It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Sixteen

"Iran-Contra: Reagan's Image and Popularity Take A Hit"

Midway through Reagan's second term a scandal broke which came to generally be called "Iran-Contra." The overall scandal was far too complex to detail here, and I would say, many Americans back then didn't really understand many of the details, but the basic parts involved were these:  First, pretty much throughout Reagan's time in office, Iran and neighboring Iraq were in a bitter war with one another. The long ordeal of the American hostages in Iran from 1979-1981 and the anti-American theocracy ruling Iran left the U.S. openly supporting Iraq, a country under dictator Saddam Hussein. U.S. support was financial, technological, military and diplomatic. There was a U.S. embargo (including weapons) against Iran at this same time. Further, the Cold War was still very much a reality, and fear of Soviet aid to other countries (and the influence that could gain), especially in the crucial oil area of the Middle East, was always a concern. Second, Nicaragua (in Central America) was ruled by a communist group called the "Sandinistas," a group the Reagan administration very much opposed (some would say "became obsessed with," which distorted their judgment). The administration was not legally able to give material support to the Nicaraguan opponents of the Sandinistas, called the "Contras," because of laws prohibiting such.* Third, while bound by law, Reagan made it clear to some in his administration that he wanted to assist the Contras in some way in their fight against the communist regime. Fourth, Iran needed military aid in its war against Iraq, and moderate political/military factions in Iran secretly sought such aid from the U.S., although the U.S. was openly in support of Iraq. Fifth, some Americans were being held hostage by an Iranian supported terrorist group in Lebanon. Reagan refused to negotiate with these terrorists for the release of the hostages.** Sixth, the U.S. sold weapons to Iran by using Israel as the actual supplier of the weapons to Iran, for which Israel then received weapons from the U.S. to compensate, with the further idea that the Iranians would then aid in the release of the American hostages in Lebanon. Seventh, the process began and weapons were sold to Iran via Israel and some hostages were released. Eighth, Oliver North, an officer in the Marine Corps, was also an adviser to the administration on national security matters. North proposed upping the price on the weapons sold to Iran and skipping the Israeli go between. The extra money generated by the sales would then be used to help the Contras in Nicaragua, and this money would not be reported as part of the arms sales, which was seen as a way to get around U.S. law.   

The overall deal had problems, as although some American hostages were released early on, other American hostages were then taken, "apparently" as replacements for those already released. "Perhaps" the Iranians, who weren't stupid, figured they were already being overcharged for the weapons, and that further hostages would give them leverage to keep needed American weapons coming to them for their war with Iraq. Whatever the case, news reports from the Middle East, seemingly initiated by Iranians, put the matter out into the public domain and brought a flurry of media coverage in the U.S. about an "arms for hostages deal." By then too, a plane had been shot down in Nicaragua by Sandinista forces while on a secret mission to deliver materials to the Contras. The mission had been approved by some Reagan administration officials. The whole complex matter began to be told, and under pressure, President Reagan tried to explain to Americans what had happened, which he said did not involve arms for hostages or broken American laws. However, hearings by a Reagan appointed commission to investigate the matter gained testimony from a number of witnesses and indicated the involvement of some high ranking Reagan administration officials, although some missing documents precluded conclusive direct links in many instances to the President himself, but the commission did blame Reagan for lax oversight of his administration. Reagan then faced the American public to tell them he had misspoken earlier about the arms for hostages deal, while still leaving room for Americans to support him by essentially saying he didn't see the deal making as arms for hostages, but the evidence said otherwise.

Reagan's popularity dropped tremendously. Reagan's time in office had several incidents with terrorists taking hostages on planes and even a cruise ship, where an elderly Jewish-American in a wheelchair was murdered and pushed overboard. It all goes to show that these kinds of terrorist incidents, which have continued in some manner ever since, are not easily controlled, in spite of the partisan political slogans, whether your name is Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Obama.    

* The Contras had initial help and support in organizing from the CIA, dating from the Carter administration. There were many reports that the Contras violated human rights and committed war crimes, which made some Americans leery of aiding them. On the other hand, the ruling Sandinistas, who had overthrown the previous government in a revolution, were communist and heavily backed by Cuba's Fidel Castro, with at least some connections to then communist dominated eastern Europe. 

** The refusal to negotiate with "terrorists" was not new. Jimmy Carter and his administration had negotiated with representatives of the Iranian government over the American hostages held a few years earlier, as "technically," the Iranian government was not holding the Americans hostage, but rather they were held by Iranian revolutionaries and students. Likewise, the hostages in Lebanon were held by an Iranian group, "technically" not affiliated with the Iranian government.

WORD HISTORY:
Brew-This word goes back to Indo European "bhreuh," which had the notion of "to boil," which led by extension to the meanings "to seethe, to bubble, to cook." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "breuwanan," which meant "to brew." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "breowan," which then became "brewen," before the modern version. The noun form developed from the verb, but another noun had preceded that, which was "briw," which meant "porridge, cooked meal/ground grain" (German still has the noun "Brei" and Low German has "Bree," both with the same meaning as their now deceased English relative). Forms of "brew" are common in the other Germanic languages and it is closely related to "broth," which comes from the same source (I'll cover it soon): German has "brauen" (to brew), "Brühe" (broth) and "Gebräu" (formerly  "a brew," but in modern times used derogatorily for "a brewed concoction"); Low German Saxon has "broen" (to brew) and "Bröh" (broth); Dutch has "brouwen" (to brew); West Frisian has "brouwe" (brew); Danish has "brygge" (brew);  Icelandic has "brugga" (brew);  Norwegian has "brygg" (brew); and Swedish has "brygga" (to brew).