Did Iran ever get back the assets that were frozen in 1980?

[Bandit]

I seem to remember we took billions of dollars of Irans that were in US Banks and Treasury bonds. Did they ever get any of that money back?

[The Magistrate]

1. No Reason They Should Have, Sir

Occupying an embassy and holding its staff hostage is a pretty serious violation of abceint protocols, and has served as legitimate cause for war at times in the past....

[MrPrax]

5. Refusing

to extradict the Shah for trial is a pretty serious violation, not ancient protocols (whatever they are), but the agreement the US signed with Iran under the Shah some 6 years eariler if I remember.

You missed that part in the narrative, Sir?

[The Magistrate]

6. Immunity Of Diplomats And Legations, Sir

Precedes the modern era by many centuries. Even Stalin and Hitler allowed German and Russian embassy staffs to proceed home without molestation in the hours after commencement of Barbarossa. What occured in Tehran is something that simply is not done, and should not be done. Nor is there any reason to suppose a treaty signed with a government ousted by revolution has any continued validity in defining relations between a state and the revolutionary government in question.

As a matter of curiousity, Sir, are you seriously maintaining the seizure of the Tehran embassy, and the imprisonment and abuse as hostages of its staff, was a good thing that we should support and exalt?

[MrPrax]

7. oh...

"Sir, are you seriously maintaining the seizure of the Tehran embassy, and the imprisonment and abuse as hostages of its staff, was a good thing that we should support and exalt?"

Yup...now if we were talking about the Czech or German embassies...then it would be no.

You can't really expect civilized behaviour from people whipped down by US sponsered tyranny, torture and repression for nearly 30 years or do you? Sorry truth hurts...

The diplomatic immunity thing is irrelevent actually. Dips, legations, cardinals, people with white flags, letters of transit, royal seals, calif's kroziers were regularly killed or held hostage.

You are wishing for the ideal in diplomatic immunity--since the US has never respected international law, they can hardly complain, when others ignore it as well.

And yes the western nations, especially the US, do expect revolutionary regimes to abide by the illegal laws and customs of the previous puppet dictators regimes...there are still frivolous lawsuits against Cuba, for instance.

Here's a question: If the hostage taking could have been avoided by extradicting the Shah, would you agree to it? Or are you worried that a butcher wouldn't get a fair trial?

Lecturing on 'process' is fine, so long as it doesn't cloud judgement.

[The Magistrate]

8. Good To Have That Clarified, Sir

Persons who expect to have their complaints that one party violates international law taken seriously cannot be surprised that they are not when they do not complain of such violations by any party that does so. Such one sided complaint will always be viewed as a mere propaganda, and given no more weight than a soap bubble

It is my custom, Sir, to expect civilized behavior from everyone, and to regard everyone as responsible for their own actions: to do otherwise would be a most profound disrespect, tantamount to declaring them inferior creatures, and classing them as mere objects rather than moral agents. Certain individuals have succeeded in demonstrating this view of them might be apt, but to apply it to whole nations and peoples will never do, Sir.

The fact that law is violated on occassion hardly demonstrates violating the law is proper behavior, nor does the fact that not all violations result in punishment demonstrate none should be p
It would not have bothered me in the slightest had the Shah never escaped Iran, or been taken by the revolution's agents, or turned over to them by any party. But the fact that this was does not done does not justify what was done at the Tehran embassy, or make it any the less a crime. Nor does it alter the view of the people of our country in regard to the mullahs' regime in Iran. Any line of agitation that can be easily read as a defense of that government will excite nothing but scorn and contempt for its promoter among the greatest proportion of our populace; any political figure identified with such a line will be doomed at the polls.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Yes. (more inside)

"On Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 1981, Iran agreed to accept $8 billion in frozen assets and a promise by the United States to lift trade sanctions in exchange for the release of the hostages."

From here.

PB

[MountainLaurel]

3. I would guess not

But that's just a hunch. (Am reading William Engdahl's book on the ties between U.S.-British policy in the Middle East, oil, and the London-NY financial establishment, and it's depressing the hell out of me.)

[Aristus]

4. Yeah, they needed the cash to fight the war with Iraq.

They FINALLY agreed to release the hostages to Jimmy Carter's administration in September or early October of 1980. Supposedly, some sub-rosa agents for Ronald Reagan's campaign managed to convince the Iranian leadership not to agree to Carter's proposal until after the November Presidential Election. They knew that if there was no release agreement in place by that time, Carter would lose the election. They were right.

Reagan was elected, and the hostages were released on Inauguration day.

Since then, such time-sensitive political maneuvering to win elections, even to the detriment of American citizens, has been called an "October Surprise".