America and Renewed Trust in Moderates in Iran

Jill Troy, a professor of history and political science at American universities, writes in an analytical piece on the Daily Beast website that President Obama is not the first president to attempt to win over the moderates in the Iranian government, but undoubtedly, Mr. Obama's policy has had negative results. This analyst adds that despite President Obama's significant risks to moderate the anti-American and hostile positions of the mullahs' regime in Iran, thugs in Tehran continued to chant 'Death to America' at the behest of Ayatollah Khamenei. Nevertheless, the President and his advisors, who have been deceived just like him, emphasize this policy to the extent that they are even willing to insult American lawmakers by disregarding Congress's legal role in approving foreign policy. He writes: 'My analysis is not another attack by neoconservatives on Barack Obama's policy and the nuclear agreement with the Iranian regime. The history of this analysis dates back to the mistakes of American presidents to 1985 when Ronald Reagan decided to strengthen the moderates in the Iranian government by sending weapons and spare parts to that country for the release of American hostages; a policy that became known as the 'Iran-Contra Affair.' Mr. Troy continues that regardless of our views on the recent nuclear agreement with Iran, we must answer the important question: Has anything changed in the policies of the Iranian government? Thirty years ago, a 'ridiculous plan' was presented to Ronald Reagan for the release of seven Americans held hostage by Hezbollah. According to this plan, weapons were to be sold to the so-called moderates of the Iranian government through Israeli intermediaries, who promised that after Ayatollah Khomeini's death, they would improve relations with America. Ronald Reagan, who wanted to free the hostages by any means and hoped that rapprochement with Iran could confuse and disorient the main enemy of the Cold War, the Soviet Union, accepted this plan. Shortly after two weeks from his last speech titled 'We do not negotiate with terrorists,' Ronald Reagan wrote in his diary on July 17, 1985: 'Strange voices are heard from some Iranian officials.' Relying on these 'strange voices,' the first shipment of weapons sent by America via Israel reached Iran, and the first hostage was released in September. The final report of the U.S. government on the 'Iran-Contra Affair' states: 'An approved action to guarantee the release of American hostages in exchange for sending weapons to Iran.' In the end, Iran received more than two thousand TOW anti-tank missiles and several tons of spare parts, and in return, three hostages were released. However, Hezbollah soon took several more Americans hostage in their place. Jill Troy adds in his piece on the Daily Beast that Ronald Reagan's advisors tried to keep this operation secret. [Because] Ronald Reagan had promised during the 1980 election campaign that he would never negotiate with terrorists regarding the American hostages in the Tehran embassy. Reagan's advisors also did not want the cunning of the Iranian government in deceiving the Great Satan (America) and the Little Satan (Israel) in this affair to be revealed. From Jill Troy's perspective, the more interesting part of the story was that some military and security officials in America, including Colonel Oliver North, were frustrated with Congress's decision not to send military aid to the right-wing armed group in Nicaragua called the Contras, which was fighting against the Sandinista government in that country. They continued to provide covert financial and military assistance to the Contras in Nicaragua from the proceeds of the secret sale of these arms shipments to Iran. Jill Troy believes that the 'Iran-Contra Affair' questioned Reagan's credibility, and its lessons are still valid. The U.S. Congress, which was then controlled by Democrats, passed three resolutions prohibiting any aid to this group in Nicaragua. Ronald Reagan despised the imposition of this restriction by Congress. In fact, the affair known as 'Iran-Contra' was an unconstitutional action to circumvent Congress's oversight of U.S. foreign policy. In the fall of 1986, Lebanese newspapers revealed details of this secret deal, resulting in the destruction of Ronald Reagan's presidency. Reagan refused to acknowledge the essence of the matter for months because he faced the risk of impeachment by Congress. He finally 'apologized' in March 1987, and his justification for this apology became a template for the ambiguous statements of politicians. He said: 'A few months ago, I told the American people that I had not traded arms for hostages. My heart tells me that this method is still right, but the facts and realities tell me that it is not.' Ultimately, no one in America had the patience for the impeachment and removal of Reagan, and the events related to Gorbachev's rule and the end of the Soviet Union saved Ronald Reagan. However, the 'Iran-Contra Affair' questioned Reagan's credibility, and its lessons are still valid. Jill Troy continues in his piece on the Daily Beast that relying on and counting on the 'moderates' of the Iranian regime is a long-standing political method rooted in the old American belief in the power of logic and rationality. George Washington, in his farewell address, assuming the principle that most people are well-intentioned, advised that the U.S. government should always act 'fairly and friendly.' According to Mr. Troy, supporters of the recent nuclear agreement with Iran recall part of this speech. George Washington said: 'A nation that has permanent enemies or friends will be enslaved by circumstances. A country's permanent hostility against another will make it easier for both sides to quarrel or harm each other, and in times of conflict and accidental incidents, they will confront each other with stubbornness and arrogance.' However, critics of the recent nuclear agreement remind us that Jimmy Carter was captivated by the 'authenticity' of the Iranian revolution and failed to understand the fundamentalism hidden in Ayatollah Khomeini's speeches and positions before the overthrow of the Shah. Ronald Reagan and his advisors were deceived by the moderates who apparently differed from the authentic and radical leader of the Islamic Revolution. Mr. Troy continues that regardless of how we evaluate the recent nuclear agreement with Iran, it should be remembered that anti-American slogans in Iran continue to pose a dangerous threat, and four American citizens are held hostage (imprisoned) in that country. According to him, Barack Obama has invested in George Washington's recommendations and wants to free Americans from the trouble of perceiving the Islamic Republic of Iran as an enemy. Critics of Barack Obama are concerned that the President, either out of sincerity or naivety, thinks that others (including the Islamic Republic regime) behave with goodwill and honesty like themselves, following the same path as previous presidents from both parties. Mr. Troy warns that Barack Obama's risky policy of rapprochement with the 'moderates' of the Iranian regime is occurring just thirty years after Ronald Reagan adopted the same policy. Both political gambles reflect the old American faith in logic and the search for moderation and centrism even among America's enemies. Both examples demonstrate a supernatural belief in the role of diplomacy and the defense of human rights in circumstances where real data does not indicate such a thing. He concludes his analysis by stating that in both cases, we see presidents attempting to exercise their maximum powers in foreign policy, and in Reagan's case, the Congressional oversight role was illegally violated. Ronald Reagan's policy quickly failed and led to the 'Iran-Contra' scandal. The fate of Barack Obama's agreement with Iran is unlikely to be determined soon. Nevertheless, the dangers of the 'tyrannical and oppressive regime' of the Islamic Republic of Iran will undoubtedly continue.