I just saw this campaign ad for Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign. He says that Iran held US embassy hostages for 444 days. Then they were released within one hour. That was the hour after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as president, succeeding Jimmy Carter. Giuliani goes on to tell us that this incident shows how you deal with"Islamic terrorists." You get tough on them and don't back down.

The problem with this assertion is that it is not true, and indeed the opposite is true. Gary Sick showed in October Surprise that:

Piercing the shadowy netherworld of international espionage, Sick has written one of the most controversial and disturbing accounts of political intrigue to appear in recent years. In 1980, William Casey, then campaign manager of the Reagan-Bush ticket, without the knowledge or approval of the legitimate government, arranged a deal with the Iranian government that in return for military equipment, the Iranians would not release the 52 American hostages until Ronald Reagan was safely inaugurated.

So the hostages weren't released because Reagan was tough on the Iranian regime. They were released because Casey promised that the Republicans would sell Khomeini weapons if they kept the hostages for an extra couple of months and denied Jimmy Carter the sort of diplomatic coup that might have rescued his presidency.

Not only was Reagan not in fact 'tough' on the ayatollahs in Tehran, he later on stole Pentagon weaponry from the warehouses, illegally sold this US military materiel to a terrorist regime (that of Khomeini), then pocketed the money from the illegal arms sales to 'Islamic terrorists' and laundered it through shadowy bank accounts, sending it to far rightwing death squads in Nicaragua.

Besides, they aren't"Islamic" terrorists because Islam forbids terrorism. They might be Muslim terrorists, but then not very good Muslims. When will Giuliani denounce the"Catholic terrorism" of some prominent priests who were active in the Irish Republican Army? Would he talk about"Jewish terrorism" in regard to the blowing up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem?

As for Iran-contra, I feel a golden oldie coming on:

And, Schultz told both Rumsfeld and Saddam that the US was trying to curb weapons flows to Iran. Yet it is well known that Israel was supplying Iran with weaponry in return for Iranian oil. Only a little over a year later, Schultz double-crossed Saddam by getting on board with the Iran-Contra weapons exchange, which was suggested by the Israelis in the first place. The White House illegally sold Iran hundreds of powerful TOW anti-tank and HAWK anti-aircraft weapons [which Reagan came on television and told us were shoulder-launched weapons!], for use against Washington's newfound ally, the Iraqis, who were being assured that the US was trying hard to"prevent an Iranian victory . . .

These weapons sales contravened US law, under which Iran was tagged as a terrorist nation. (Even today I can get into trouble for so much as editing a paper by an Iranian scholar for publication in a US scholarly journal, but it was all right for the Republicans and Neocons to send Khomeini 1000 TOWs!) Not only that, but Reagan's team then turned around and used the money garnered from these off-the-books sales to support the contra death squads in Nicaragua. In the US Constitution, how to spend government money is the purview of Congress, and Congress had told Reagan"no" on funding the death squads. So Reagan's people essentially stole weapons from the Pentagon storehouses, shipped them to Israel for transfer to Ayatollah Khomeini, and then took the ill gotten gains from fencing the stolen goods and gave them to nun-murderers in Latin America.



Here's the timeline:



"1985

July -- An Israeli official suggests a deal with Iran to then-national security adviser Robert McFarlane, saying the transfer of arms could lead to release of Americans being held hostage in Lebanon. McFarlane brings the message to President Reagan.

Aug. 30 -- The first planeload of U.S.-made weapons is sent from Israel to Tehran. Two weeks later the first American Hostage is released.

Dec. 5 -- Reagan secretly signs a presidential 'finding,' or authorization, describing the operation with Iran as an arms-for-hostages deal.




1986

Jan. 17 -- Reagan signs a finding authorizing CIA participation in the sales and ordering the process kept secret from Congress.

April -- Then-White House aide Oliver North writes a memo outlining plans to use $12 million in profits from Iran arms sales for Contra aid. "



Oh, yeah, that Reagan was tough on Khomeini. Why, he even sent him a Bible and a cake, to go along with those nice TOW's he gave him. That will teach those terrorists to mess with the Republican Party!

N. Friedman - 12/19/2007

Omar,

I ran away from nothing. I did spell the word in an odd way. But, in fact, Gazi means "infidel killer."

omar ibrahim baker - 12/19/2007

Mr. Friedman
You are running away.
The issue was the "meaning" of "ghazi" that you consciously imbued with a non existent anti Islam slant by "defining" it as "Infidel killer"!(Hence my interest!)

Strictly speaking it has nothing to do with neither “killing” nor your favourite addition of "of infidels".
Ghaza, verb, means to invade; inter tribal skirmishes, that could have entailed some killing but definitely do not involve "infidels” were/are called "ghazawat" .

All are derived from the verb "GHAZA" which means” invade”; no more no less as far as "infidels" are concerned.

