So instead the us chose the risk of a totally ill considered military option which went horrifically wrong resulting in even more humiliation for it internationally.Great job us!!,slow clap for you.....clap!...........clap!..........clap!
Looking at the big picture, let's ask ourselves a simple question. Did Iran benefit or lose from taking and then keeping those hostages ?
1) Okay so in the end, as any seasoned diplomat could have predicted, the USA did not give up the Shah.
2) Iran gave up the diplomats as soon as Ronald Regan, with his tougher stance, was elected.
3) In the eyes of the west and much of world, Iran became an arch rival and adversary overnight. This has cost Iran trillions in lost tourism, business deals, GDP etc. Today every Iranian is significantly poorer because of the decision to keep those hostages and then yell "death to America" for the next few decades.
4) The US didn't even have to lift a finger to relatiate. They just encouraged Saddam and look what happened. 8 years of bloodshed and hundreds of thousands of Iranians dead, Iran's economy crippled, so many innocents perished. In the end the US also pummeled Iran's navy in a few hours and shot down an airliner.
in exchange for the return of his people and the chance of salvaging relations with the new regime in tehran or he could continue to support an ex despot who was no longer of any value in the grand scheme of things
Would Iran give up Assad if he had been forced to flee Syria in exchange for a good relationship with the new Syrian administration/government ? What about Nasrallah ? Absolutely not. So why would America, a global SUPER POWER yield to Iran, (at the time) an underdeveloped country with a literacy rate of 60% ? It's pretty ridiculous if you think about it, especially considering the fact that back then many analysts believed that the Islamic Republic would not last the test of time.
We shouldnt also forget either that iran and the us have engaged in previous prisoner swaps of each others citizens.
You're talking about diplomats. Regardless of what they were up to, the international norm for civilized nations is to kick them out if you don't want them, not take them prisoner. Many Islamic scholars and civilizations throughout history, including the Romans even believe(d) that diplomats should never be taken hostage/injured/mistreated, etc
this still would not have solved the fundamental problem that exists to this very day between the us and iran and that was irans rejection both of us vassalage and what it saw as its god given right to meddle in the affairs of the >nations and peoples of the region.
True but taking those diplomats hostage was not correct. Iran did not benefit from it and at the end of the day it's not just the Iran hostage crisis. It's Iran's entire foreign policy and this whole "death to America" BS which makes millions of people around the world believe that Iran is a boogeyman terrorist nation filled with hateful people.
It's really simple. Treat others as you want to be treated. Would Iran want any nation to take their diplomats hostage ? Would Iran like it if Americans or anyone else constantly burned their flags ? Yes I know Americans have done much worse then burning flags in the middle east, but image is everything in this day and age. If Iran had not acquired this boogeyman image then there's a good chance that Iran wouldn't have had as much trouble with its nuclear program and sanctions probably wouldn't have been as harsh if not arguably nonexistent with the right diplomatic approach.
You might want to refresh your memory as to the price that the west is demanding from iran just for the privilege of doing business with it. The US secretary of state has set out 12 tough demands for inclusion in a new nuclear treaty with Iran.
I'm not saying that Iran should go along with any of those outlandish demands. Infact I'm firmly against Iran doing so. However the fact of the matter is that Iran's foreign policy after the revolution led to Iran being perceived as a pariah state / boogeyman and now Iran's people are suffering because of it.
Now like North Korea, Iran has no choice but to simply hold on and hope that a US president comes along who will be willing to negotiate on reasonable terms. The next few years will be interesting, watching how the various dynamics play out.
If Trump is re-elected, which is a real possibility, then there's a good chance that the status quo will remain in place. On the other hand, according to the world bank, Iran's economy is going to grow in the next 2 years and many are criticizing Trump now since Iran and China have signed this recent economic pact, so perhaps Trump will try to be more reasonable towards North Korea and Iran in the future, though I doubt it.
On the other hand, if Biden is elected, then there is a good chance that the nuclear deal will be reactivated. If the opportunity presents itself, I believe that Iran should take it. However this time Iran demand certain guarantees from the US side, otherwise it's simply pointless.
For example, I believe that Iran should absolutely NOT reduce any of its nuclear activity until Iranian banks are completely reinstated into the global banking system. The sale of the passenger planes and other essential goods should also be guaranteed. Any western company that wants to do business with Iran should also be required to put down a deposit, which they would forfeit if they withdraw again. Also companies who left despite their promises like Renault and Peugeot should pay penalties in order to do business with Iran again.
This whole situation is just frustrating. A part of me believes that, for all the losses Iran has incured, that Iran should have simply built nuclear weapons, like North Korea. On the other hand, that could have led to a war at a time when Iran's missile / air defense capabilities weren't nearly as potent. Also doing so would have most likely isolated Iran from China and Russia and perhaps Iran's economy would have ended up worse off than it is today.
Who knows but one thing is for sure, looking at North Korea, self isolation in todays world is a hopeless policy. I recently saw a video of a Russian journalist who visits North Korea. Believe it or not, in Pyong Yang, the capital, there are people using scissors to cut the grass on public streets. Like I've said before, no country can have a prosperous economy in this day and age without cooperating with either the eastern sphere (China/Russia) or the western sphere (USA/EU).
