Tom Nichols is unimpressed with today's story about John Connally's 1980 mission to let the Iranians know they should wait a while before releasing the embassy hostages:
Has it occurred to anyone that the Iranians hated Carter's guts because of the Shah and did what they did just to spite him? Of *course* they were trying to hurt Carter; they didn't need John Connally's help with that. https://t.co/X3Lv6cABfn
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) March 18, 2023
This has occurred to everyone. In retrospect, we all know that Khomeini was vanishingly unlikely to ever release the hostages while Jimmy Carter was president.
But that doesn't matter, because we didn't know it back then. Nor does it matter if Connally was an idiot. Or badly informed. Or whether his message ever got through.¹
What matters is that he tried. He tried to make sure the hostages would stay in captivity as long as there was any chance their release might help Carter. This is appalling beyond belief.
But did Reagan know about any of this? We don't have any firm evidence. But we already know there was a parallel effort underway with the same goal. And we know the hostages were released within minutes after Reagan was sworn in. And we know that arms began flowing from Israel to Iran a few days later, something that could happen only with a US blessing.
This fact pattern already suggests that Reagan cut a deal with the Iranians. The Connally story adds yet more evidence. And of course, we also know that the Reagan campaign was terrified Carter might negotiate a hostage release before the election. And we also know that Reagan was perfectly happy to trade arms for hostages later in his presidency.
Given all this, you'd have to be willfully obtuse to continue thinking it unlikely that Reagan—or at least his senior staff—knew what was going on. It's true that we don't have silver bullet proof. But come on.
¹Well, it matters a little bit because it let the Iranians know that Reagan was anxious for a deal—which meant they could trick Reagan into offering more than he had to. In particular, they took advantage of this to get arms in return for releasing the hostages, something Carter was unwilling to consider.
What we're seeing here is the cognitive dissonance of establishment types, having to wade through the possibility that their one true hero of the last 50 years betrayed the Office of the President of the United States (some might recognize this as treason) and negotiated with terrorists to have weapons sent to said hostage taking terrorists.
Google paid 99 dollars an hour on the internet. Everything I did was basic Οnline w0rk from comfort at hΟme for 5-7 hours per day that I g0t from this office I f0und over the web and they paid me 100 dollars each hour. For more details
visit this article... https://createmaxwealth.blogspot.com
treason by any name is still treason.
I suppose it's polite to spread all of this copium when the man is about to die, but this is all besides the point. The country was in the middle of a massive rightward shift that started when white America got bored of civil rights in the mid-60s that had been temporarily paused out of shame about Richard Nixon.
They sure learned to not let a crooked president interrupt their polling tsunami ever again. That's the lesson they took from Nixon and that's documented in all kinds of Dick Cheney quotes. This is also when their political guerrilla warfare began. Watergate. Not Gingrich in 1994 or whatever other arbitrary date you want to set. This is when getting rid of "activist judges" started meaning putting your own activist judges on the court who would re-write the Constitution to try a backdoor hail mary in a generation effort to repeal the New Deal, which now they have almost completely consolidated except for Social Security.
Their shaming over Nixon, who was by many measures a fairly successful and competent president yet was paranoid and corrupt individual. They would never let that stop them again and later on the "fairly successful" part became optional in every regard except elections.
Carter was elected out of people's guilt for having been fooled into voting for Nixon *twice* by a lot. Gerry Ford didn't really do anything wrong except be associated with Nixon, but, remember, he was put there as a replacement. He never ran with Nixon. "He was never elected" was considered a bug then and now, but if your running mate is Nixon, that's addition by subtraction.
Carter could have been JFK reincarnated. He could have been as wily as Bill Clinton, as smart as Obama, unless he won the Cold War, Jimmy Carter was doomed from the start.
His presidency only accelerated the rightward shift and the conservative takeover of the Republican Party.
Reagan didn't need to cheat, and after Nixon no Republican would care if he did.
While this kind of post-hoc analysis makes sense to us today, it wouldnt have made any sense in 1979 to the early 1980s.
We dont know if this activity had an impact on the election outcome and we dont know what happens to the Republican party if Carter presides over the growing economy of 1983&1984.
The Democrats strength in Congress through the 1980s certainly seems like strong evidence to doubt this narrative....but maybe that looks different with Dems in the Presidency through the 80s. Controlling the Presidency for 8 to 12 years probably impacted the future....it seems silly to insist that the future is predestined and isnt impacted by actual events of history.
Just so. It makes sense to us today because time has given us more both more data and a more historical perspective. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, a counterfactual -- especially in the absence of any confirming historical parallels to draw from -- is just a counterfactual. And when that counterfactual is but one link in a chain of circumstances, well. Best not go there.
I was alive then and plenty of people saw what was going on at the time. My parents and family in particular felt that a lot of things going on was an (over) reaction to the 60s. I don't think that was a foreign concept in 1980. I think it was a selling point for the Rs.
And you can't equate "Democrats strength in Congress" with there being no rightward shift unless you think guys like Sam Nunn and Zell Miller would have been down for gays, guns, and abortions.
