It seems to me that that would have very likely solved everything if they just gave the Shah back to Iran. The U.S. has had no problem extraditing criminals back to their own country before, so why not do it to save their own citizens?
shareBesides the US looking really bad by being blackmailed into sending a seriously ill and long-time friend back to certain death, the fact is that by the time the Argo rescue took place, the Shah had left the US more than a month earlier.
shareI think it would look worse if the U.S. let that many of it's own innocent citizens be killed over a mass murderer. Not only did the U.S. let a mass murderer escape trial, but they let their own people be killed for it to happen. Wouldn't that look worse?
Does the movie ever mention that the Shah left a month before, cause if it did, I missed it.
Do you think it really would have made much difference if the USA sent the Shah back to Iran? The country was pissed off enough at the USA, and whether they sent the Shah back before the embassy takeover or during it, it's unlikely things would have turned out different. Iran held a grudge against the USA for Operation Ajax (even though the people working in the embassy had nothing to do with it, some employees weren't even born when it happened) and I don't think extraditing the Shah would have made much difference. Once the Shah was back in Iran, what would the hostage-takers have to gain by releasing the hostages at that point? The Carter administration preferred to freeze overseas Iranian assets and use that to negotiate the return of the hostages. Whether that was the right way to do it either, I can't say.
Furthermore, the USA has always had an official policy of "not negotiating with terrorists" or giving into terrorist demands, although we all know how often that policy is ignored.
On top of that, the group that took over the embassy was not well organized, at least not at first and did not have a well-established power structure. Some members of the group may have held up their end of the bargain and ended occupation of the embassy after the Shah was returned, but others may have not.
That's true, you have a point, it may not have done any good. As far as not negotiating with terrorists, the Shah was himself, a terrorist, to his own citizens, and the U.S. negotiated with him and even harbored him. So I think they were being double standard-ish.
shareThe United States government, having double standards? I never would have imagined it! I'm sure we could list a countless number of examples of that happening, but I'm just too lazy right now.
But let's forget that even though the Shah may have been a terrorist to his own people with the SAVAK, the Ayatollah created the SAVAMA, pretty much the same type of government organization, staffed by the same people, except for local bureau chiefs and other high-level people. This is all subjective but many Iranians say the SAVAMA was worse than the SAVAK. Let's not forget the kind of terrorist the Ayatollah was too, inside and outside of Iran.
Okay thanks, I did not know about that. It's just the movie never deals with this area, and therefore, if the audience doesn't know, they may get the impression that the U.S. government thinks that hypocrisy, is less embarrassing, and worthy of sacrificing lives, and you gotta wonder, how is that not more embarrassing, but you don't know the real motive, since they never touch upon it.
shareThere could be another reason why the Shah was not in any danger of being extradited. The Shah was, in lack of a better description, the "US-man in the Gulf", put and given support to stay there by the US, when Mosaddegh was otherthrowm by a coup (it may come as a BIG surprise but people in "other countries" tend to notice such things and they tend to remember who messed their lives up. If you doubt it, search a bit and find out why did president Clinton apologized in his visit to Athens in spring 1999). That being said, if the US gave him up, when pushed enough, they would send a very "bad" message to future potential "employees/collaborators"; 'if we have to, we WILL sell you out!'. Who would they find to do their dirty work (like, oppress millions so that oil companies, to name just one sphere of political influence, continue profiting) abroad?
Of course, had the late Shah become a liability, like one of the latest US employees that gained worldwide notoriety, he would have been extradited before you could say "Osama" - but he was clever enough to avoid that pitfall.
Cute and cuddly boyz!!
The US helped The Shah ("The King"- a monarch who led Iran for 3,000 years) back INTO power after Mossadegh illegally overthrew HIM and he went into temporary exile in Italy.
It would be like David Cameron throwing The Queen out of Britain. And, in fairness, Iran was better and more humanely run under The Shah than the ayatollahs (for reference see: "Mubarak, Hosni")
Of course, it's much easier to peddle the false, easy "We're only bad because the US are meany heads!" narrative.
