Vanderbilt Political Review Fall 2013 | Page 15

INTERNATIONAL Vanderbilt Political Review Fall 2013 FALL 2013 FEATURE CIA sador to Afghanistan. At 2:15 A.M., the State Department received another call not from Afghanistan but – surprisingly – from the U.S. embassy in Iran; hundreds of heavily armed “revolutionaries” had stormed the compound. While Carter and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance monitored the situation in Iran, another call came at 3:20 A.M. confirming Dubs’ death. In Tehran, Danish and British diplomats pleaded with Ayatollah Khomeini to order the protesters to stand down – which, by 6 A.M., they finally did. After this nerve-racking night, the Carter administration began a bungled evaluation of the U.S.’s global security. Dub’s death – perpetrated by Soviet-supported Afghan Maoists – was a tragedy, but was also hard to foresee and irreversible. The more appalling reality, however, is that the events in Tehran proved to be a full dress rehearsal of the 444-day Iran hostage crisis that was to occur later that year, yet the Carter administration did not substan- tially implement preventative measures. After February 14, Jimmy Carter could not feasibly claim ignorance of mass resentment towards America’s presence in Iran, nor to foreign enemies’ willingness to target diplomats. Iranians plainly abhorred the United States’ 1953 overthrow of their democratically elected Prime Minister, as well as Carter’s decision to admit Shah Pahlavi for American surgery out of “humanitarian principle” rather than to deport him to Iran. Clearly, Iranians were prepared to assault the American embassy to vent these grievances. Despite the aborted February raid, Carter and his administration remained astonishingly ignorant of the situation on the ground in Iran. Carter neither withdrew all American diplomats nor doubled down on security. Reportedly, Vice-President Walter Mondale asked CIA director Stansfield Turner, “what the hell is an Ayatollah anyway?” to which Turner replied that he himself was not sure. Similar situational ignorance permeated the Obama administration leading up to the September 11th, 2012 attack on the Libyan embassy. It is not a mere exercise in hindsight to assert that the attack was foreseeable and preventable. The State Department has acknowledged ignoring multiple fervent requests for increased security at the compound. Like Carter, Obama neither doubled down on security nor withdrew diplomats. The administration then systematically propagated the fiction that the attack had spontaneously erupted from protests over an anti-Islam video. If there were any questions remaining, J. Christopher Stevens’ last known communication was “Benghazi under fire, terrorist attack.” These facts are important insofar as they demonstrate the administration’s ineptitude surrounding Benghazi. Placing an ambassador in Libya’s anarchic crucible and then systematically denying his requests for additional security were 15