Talk:Iran–Contra affair/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

removed conviction section

The article originally had a conviction section which read:

In Poindexter's hometown of Odon, Indiana, a street was renamed to John Poindexter Street. Bill Breeden, a former minister, stole the street's sign in protest of the Iran–Contra affair. He claimed that he was holding it for a ransom of $30 million, in reference to the amount of money given to Iran to transfer to the Contras. He was later arrested and confined to prison, making him, as satirically noted by Howard Zinn, "the only person to be imprisoned as a result of the Iran–Contra Scandal".

Zinn is wrong. Thomas Clines was indicted on Iran-Contra related tax evasion charges and served 16 months in prison. The whole section on Breeden's arrest seems to have been added just for the sake of putting in Zinn's wise-crack; I don't really see that it has any other relation to the article. Rgr09 (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess the argument could be made that at the time Breeden finished serving his sentence in October 1987, none of the other Iran—Contra figures (including Clines) had served any time; however, how fast were prosecutors supposed to work? The Iran—Contra report did not come out until November 1987 and then it was in Walsh's hands for the next five or six years. I think reliable sources that have reported on criticism of the pardons, etc. is fair game, but I am not really up for comparing a local theft to one of the United States' largest political scandals. - Location (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Neutrality Dispute

Anyone else see this as a problem? This line in particular: 'Reagan was deeply committed to securing the release of the hostages; it was this compassion that motivated his support for the arms initiatives" - maybe this is what he said, or what people said, but no one can pretend to know his thoughts.

That, coupled with the frequent mention of "moderate" Iranians seems to create a clear slant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.13.25 (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The piece about Reagan being committed to releasing the hostages is directly from his autobiography, so they are his words. The 'moderate' Iranians mention is necessary, as it distinguishes those opposed to the Ayatollah from those supporting him. It was the moderates that Reagan's administration supported, but it deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme. Happyme22 (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The words should be quoted and cited then. This is not neutral text. Also, iirc, "moderate" Iranians popped up later as an excuse/apology post factum and in fact the US negotiated with the staunchest Iranian Islamic revolutionaries, who had the power to deliver. When Tower went on national television he surprised the public by claiming to have achieved "damage control" (his words) in the Iran-Contra crisis, and to have protected the president from the fallout. Also, if someone is working on making this into a readable article, the Contra side of the equation is in dire need of treatment. The one sentence that touches upon their role is entirely unclear, as if they were raising money by selling arms to Iran. They were the cocaine terminus, the CIA was running guns and cocaine. This is generally very well known, documented, verifiable etc. Leaving it out is anti NPOV. Good luck with your quest for admin Happyme22, don't ban me for being right :) Hypatea (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The article states Reagan's lack of involvement as a fact in one paragraph. Then another paragraph simply states that Reagan appointed a commission to investigate the matter, and they (surprise, surprise) didn't find proof of his involvement. It seems extremely slanted to declare he didn't approve or even have knowledge of what was going on while 11 members of his administration were convicted and then pardoned by his former Vice-President. There may not be proof of his involvement, but there certainly is no proof that he was totally clueless either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.30.155 (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good argument IP 76.107.30.155, and as a result, I have removed the phrase "nor was he aware that funds were being sent to the Contras". Reagan was never found to have possessed any knowlege of the divert-to-Contras part of the scheme, but you are correct in saying that there isn't any proof that he was completely out of the loop. I hope that helped, and thank you for your comment. Happyme22 (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Reagan's motivations: P.519 of the Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair states: "The hostages were important to President Reagan. He probably did fall victim to his own compassion, and let their personal safety weigh too heavily on him. But it is clear from all the evidence we have that the initiative was pursued primarily for strategic reasons." Of course this is from the minority (i.e. Republican) view. - Location (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this article tends to take a more critical stance toward the shredding of documents, or withholding of documents, than is fair. Covert operations are covert for a reason, and the idea of protecting sources of sensitive information is not just a cover-up: at least one Iranian contact disappeared in Iran shortly after many of the documents were made public. According to the New York Times, August 9, 1987, "the disclosures have prompted the intelligence services of some friendly nations to share less information with the United States." The article is implying from the fact that the NSC and CIA did not empty their file cabinets before Congress and the press that they were trying to hide incriminating evidence. On the contrary, the executive branch did hand over any, many documents, declassifying perhaps more than they should have, given the sensitive nature of much of the information, and the effects such revelations often have on the sources. Also, on the question of "moderate Iranians", this is confusing because while in fact those conducting the sales wanted to strengthen pro-Western Iranians, and billed their actions as such, it was not possible to support a faction, only the actual government, the whole regime. So it is understandable that this is a grey area to readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.233.184 (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Early Arms sales to Iran

