Events Leading Up to the Situation With Iran

Matthias Küntzel is a renowned German political scientist and author who frequently gives lectures and is a research associate for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He has written great papers and articles, like National Socialism and Anti-Semitism in the Arab World and a book entitled Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11.

In an article, dated December 15^th, 2006, Matthias Küntzel writes From Khomeini to Ahmadinejad …

When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in New York in September 2006 for the opening of the UN General Assembly, his appointment book was full. …he chatted with the members of the Council on Foreign Relations about whether or not the Holocaust occurred; and he was expected up at Columbia for the university’s “World Leaders Forum” speakers series. …
The world seems spellbound in the face of this populist, who says what he wants and does what he says. Ahmadinejad’s limitless self-confidence impressed the Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who in interviewing the Iranian President found himself reminded of the triumphalism of the Ayatollah Khomeini: “I sensed the same certainty that was expressed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini back when this confrontation began in the late 1970s: ‘America cannot do a damn thing’” (Washington Post, September 24, 2006).
On November 4, 1979, 400 Khomeini followers, armed with sticks and chains, broke down the door of the American embassy in Tehran, stormed the compound, and took hostage all the Americans on the grounds. … Khomeini did not release his prisoners until January 1981. Could America really “not do a damn thing”?
This is the key question raised by Mark Bowden’s gripping account of the hostage crisis in his new book Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in America’s War With Militant Islam. …
Today, we are not only facing a second major conflict with Iran, but the West is confronted by the same theological regime, the same ideology of martyrdom – and indeed by some of the same persons. In 1979, a 23-year-old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad figured among the core group that prepared the seizure of the American embassy.
As Bowden rightly puts it, the hostage-taking was “a crime against the entire civilized world.” Nowadays, when the sacking of embassies by Muslim fanatics has become a nearly daily occurrence, this assessment might not seem so obvious. … The free and secure movement of diplomats is the first form of civilization in the conduct of nations. Any nation that violates this rule places itself outside the community of nations, since it substitutes war for diplomacy and chaos for international law.

Yet, Iran is still a member of the United Nations – despite its constant abuse of international law established by that entity of nations.

Only after 444 days did Khomeini finally let the hostages go. …
Whereas these epic passages make the book a genuine pleasure to read, it is Bowden’s look back at Jimmy Carter’s Iran policy that gives the book its particular political relevance. …
The contrast between the reality and the phantasm could hardly have been greater. …the State Department and the CIA defended their false picture of Khomeini against all intrusion of reality. …
Carter’s attempted gesture of goodwill was dashed by the stony determination of the ayatollah. Khomeini was not even prepared to permit American emissaries into the country – not even the likes of Miller and Clark. The catalogue of American punitive measures that would then be taken – the expulsion of some Iranian diplomats, as well as all Iranians in the U.S. illegally; the cessation of oil imports from Iran; the freezing of Iranian assets in the U.S. banks – likewise failed to make the slightest impression. …
It was not until April 7, 1980 – the 154^th day of the hostage crisis – that Carter finally broke off diplomatic relations and began to prepare economic sanctions. But not even this seemed to disturb Khomeini. On the contrary, in a message to the Iranian people, he declared: “If Carter has ever done anything in his life to serve the interests of the oppressed, it is this breaking off of relations between an ascendant country that has freed itself from the clutches of the international plunderers and a world-devouring plunderer.” …
When the hostages were finally set free on January 20, 1981, this was thanks neither to international nor even just allied solidarity, nor, for that matter, to any particular American policy moves. The idea of providing positive incentives had failed just as much as the threat of armed intervention. The hostages were liberated because Tehran had grown weary of holding them. Moreover, following Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in September 1980, the Iranian regime had other priorities: for instance, the provision of replacement parts for Iranian fighter jets. The hostage represented an obstacle in this connection.

And, this is why, American leadership decided to sell “bullets” to Saddam Hussein. Not because they were on a friendly basis or approved of Saddam, but because he was the enemy of an enemy that had committed the international crime of attacking an embassy and taking its occupants hostage. The article goes on and demonstrates actions and events that led to today’s still precarious terms with Iran, and still a sworn enemy to America and all free nations.

Our muddled policy today concerning Iran began with the Carter administration, and former President Jimmy Carter continues to muddle in foreign affairs. My question is: Under whose authority?