For people just a bit older than me, Carter's loss is talked about like it was the end of the world. But it was just you coming to grips with what was happening. The worst was yet to come in 2000 and 2016.
All history is post-hoc analysis anyway and so is what Kevin is saying about Carter and what you are saying about Carter.
It's not that you can't change history. That's how Carter got in in the first place. Events took control. But in 1980, hostages or not, something was brewing.
If it wasn't Reagan in 1980, it would have been someone else in 1984. Crime, above all, was driving this. Something today's progressives ignore at their peril.
And Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't wait to start thinking that later. The quotes from them, and there's more in Perlstein's stuff, just makes it clear they felt that way from the get go.
I was a voter in 1980 too. I voted for Carter in 1976 and bought into the lies about Carter. I'm ashamed to say I voted for Reagan. Worst mistake ever. Lots, no most people bought it. The oil embargo alone would have lost him the race. The hostages were just frosting on the cake.
I agree that there were lots of forces at work in Carter's loss. But whether the actions of Connally, Casey and others in Reagan's circle, with Reagan's approval, changed the outcome of the election is not the only reason to care about this story.
I'm also fairly confident that James Earl Carter does not need the vindication and that he is at peace - I think that's the right word - with what he's made of his time on this earth.
Exactly so. Drawing conclusions despite the relative paucity of data is the province of our lazy pundit class and barstool conversation. But extensive, detailed records of just what happened is paying it forward. That way, people won't be quite so clueless about what to do should these events play out again. Which they will, history being constructed the way it is.
+1 for "That way, people won't be quite so clueless about what to do should these events play out again."
But I wish I could have confidence that we (collectively) won't be clueless. And even if we're clear-eyed, it could easily not be enough. Dems saw what happened in 1980 perfectly clearly, same in 2000 and 2016.
That makes 3 stolen elections of the 14 in my voting lifetime. It's been obvious each time that Republicans will commit treason any time they need to.
Ben Barnes is and was a Democrat. Is it remotely plausible that John Connally would have taken a Democrat with him on a mission to treasonously sabotage a Democratic presidential candidate's campaign?
Connally had been a Democrat for most of his career and only switched to the GOP 7 years before. It's certainly possible he could have trusted Barnes to accompany him on this trip. Indeed, the evidence suggests that trust was well placed if only now Barnes is telling us this story.
Obviously poorly placed if Barnes talked at all - you are supposed to take a secret like this to the grave.
But why on earth would Connally have trusted Barnes for something like this? unlike Connally, Barnes was STAYING a democrat.
Obviously, if the story is true then Connally trusted Barnes but can you come up for an explanation of why that does not assume the story is true?
Barnes and Connally were close, indeed Barnes was a protege of Connally's so even though Barnes did not follow Connally's rightward turn to the GOP they were still close. I suspect that is why
Barnes remained silent about this for so long, out of respect for his old relationship. It is certainly possible the story is false but frankly it's much harder to explain Barnes if he's lying than if he's telling the truth.
1. 85 - may not be compos mentis.
2. Walter Mitty
3. He seems to have stayed onboard with the Democratic Party as it moved left when the Democrat / Republican divide became starkly ideological - he was one of Kerry's top 8 fund raisers in his 2004 campaign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Barnes_(Texas_politician))
4. Given this, now that Carter is dying, why not throw him a bone?
Look, make it simple... you want someone to help you out on a secret treasonous mission for the Republican presidential candidate. Do you bring a Republican or a Democrat?
well, Ben Barnes was a fellow Texan that Connaly knew and trusted. Plus, the article indicates that Barnes didn't realize at the time what the trip was for, and what Connally was discussing with the various Arab heads of state.
Please provide your evidence that Connally trusted Barnes at that time.
Well, I can't pin down the summer of 1980 specifically but Barnes had been known as Connally's protege beofore then and the two of them became ill-fated business partners in 1980 or 1981. This trip probably didn't happen during a brief falling-out. (I'll guess the two of them may have pitched their meetings with Arab leaders as "exploring development opportunities for Texas investors").
FWIW, the oil price collapse of 1986 wiped them out, so however sour their relationship with Reagan may have been after the DoE snub, it probably didn't get better.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/going-for-broke-john-connally/
Maybe the early warning signs of the virus that has now completely converted the brains of the Conservative Movement into oatmeal?
I remember the hostages and the election. Of course, the Iranians weren't going to release the hostages while Carter was president. Whether or not Reagan actually offered them anything ahead of time, they knew they could get a better deal from Reagan and just waited out the election.
I remember that time also. The timing of the hostage release, which seemed to be synchronized with the inauguration ceremony of Reagan taking power, was and is just too choreographed to be coincidental. It has all the marks of being the culmination of a deal, with lots of rubbing it in.
See Martin Stett below, on circumstantial evidence.
“Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk,”
This incident happened over 40 years ago but it happened only 12 years after Nixon interfered with negotiations over the Vietnam war before he was elected. For people under Reagan, even if Reagan was not involved, Nixon's interference was fresh and well known.
