We've Been Talking to Iran for 30 Years

WSJ ^ | SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 | Michael Ledeen

[nuconvert]

The Obama administration's talks with Iran—set to take place tomorrow in Geneva—are accompanied by an almost universally accepted misconception: that previous American administrations refused to negotiate with Iranian leaders. The truth, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said last October at the National Defense University, is that "every administration since 1979 has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed."

After the fall of the shah in February 1979, the Carter administration attempted to establish good relations with the revolutionary regime. We offered aid, arms and understanding. The Iranians demanded that the United States honor all arms deals with the shah, remain silent about human-rights abuses carried out by the new regime, and hand over Iranian "criminals" who had taken refuge in America. The talks ended with the seizure of the American Embassy in November.

The Reagan administration—driven by a desire to gain the release of the American hostages—famously sought a modus vivendi with Iran in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War during the mid-1980s. To that end, the U.S. sold weapons to Iran and provided military intelligence about Iraqi forces. High-level American officials such as Robert McFarlane met secretly with Iranian government representatives to discuss the future of the relationship. This effort ended when the Iran-Contra scandal erupted in late 1986.

[marstegreg]

And what exactly have we learned.....?

[Lurker]

And what exactly have we learned.....?

Not very much apparently.

[elpadre]

The US and UN only negotiated with Saddam and Iraq for twelve years before neutralizing them and bringing Iraq into the family of civil nations.

[wita]

The talks ended with the seizure of the American Embassy in November.

This fact alone makes Iran worthy of the harshest punishment, and unworthy of anything close to nuclear technology.

[Mr. K]

"The Reagan administration—driven by a desire to gain the release of the American hostages—famously sought a modus vivendi with Iran in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War during the mid-1980s."

Huh?

If I remember correctly the hostages were released about 10 seconds after Ronald Reagan took office.

[Clemenza]

They are talking about arms for hostages.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

And, true to the leftist play book, when their strategy is failing, it means that we need to give them more power.

So, talk louder and louder and louder with them.

Maybe that will turn these death- and murder-loving psychotics around to play nice with the rest of the world.

[nuconvert]

Yeah, I got stuck on that one too.
I think Ledeen phrased it poorly. He’s written books on Iran, and was an advisor for Reagan’s administration, so he knows the history and chronology.
Maybe he means Reagan and the people he gathered before taking office were stuck in a mindset after the release of the hostages.

Maybe someone on WSJ comments will ask and he’ll explain what he meant.
Or you can try pinging him here. I don’t know how often he checks in anymore.

[nuconvert]

Okay - Here’s the explanation :

Ledeen’s talking about the American hostages in Lebanon not in Iran. Since he previously mentioned the Embassy in Iran, he should have written “American hostages in Lebanon” to clarify.

[Mr. K]

I kind of suspected as much - but I enjoyed pointing out that RR scared the bejeebers out of them