Hey all,
So, the Iran-Contra scandal could have gone different in a lot of ways, a lot of which we'll probably never know. What scenarios about the Iran-Contra Affair would you think are most interesting?
One obvious one would be if Reagan was directly implicated. Under what circumstances would he have been impeached? Removed from trial? Convicted?
Alternatively, what if Vice President Bush was directly implicated? There is more concrete evidence that Bush was directly involved in the Iranian arms sales (of course, I don't doubt that Bush was also involved in the Contras scheme. I'm also fair certain that Reagan was involved, too, in both the Iran and Nicaraguan affairs. But Bush's involvement in the Iranian arms sales might have been more easily provable, given the evidence we have about Amiram Nir, etc). What if Congress or the media had paid more attention to George HW Bush's role? If it got to be a big enough scandal, might Bush have resigned?
Another of course is if the newspaper ash-Shira'a never broke the story. How would the operations of the CIA, NSC, etc have proceeded without this exposé? To my mind, they weren't terribly affected. It's true that in the short term, Iran-Contra more or less forced US intelligence to stop directly supporting the Nicaraguan Contras. However, the US intelligence community still carries out extralegal or even illegal operations, still operates without much accountability to Congress or any other civilian authority, still makes dealings with government-designated 'terrorists' and and 'state sponsors of terrorism,' and so on.
Now, I'm not naïve. This is far from the first time the US government, intelligence community, or military broke the law. It certainly wasn't the last, either. The US government, like every government, will pursue illegal policies if it's in their interest and if they can get away with it. But I wonder if Iran-Contra might've had a wider impact on US history.
Iran-Contra happened in the mid-to-late 1980s. Other high-profile intelligence scandals (e.g., Watergate, MKULTRA, COINTELPRO, etc) were still in the public memory. Those scandals had allowed Congress to establish greater Congressional oversight over law enforcement, the FBI, and so on (through things like the Government in the Sunshine Act, the Ethics in Government Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and several amendements to the Freedom of Information Act). If intelligence reform had been both possible and popular with regards to domestic surveillance, could intelligence reform have been accomplished for foreign espionage as well? What would intelligence reform have looked like in the wake of Iran-Contra?
Cheers, all!
So, the Iran-Contra scandal could have gone different in a lot of ways, a lot of which we'll probably never know. What scenarios about the Iran-Contra Affair would you think are most interesting?
One obvious one would be if Reagan was directly implicated. Under what circumstances would he have been impeached? Removed from trial? Convicted?
Alternatively, what if Vice President Bush was directly implicated? There is more concrete evidence that Bush was directly involved in the Iranian arms sales (of course, I don't doubt that Bush was also involved in the Contras scheme. I'm also fair certain that Reagan was involved, too, in both the Iran and Nicaraguan affairs. But Bush's involvement in the Iranian arms sales might have been more easily provable, given the evidence we have about Amiram Nir, etc). What if Congress or the media had paid more attention to George HW Bush's role? If it got to be a big enough scandal, might Bush have resigned?
Another of course is if the newspaper ash-Shira'a never broke the story. How would the operations of the CIA, NSC, etc have proceeded without this exposé? To my mind, they weren't terribly affected. It's true that in the short term, Iran-Contra more or less forced US intelligence to stop directly supporting the Nicaraguan Contras. However, the US intelligence community still carries out extralegal or even illegal operations, still operates without much accountability to Congress or any other civilian authority, still makes dealings with government-designated 'terrorists' and and 'state sponsors of terrorism,' and so on.
Now, I'm not naïve. This is far from the first time the US government, intelligence community, or military broke the law. It certainly wasn't the last, either. The US government, like every government, will pursue illegal policies if it's in their interest and if they can get away with it. But I wonder if Iran-Contra might've had a wider impact on US history.
Iran-Contra happened in the mid-to-late 1980s. Other high-profile intelligence scandals (e.g., Watergate, MKULTRA, COINTELPRO, etc) were still in the public memory. Those scandals had allowed Congress to establish greater Congressional oversight over law enforcement, the FBI, and so on (through things like the Government in the Sunshine Act, the Ethics in Government Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and several amendements to the Freedom of Information Act). If intelligence reform had been both possible and popular with regards to domestic surveillance, could intelligence reform have been accomplished for foreign espionage as well? What would intelligence reform have looked like in the wake of Iran-Contra?
Cheers, all!