From the earlier article:
What deal was Carter offering?
From Wikipedia:
"The Algiers Accords called for Iran's immediate freeing of the hostages, the unfreezing of $7.9 billion of Iranian assets, termination of lawsuits Iran faced in America, and a pledge by the United States that 'it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs'. The Accords also created the Iran – United States Claims Tribunal, and Iran deposited $1 billion in an escrow account to satisfy claims adjudicated by the Tribunal in favor of American claimants."
This deal was final after Reagan's election, but before his inauguration. It was negotiated by the outgoing administration.
The NY Times spoke with lead US negotiator Warren Christopher (future SecState under Clinton). Their Jan 28 1981 account of the negotiations is hard (but not impossible!) to square with the Barnnes story of Reagan's 'better deal'.
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/28/us/how-hostage-pact-was-forged-turning-point-was-in-september.html
Key points: The Barnes trip was July 1980'
Per Christopher, on Sept 9 Iran actually reached out with an emissary; the next day the Ayatollah announced his terms.
On Sept 22, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. Iran developed a keen interest in avoiding more sanctions and getting access to military equipment and spare parts. (Carter OKed delivery of some spare parts but that fell apart)
Now, the Ayatollah may have had an inkling in Sept that he needed to move on from the hostage situation. But its not easy to imagine that Barnes was pitching arms from Reagan back in July.
Per Seymour Hersh (NY Times, 12/8/1991) the Israelis asked the Carter Admin if they coukd sell US arms to Iran to foster a strategic relationship; Team Carter said no. The Israelis came back after Reagan took over and got a green light.
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/08/world/iran-pipeline-hidden-chapter-special-report-us-said-have-allowed-israel-sell.html
Could that have been a quid pro quo a explaining Iran's slow negotiatioons from Sept forward? Definitely maybe, but no evidence was found. More from Hersh 1991:
"In recent months, attention has been focused on the "October surprise" scenario holding that the Reagan campaign team made a deal with the Iranians to delay the release of the hostages until after the election.
A New York Times inquiry over the last three months involving interviews with more than 100 present and former government officials, arms dealers, intelligence agents and others with direct knowledge of aspects of the operation found no link between the Israeli arms sales to Iran in the early 1980s and the "October surprise" allegations."
Christopher outlined the delays iin the Iranian side. All of which, TBF, could have been smokescreens to stall until Reagn arrived.
There are a lot of dots and lots of ways to connect them. The Ayotollah and the Iranian Parliament had issues that went beyond the US election; so did Israel. Reagan accomodated Israel when Carter would not. Unheard of for new administrations to try a new course?
"...What matters is that he tried....This is appalling beyond belief...."
It is also the 200,000,001th worst thing that the Reagan campaign did. The first 200 million are the two hundred million American lives that will be lost -- the vast bulk of them by starvation -- in the forthcoming civil war, which Reagan made inevitable.
It was negotiated by the outgoing administration
Exactly. And that's why I think this is just a big nothingburger although the Reagan campaign should have reported what Connally was doing to the Feds given the violation of the Logan Act given that they were briefed by him. The bottom line is "Big John" was a little worm, trying to ingratiate himself into the Reagan orbit and getting them to name him Secretary of State if it happened. When that didn't happen (they offered Secretary of Energy) this little plan of his didn't work.
What y'all need to do is read the book "Crisis" by the late Hamilton Jordan, the Carter Administration Chief of Staff if you can find it at a library or online. It details the negotiations that went on between the Iranians and the U.S. over the hostages. The important thing to note, in regard to this "revelation", backchannel negotiations between Jordan and the Iranians ended after the failed rescued attempt in April of that year. The Iranian government took control of the hostages from the radical students and scattered them all over the country. Negotiations began again in September of that year because that's when the Iran-Iraq war broke out. The Iranians needed money and they needed U.S spare parts for the American weapons to fight back against the Iraqi invasion so that was their incentive to negotiate again. If they thought they would get better "deal" from Reagan, why negotiate at all, especially after Carter lost and was a lame duck?
This trip Connally made were between July and August of 1980 I think was done for mostly business reasons but consider this: let's say Connally was peddling this notion the Iranians should hold onto the hostages until Reagan got elected to foreign diplomats and such. If it worked, then Connally could tell the Reagan people he could negotiate for them to earn their release which he should be named Secretary of State and if they didn't do this, Connally could leak to the press about the meeting with Bill Casey and whatnot and cause incredible embarrassment for the new Administration. In other words, he had them by the balls, he could blackmail them to become Secretary of State. Lucky the war began, final negotiations began and this whole sleazy scheme didn't take place.
Highly recommend "Crisis" by Hamilton Jordan for a good read about the last years of the Carter Presidency.
Sure, I broke into the jewelry store at night, but what difference does it make? The owners took all the jewelry home.
Now do Irancontra. Another Ronnie gem. His defenders try to say he was Sgt. Shultz and he knew NOTHING! NOTHING!
He was a traitor and he killed nuns.