By the way GHAZI is a quite common men’s name borne by all sorts of people including princes and common men through out the Arab and Moslem worlds.

Your interpretation of the word was NOT only, objectively, deceptive and misleading but equally, subjectively, pretentious

N. Friedman - 12/18/2007

Omar,

The Gaza Theory was, at one time, the dominant theory about the formation of the Ottoman Empire. There have been other theories that later emerged but the Gaza Theory has made a comeback. Now, you can say that words means anything you like. But, Gazis are infidel killers.

omar ibrahim baker - 12/18/2007

Mr Friedman
I see no "Ottoman lexicography," defining ghazi(s) as " an infidel killers."
All sorts of words are being coined then used to serve political interests by the very many ; however as noted by you, BUT not respected by you, "lexicography " is the ultimate arbiter!

N. Friedman - 12/18/2007

Omar,

My source on this Cemal Kafadar, who is Associate Professor of History at Harvard University. I refer to his excellent book Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State. Actually, I believe he would call infidel killers "Gazis." He accepts, in considerable part, the "Gaza thesis" on the creation of the Ottoman Empire.

For what it is worth, columnist Robert Fisk also refers to ghazis as "infidel killers."

omar ibrahim baker - 12/18/2007

Mr Friedman
Would you care providing a source.
If I recall correctly Mustafa Kemal, Ataturk, was know, among other appelations, as "Ghazi...."!
However the important thing is to provide a source.
Hopefully not a TV series!

N. Friedman - 12/17/2007

Omar,

Ghazis were known, in Ottoman lexicography, as "infidel killers." Not every word has only an Arabic meaning.

omar ibrahim baker - 12/17/2007

Mr Friedman
Is it NOT enough for you that you are debunking Islam for a reason , seldom a valid one, or no reason at all, most of the time , that now you plan to distort the Arabic language???

Your
"The word "ghazi" means "infidel killer." ,
is NOT only as far fetched and horrendously inaccurate and incorrect as can possibly be BUT is also , sadly to you and your readers, a reflection of your subconscious compulsion to find evil where none exists AND your pretentiousness about your knowledge where few can dispute it.
Dare I hope for you to tell your readers, including this humble knowledge and wisdom seeker, where ever you found that meaning for that word?
Should you fail to do that , or check it with an Arabic knowing authority repent and apologize for your mistake/intended deception (if any!!), you are liable to loose whatever credibility you ever had!

N. Friedman - 12/15/2007

Professor,

You write: "Besides, they aren't "Islamic" terrorists because Islam forbids terrorism. They might be Muslim terrorists, but then not very good Muslims."

Razzias have had the blessing of Muslim clerics from the very earliest days of the religion. For those not familiar with razzias, they refer to raids against infidel for any of a number of reasons including to terrorize infidel. Razzias have, among other things, been a feature of religious adventurers who would live on the edges of Islamic civilizations and, sometimes with the authority of the government and sometimes without, raid into infidel territory and seed terror. Such people thought of themselves as devout. See Patricia Crone's God's Rule - Government and Islam - Six Centuries of Medieval Islamic Political Thought . Which is to say, Professor Crone disagrees with you.

Among those who founded the Ottoman Empire were devout people who called themselves ghazis. The word "ghazi" means "infidel killer." Such people thought of themselves as devout. Such people engaged in terror to spread Islamic rule.

There is a hadith that reads something like this: "Islam has no asceticism; the asceticism of Islam is the holy war." The hadith developed, according to Goldhizer in opposition to ascetic orders and traditions. But, as David Cook shows in Understanding Jihad, Jihad has that very ascetic character to it in the Muslim tradition. And, as noted, there have been many Muslims over the course of history (e.g. those engaged in razzias and the ghazis) have engaged in NGO type Jihad, with religious motivation and, evidently, fulfilling a ascetic need of many such people - perhaps now as well.

Who are you, Professor Cole, to tell all these people that they are bad Muslims? That is for Muslims to decide, not you.

Peter Kauffner - 12/15/2007

Granding presenting Gary Sick's scurrilous accusations as "history" doesn't make them true. I remember when the hostages were released and there was no mystery as to what was happening or why. They were released 10 weeks after the election, so I find difficult to believe the release was timed to influence the election. There were complex negotiations concerning frozen Iranian assets that had to be sorted out before the hostages were released. Why did Khomenei wait until just after Carter left office? He wanted to give the guy one last kick in butt, just for the fun of it.

Reagan's strategic focus on the Cold War, so he saw Iran as potential ally against pro-Soviet Iraq. What's wrong with sending the Iranians a cake? Hey, it was worth a try.

Arnold Shcherban - 12/11/2007

Thanks a lot, Professor.
Great article!
Those cowardly Demos
lack a speck courage to denounce Reagan's myth once and for all.