This has been brought to my attention by a editor who referenced this to justify a change in another article. The passage in this article is this:

However, as documented by a congressional investigation, the first Reagan-sponsored secret arms sales to Iran began in 1981 before any of the American hostages had been taken in Lebanon. This fact ruled out the "arms for hostages" explanation by which the Reagan administration sought to excuse its behavior.[5]

This is a problem on numerous levels:

1. That last sentence is like a editorial and not NPOV. It is drawing a conclusion.

2. Because the sales to Iran began before hostages were taken.....that doesn't mean it didn't eventually become a attempt at a arms for hostages swap. This is something Reagan himself eventually copped to.

3. The reference itself [5] is unsure who authorized this and for what purpose.....a key passage:

One former high-level Central Intelligence Agency official who saw reports of the Israeli arms sales to Iran in the early 1980's estimated that the total approached $2 billion each year. But he added, "The degree to which it was sanctioned I don't know."

The article also features denials by several Reagan admin officials that they authorized Israel to make this sale (of spare parts and ammo).

So.....essentially what we have here is some early sales to Iran for reasons that are unclear.....that could have opened the door to the idea of the arms for hostages in the minds of the RR admin. Ergo I think the statement This fact ruled out the "arms for hostages" explanation by which the Reagan administration sought to excuse its behavior. should be removed. This is drawing a conclusion that should be left up to the reader.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The article makes similar statements elsewhere: But if an agreement to send secret arms shipments to Iran, and the fact of those shipments, both began before 1982, then the release of the hostages cannot be the reason for the arms shipments. Again drawing a conclusion that ignores the facts I stated above. The whole article may need edits in this regard. These edits trace back to 3 edits on 10/30/18.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I made my modifications to the article as per my reasons give above. Any comments/issues......let me know.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33: I agree with you; that appears to be a conclusion not supported by the sources. Those arms sales had nothing to do with the Iran initiative. Israel's role in the Iran–Iraq war does a good job describing the issue, and p. 526 of the Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair appears to touch on it, too. My understanding is that neither Israel (nor the United States for that matter) wanted Saddam Hussein to destabilize the region by crushing Iran. - Location (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there was a problem with POV. However, by the standard applied, this sentence is also an editorial: "Because the sales to Iran began before hostages were taken.....that doesn't mean it didn't eventually become a attempt at a arms for hostages swap. This is something Reagan himself eventually copped to." There is no reason to consider Reagan's alleged confession as honest, especially since he and others in his administration were caught lying about what they were doing, and since "arms for hostages" made what they did look better. Suggesting that what was necessarily a lie in 1981 might perhaps have become the truth later on is a strange argument to explain what in fact was the same policy before and after 1982. It amounts, in my view, to special pleading and looks like an apology. What is neither special pleading, nor an editorial, nor an apology is the simple observation that, if arms shipments to Iran began in 1981, this contradicts the "arms for hostages" official narrative. It is a simple logical fact anchored in the basic nature of chronology and causality. To point this out does not present any POV problems. I therefore gave a little more context on the New York Times investigation, quoting the Times, and pointing out that the NYT was dumbfounded, given the 1981 date of the first arms transfers, as to what the reason could have been for them.

Missing from the article was any mention of what was documented in 2016: that the Carter administration was already heavily involved in making Ayatollah Khomeini a success in Iran. This is quite important, and certainly to a section that has for title "background," as it could matter to an evaluation of Reagan's motives in Iran-Contra. Trying harder now to keep away from introducing POV, I did not speculate about that, but simply provided the context for readers to consider.Factual record straight (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

My statement: "Because the sales to Iran began before hostages were taken.....that doesn't mean it didn't eventually become a attempt at a arms for hostages swap. This is something Reagan himself eventually copped to." did not appear in the article. Ergo it really doesn't matter if it was a "editorial" or not. I was simply pointing out the fact arms sails prior to the arms-for-hostages really proves nothing with regards to the motivation during the time of Iran-Contra. I also don't see much point in mentioning Jimmy Carter's dealings with the new regime (in this article) unless the same people were involved (i.e. the middle men) in dealing with Iran. This article is about the Reagan admin scandal.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The statement I quoted does not appear in the article, true. But it appears here as part of your argument that pointing out that a discrepancy between the chronological facts and the official explanation amounts to POV. It doesn't. Therefore, the article should point it out. It is entirely relevant to an article on Iran-Contra whether evidence surfaced contradicting the official explanations. The article is indeed about the Reagan administration scandal, and it begins with a section titled "background". The term "background" usually includes stuff that is relevant to understand the context and which immediately precedes the thing you are talking about. Jimmy Carter is the preceding president, and his pro-Khomeini policies occurred right before Reagan came to power. Since those policies are perfectly consistent with Reagan's policies, they are obviously part of the background to be considered. Particularly when it was shown that Reagan had reasons other than freeing hostages to send weapons to Iran (whatever they were). If anything is relevant in the background section to the Iran-Contra scandal, it is this continuity with Carter policy.189.213.109.33 (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Sorry. I meant to sign.Factual record straight (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