Looking at the big picture, let's ask ourselves a simple question. Did Iran benefit or lose from taking and then keeping those hostages ?
1) Okay so in the end, as any seasoned diplomat could have predicted, the USA did not give up the Shah.
2) Iran gave up the diplomats as soon as Ronald Regan, with his tougher stance, was elected.
3) In the eyes of the west and much of world, Iran became an arch rival and adversary overnight. This has cost Iran trillions in lost tourism, business deals, GDP etc. Today every Iranian is significantly poorer because of the decision to keep those hostages and then yell "death to America" for the next few decades.
4) The US didn't even have to lift a finger to relatiate. They just encouraged Saddam and look what happened. 8 years of bloodshed and hundreds of thousands of Iranians dead, Iran's economy crippled, so many innocents perished. In the end the US also pummeled Iran's navy in a few hours and shot down an airliner.
in exchange for the return of his people and the chance of salvaging relations with the new regime in tehran or he could continue to support an ex despot who was no longer of any value in the grand scheme of things
Would Iran give up Assad if he had been forced to flee Syria in exchange for a good relationship with the new Syrian administration/government ? What about Nasrallah ? Absolutely not. So why would America, a global SUPER POWER yield to Iran, (at the time) an underdeveloped country with a literacy rate of 60% ? It's pretty ridiculous if you think about it, especially considering the fact that back then many analysts believed that the Islamic Republic would not last the test of time.
We shouldnt also forget either that iran and the us have engaged in previous prisoner swaps of each others citizens.
You're talking about diplomats. Regardless of what they were up to, the international norm for civilized nations is to kick them out if you don't want them, not take them prisoner. Many Islamic scholars and civilizations throughout history, including the Romans even believe(d) that diplomats should never be taken hostage/injured/mistreated, etc
this still would not have solved the fundamental problem that exists to this very day between the us and iran and that was irans rejection both of us vassalage and what it saw as its god given right to meddle in the affairs of the >nations and peoples of the region.
True but taking those diplomats hostage was not correct. Iran did not benefit from it and at the end of the day it's not just the Iran hostage crisis. It's Iran's entire foreign policy and this whole "death to America" BS which makes millions of people around the world believe that Iran is a boogeyman terrorist nation filled with hateful people.
It's really simple. Treat others as you want to be treated. Would Iran want any nation to take their diplomats hostage ? Would Iran like it if Americans or anyone else constantly burned their flags ? Yes I know Americans have done much worse then burning flags in the middle east, but image is everything in this day and age. If Iran had not acquired this boogeyman image then there's a good chance that Iran wouldn't have had as much trouble with its nuclear program and sanctions probably wouldn't have been as harsh if not arguably nonexistent with the right diplomatic approach.
You might want to refresh your memory as to the price that the west is demanding from iran just for the privilege of doing business with it. The US secretary of state has set out 12 tough demands for inclusion in a new nuclear treaty with Iran.
I'm not saying that Iran should go along with any of those outlandish demands. Infact I'm firmly against Iran doing so. However the fact of the matter is that Iran's foreign policy after the revolution led to Iran being perceived as a pariah state / boogeyman and now Iran's people are suffering because of it.
Now like North Korea, Iran has no choice but to simply hold on and hope that a US president comes along who will be willing to negotiate on reasonable terms. The next few years will be interesting, watching how the various dynamics play out.
If Trump is re-elected, which is a real possibility, then there's a good chance that the status quo will remain in place. On the other hand, according to the world bank, Iran's economy is going to grow in the next 2 years and many are criticizing Trump now since Iran and China have signed this recent economic pact, so perhaps Trump will try to be more reasonable towards North Korea and Iran in the future, though I doubt it.
On the other hand, if Biden is elected, then there is a good chance that the nuclear deal will be reactivated. If the opportunity presents itself, I believe that Iran should take it. However this time Iran demand certain guarantees from the US side, otherwise it's simply pointless.
For example, I believe that Iran should absolutely NOT reduce any of its nuclear activity until Iranian banks are completely reinstated into the global banking system. The sale of the passenger planes and other essential goods should also be guaranteed. Any western company that wants to do business with Iran should also be required to put down a deposit, which they would forfeit if they withdraw again. Also companies who left despite their promises like Renault and Peugeot should pay penalties in order to do business with Iran again.
This whole situation is just frustrating. A part of me believes that, for all the losses Iran has incured, that Iran should have simply built nuclear weapons, like North Korea. On the other hand, that could have led to a war at a time when Iran's missile / air defense capabilities weren't nearly as potent. Also doing so would have most likely isolated Iran from China and Russia and perhaps Iran's economy would have ended up worse off than it is today.
Who knows but one thing is for sure, looking at North Korea, self isolation in todays world is a hopeless policy. I recently saw a video of a Russian journalist who visits North Korea. Believe it or not, in Pyong Yang, the capital, there are people using scissors to cut the grass on public streets. Like I've said before, no country can have a prosperous economy in this day and age without cooperating with either the eastern sphere (China/Russia) or the western sphere (USA/EU).
