I said that first part specifically because you called it “the real story” - surely it’s not much of a story if nobody does anything surprising or unexpected, right?
Either way, this did work out fairly well for Iran. They held the Iraqi invasion off (even if their own counterinvasion was a dud), Reagan continued selling them arms throughout in what would go on to be called the Iran-Contra scandal, and direct American involvement was limited to protecting Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf.
America was already officially embargoing Iran, and Iran had taken Americans hostage. I don’t think it’s very reasonable to say that this deal made relations any worse than they already were.
I think that’s expecting a bit much prediction of the future from the Iranian government, isn’t it? At that point it seemed like America was far more concerned with communism than anything else, and the new Iranian government wasn’t communist. The only time America had sent troops to the western half of Asia between then and WW2 was when Lebanon requested help.
The US coup that overthrew Iran’s Prime Minister happened less than 30 years before in 1953. Not to mention the other coups and election interference in other Muslim-majority countries like Lebanon in 1957 and Indonesia in 1967. Did Iran think it was special, that the Great Satan wouldn’t come for them when they were no longer useful?
And then, of course, the US deployed troops in the Gulf War only a decade later in 1990. I really don’t think it was unpredictable.
I said that first part specifically because you called it “the real story” - surely it’s not much of a story if nobody does anything surprising or unexpected, right?
Either way, this did work out fairly well for Iran. They held the Iraqi invasion off (even if their own counterinvasion was a dud), Reagan continued selling them arms throughout in what would go on to be called the Iran-Contra scandal, and direct American involvement was limited to protecting Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf.
That’s very short term. Surely you see how getting Reagan elected lead to where Iran relations are today?
America was already officially embargoing Iran, and Iran had taken Americans hostage. I don’t think it’s very reasonable to say that this deal made relations any worse than they already were.
No, but I think it’s reasonable to say Reagan’s “War on Terrorism” lead to Bush’s “War on Terror” and Iran being declared part of the “Axis of Evil”
Then came Obama and the nuclear deal, and then came Trump and he yanked the rug out from under the nuclear deal.
Iran cooperating with the US has never really worked out in the long run.
I think that’s expecting a bit much prediction of the future from the Iranian government, isn’t it? At that point it seemed like America was far more concerned with communism than anything else, and the new Iranian government wasn’t communist. The only time America had sent troops to the western half of Asia between then and WW2 was when Lebanon requested help.
The US coup that overthrew Iran’s Prime Minister happened less than 30 years before in 1953. Not to mention the other coups and election interference in other Muslim-majority countries like Lebanon in 1957 and Indonesia in 1967. Did Iran think it was special, that the Great Satan wouldn’t come for them when they were no longer useful?
And then, of course, the US deployed troops in the Gulf War only a decade later in 1990. I really don’t think it was unpredictable.