Let's play a game... Titus' Try

Okay, I suggested this, so I'll start.

It is October, 1979... and Thomas Foster is President of the United States. The Shah of Iran, currently in exile and living in one country after another, has requested that he be allowed to receive treatment for his lymphomic cancer at John Hopkins. I allow the visit on the condition that he leave as soon as he is medically able to do so (the same conditions history provides).

Prior to this allowed visit, the de facto government of Iran had made no directly hostile or aggressive policies or statements to the US, other than a general hatred for all things "western". However, once the Shah was allowed into the country, demonstrations were staged on a daily basis calling for the extradition of the Shah to Iran for trial and execution. These demonstrations became more and more hostile and violent as they progressed.

On Nov 4, 1979, the demonstrators storm the US Embassy in Tehran, taking (ultimately) 52 American hostages. These hostages were not kept together in the same place, rather they were spread out over a large area of Tehran.

Here is what most analysts and historians feel happened next:

The Iranians had no intention of keeping the hostages for an extended period of time. It was only after the prolonged inaction of the Carter Administration that induced the Iranians to extend their hostage efforts over a longer time frame.

So, the first thing I would have done as President is demanded the unconditional release of those 52 Americans within 24 hours to another foreign service... say the Canadians or the French (both had embassies in Tehran capable of doing the exchange)... and failing that, to expect military action to be made on a regular schedule until they were released. It was appearent from the start that the "students" were being supported by the government, so the government was responsible for the actions (and it's own reactions) to the students.

Now, me being me, I'd have hesitated to put civilian populations at undo risk... so bombing attacks in major cities would be out of the question. However, we had the capacity to launch cruise missles at military targets placed along the Iraqi border with Iran. Iran had an entire armored division staged on the border, with all available fuel and munitions with it. Release the hostages, or know that large segments of your frontier security forces, facing an increasingly belligerent neighbor (Iraq), would be at serious risk. These missles strikes could have been launched from the Gulf by American naval forces already in theater, with no risk to themselves.

If that didn't convince the Iranians that I (as PotUS) was damn serious... then national infrastructure targets of opportunity would be selected next... say the de-salinization plants located on the Persian Gulf coast of Iran, or particularly large and accessible military airfields or production facilities. These targets do, of course, constitute real threats to civilian lives... but it is a matter of fact that the actions of the Iranian government, directly or through the proxy of the student-radicals, justified the risk... in my eyes.

Prior to this crisis, the "sanctity" of international embassies in all actions diplomatic and military was intact. A foreign embassy was seen as foreign "soil", and in storming the embassy, the radicals had invaded and accosted US territory. That means, if the Iranian government did nothing to address the problem, then they were complicent in the attack, and were justifiably responsible for the act themselves. This was true of the Serbians in WWI, and it was true of the Taliban 20 years later... the problem is in your backyard, so FIX IT or we will.

I feel the measures I have outlined here are perfectly justifiable, and would have gotten us the results we wanted very rapidly. In fact, Reagan empoyed a very similar strategy against Lybia only a few years later... and got the results he wanted within 14 days.

The real pisser about all this, in the view of an historical outlook, is that Carter wasted this chance. The Soviets were all tied up with Iraq... in fact, more than 80% of all the equipment that the Iranians had came from either the US or the UK... M60A1 MBTs (with half again as many Chieftain MBTs), American artillery and APCs, British helicopters... we KNEW what the Iranians were capable of prior to the Iraqi invasion because we gave them their stock! We KNEW where everything was because we helped BUILD IT. The Shah's recognition of Israel had gained him (an,thus, the Army) a supply of Israeli small arms and AA guns (shoulder-launched stuff, but we knew the capabilities), but no amount of posturing on the part of Khomeini would get them to side with him. A few well-placed strikes on hardened military targets like ammo bunkers and concrete fighter hangers would have done wonders to soften the Iranians in the eyes of the Soviets, the Iraqis, and the Israelis... all a good thing, in the long run.

No, I don't doubt and can't argue that Carter's "soft-shoe" approach to this crisis was a huge failing on his part. Decisive, aggressive action would have gotten more results in 3 weeks than his actions and policies got in 444 days.

That's what I would have done.