Really, Operation Ajax, the coup that brought the Shah back into power was really much more the efforts of the British and internal dissenters against Mossadegh. The British were screwing over Iran a lot more than the USA did with all the profits they collected from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, while Iran was pushing for a more fair arrangement like the USA had with Aramco in Saudi Arabia. The Eisenhower administration had been pushing the British for a long time to work out a more fair arrangement with the sharing of oil profits but of course they couldn't force the British to do anything.
The USA was a bit player in the whole Operation Ajax yet somehow seemed to get blamed for all of it by the Ayatollah, his supporters and other Iranians with anti-Western sentiment. Not to mention that the Shah had the consitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh, and Mossadegh was breaking the law when he refused to step down. But blaming the big bad USA is easier than blaming the smaller Great Britain, whose colonial empire had been rapidly shrinking.
Mossadegh's own regime was falling apart as it is and with the passage of a little more time, it probably would been overthrown anyway without any US or British efforts. I can only guess that both the US and Great Britain wanted to ensure the Shah took over before the Ayatollah did.
If you feel like some more heavy reading on the subject, see this link:
http://www.cfr.org/iran/myth-american-coup/p30900
The US helped The Shah ("The King"- a monarch who led Iran for 3,000 years) back INTO power after Mossadegh illegally overthrew HIM and he went into temporary exile in Italy.
It would be like David Cameron throwing The Queen out of Britain. And, in fairness, Iran was better and more humanely run under The Shah than the ayatollahs (for reference see: "Mubarak, Hosni")
Of course, it's much easier to peddle the false, easy "We're only bad because the US are meany heads!" narrative.
Of course, it's much easier to peddle the false, easy "We're only bad because the US are meany heads!" narrative
The Shah was not a terrorist. Too many americans and europeans are very confused about this. The Ayatollahs are terrorists, and most persian people hate them.
The Ayatollahs support Hamas, Hezbollah, and many other terrorist groups.
As far as not negotiating with terrorists, the Shah was himself, a terrorist, to his own citizens, and the U.S. negotiated with him and even harbored him. So I think they were being double standard-ish.
Iran wasn't exactly stable at the time nor had been for at least a year or 2 before.
So sending the Shah back could have been a mistake if different factions were fighting and a different one took over every few months.
Who knows, order could have been restored and from the American point of view the Shah could have been reinstated at some future date and he was supposed to be a friend to America, the West, and anti-communist.
They learned after that, and gave Ghaddafi to his people. You see how crazy they went?
shareThat was never even a remote possibility. The US did help arrange to get the Shah out of Iran and in exile somewhere else. (Do not remember the country.) He was allowed into the US strictly for medical care. The embassy seizure really was a spontaneous act by students, but it was taken over by the Iranian government, and specifically by the ayatollahs. Iran did not seriously expect the US to extradite the Shah, and the idea that he was allowed into the US to help him plot a return to power was absurd as well.
One can debate the wisdom of allowing him into the country in the first place, but no country on earth would have allowed an exiled leader into its country and then extradited him. Diplomatically, it is just not done.
The easiest explanation - USA would not openly give into terrorists' demands. Giving Shah back to Iran means that USA is giving in their demands and it would just open the door wide open to future attacks on USA embassies all over the world for terrorists to get what they want.
If Iran had secretly asked for the Shah, that would have been a different story.
Show me the holes!
The easiest explanation - USA would not openly give into terrorists' demands. Giving Shah back to Iran means that USA is giving in their demands and it would just open the door wide open to future attacks on USA embassies all over the world for terrorists to get what they want.
USA gives into terrorist demands all the time? Can you give some examples to your blanket statement?
Show me the holes!
USA gives into terrorist demands all the time? Can you give some examples to your blanket statement?
Why didn't we do that? I think because we liked the Shah and didn't want him to be executed in Iran. Maybe you are right, we could've said the hell with it and given him to Iran so we'd get our hostages back, but it was the government's decision. Maybe if we had been in charge back then, who knows?
share