged in multiple wars last one with the Afghan Taliban.
There was a sense that Carter was open to deal with the new Islamic regime and in providing the medical aid to the Shah, well, maybe the U.S could do this and then get on with the new Iranian government. This was not going to work with the religious fundamentalists who loathed so much of what the western world represented including America. There were anti-American rumblings in and around our embassy from the time Khomeini returned to his homeland. This should have been a warning that any interactions with this fundamentalism were not going to go well. Shortly Iranians attacked the embassy and took a number of hostages once Carter brought the Shaw to the U.S.
I am not sure if the Salt II nuclear discussions were important in Carter trying to arrive at a decision over the Shaw. It seems he did not have a strong relationship with Howard Baker, a powerful Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but I guess Baker was not going to push this treaty now. I do know Carter did not like the style of Kissinger's approach to foreign policy and resented Kissinger and Nelson Rockefeller pushing to keep the Shah in the U.S. If they got around to the Salt discussions it would have been helpful to have Kissinger on board. Although out of the government by now Henry Kissinger had power, knew the right people and seemed to hang heavy over any foreign policy decision.
It was Carter's humanitarian principles and human decency that made the difference in providing the Shah with the needed medical care. From that point on Carter and his advisors were in long difficult negotiations with Khomeini that became sadly politicized as Reagan made the hostage crisis a center of his campaign in defeating Carter.
It sure is worth the time looking backs to these kinds of moments in presidential history. This Iranian crisis that began in the fall 1979 was an early prelude to the difficulties America would experience in meeting and misunderstanding the fundamentalism of Islam.
Many thanks, Professor Brands, for these excellent discussions.
My own feeling on this (having researched and written about this period) is that most moderate Republicans would have voted against SALT II regardless of what Carter did on Iran, or indeed what the Treaty entailed. The likes of Howard Baker, (the Senate minority leader) had more or less decided that, having earlier backed the Panama Canal Treaty, they had gone as far as they could politically in terms of offering their support.
On his decision to allow the Shah entry to the US, Carter did later admit (with characteristic honesty) to being partly swayed by fears of the Kissinger wing torpedoing SALT II.
There is strong evidence that the Reagan campaign undermined an October return of the hostages. Reagan sent an envoy who in all likelihood promised weapons assistance to Iran if they delayed the release- hence the Iran-Contra scandal.
I was in my first year at university when the hostages were taken. One of my regular chess opponents was an Iranian from Tehran. When watching the news, as the reporters gave names to Iranian faces shown, my fellow student would frequently exclaim "that's not who that is!"
President's have difficult decisions to make. And perhaps Carter's choosing to aid the Shah turned his presidency into a defeat by Reagan. This decision as with so many meant the president had to weight a number of factors in arriving at his conclusion. It appears he completely missed the deeply held hatred the Iranian people had for the Shah and any attempt to assist him would be resented. This lack of understanding of Islam, its conservative religious beliefs and larger culture has carried through to this day as the U.S engaged in multiple wars last one with the Afghan Taliban.
There was a sense that Carter was open to deal with the new Islamic regime and in providing the medical aid to the Shah, well, maybe the U.S could do this and then get on with the new Iranian government. This was not going to work with the religious fundamentalists who loathed so much of what the western world represented including America. There were anti-American rumblings in and around our embassy from the time Khomeini returned to his homeland. This should have been a warning that any interactions with this fundamentalism were not going to go well. Shortly Iranians attacked the embassy and took a number of hostages once Carter brought the Shaw to the U.S.
I am not sure if the Salt II nuclear discussions were important in Carter trying to arrive at a decision over the Shaw. It seems he did not have a strong relationship with Howard Baker, a powerful Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but I guess Baker was not going to push this treaty now. I do know Carter did not like the style of Kissinger's approach to foreign policy and resented Kissinger and Nelson Rockefeller pushing to keep the Shah in the U.S. If they got around to the Salt discussions it would have been helpful to have Kissinger on board. Although out of the government by now Henry Kissinger had power, knew the right people and seemed to hang heavy over any foreign policy decision.
It was Carter's humanitarian principles and human decency that made the difference in providing the Shah with the needed medical care. From that point on Carter and his advisors were in long difficult negotiations with Khomeini that became sadly politicized as Reagan made the hostage crisis a center of his campaign in defeating Carter.
It sure is worth the time looking backs to these kinds of moments in presidential history. This Iranian crisis that began in the fall 1979 was an early prelude to the difficulties America would experience in meeting and misunderstanding the fundamentalism of Islam.
Yeah, I remember all this, and it sucked.