First off, please be consistent in the account you use so we know who is saying what. I have no issue with pointing out there were early arms sales to Iran but (again) to go with this The New York Times could not find a hypothesis to explain the initial decision to send secret weapons to Ayatollah Khomeini: "No American rationale for permitting covert arms sales to Iran could be established." stuff is pretty misleading. For one thing the statement is made in past tense [in 1991]....and furthermore, the article itself points out: "Iran at that time was in dire need of arms and spare parts for its American-made arsenal to defend itself against Iraq, which had attacked it in September 1980. Israel was interested in keeping the war between Iran and Iraq going to insure that these two potential enemies remained preoccupied with each other. [and later] We were getting literally daily reports of Israeli sales to Iran," a former high-level Reagan Administration intelligence official said. "It was so routine I didn't think twice about it. It was pretty clear that all the key players knew." The Reagan Administration continued to replenish Israel's stockpile of American-made weapons, despite clear evidence that Israel was shipping them to Iran.. So I think the motivation and purpose is pretty clear. Again: nothing wrong with pointing out the gates were (somewhat) open prior to this (for different reasons).....but to act like it's some big mystery is (I think) pretty specious.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Carter and the Hostages and Rumpsfield

My recollection was that while Carter was president the republicans had told the Iranians to hold the hostages until after the election and then they would sell them arms. If true, that is worse than the contra sales, worse than anything Trump may have done. And if not true it should be refuted or discussed as it is a commonly held belief.203.63.191.70 (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

We work with RS....not someone's (highly questionable) recollections.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That "commonly held belief" is the October Surprise conspiracy theory and it has already been refuted:

• Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate (November 19, 1992). The "October Surprise" allegations and the circumstances surrounding the release of the American hostages held in Iran. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. ISBN 0160397952. OCLC 28306929. S. Rpt. No. 102-125.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
• Task Force to Investigate Certain Allegations Concerning the Holding of American Hostages by Iran in 1980 (January 3, 1993). Joint report of the Task Force to Investigate Certain Allegations Concerning the Holding of American Hostages by Iran in 1980 ("October Surprise Task Force"). Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. hdl:2027/mdp.39015060776773. OCLC 27492534. H. Rept. No. 102-1102.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Happy reading! - Location (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal

I've removed this line (He now appears on Fox News.) as it is in my opinion vague, does not warrant a mention on the lead, and uses a questionable sourcing style. If anyone wish to ever this to be reverted please discuss on this talk page. Many thanks- VickKiang (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Source of leak to Ash-Shiraa

In 2014, Malcolm Byrne published an article in Unredacted, the blog of the National Security Archive, that linked to a previously classified article published in Studies in Intelligence in 1989. In that article, the author (whose name is redacted) provides an account based upon information from a source (whose name is also redacted) that Syria - attempting to deflect attention from various scandals in the fall of 1986 - leaked information about the Iran initiative to Ash-Shiraa/Al-Shiraa. WP:BLOG applies to the Unredacted article (although Byrne appears to be an expert on this subject matter.[1]) and WP:PRIMARY likely applies to the Studies in Intelligence article. I don't see any other secondary coverage of this theory, so I'm posting it all this here for future reference. -Location (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Bible

The article currently states:

Retired National Security Advisor McFarlane conducted another international voyage, this one to Tehran – bringing with him a gift of a Bible with a handwritten inscription by Ronald Reagan...

The report in The New York Times article cited is based on information that was incomplete at the time. The inscribed bible was actually given by North to "the Relative" during the October 1986 trip to Frankfurt. The report in the Los Angeles Times confirms that Reagan wrote October 3, 1986 in that Bible, and the depositions/testimony of various I-C figures confirm that it was the Frankfurt trip and not the Tehran trip. FWIW: Modern sources still get these details wrong (e.g. see May 2022 obituaries for McFarlane). -Location (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

References